U.S. Nuclear Plants to be Built by Hitachi, GE

Graeme

rwwff

I can't wait till the idgits in California start whining... "why does our grid have all these brown outs and rolling blackouts in summer, and Houston just keeps humming." Serves the silly NIMBY's right.

Graeme

California would be better off using solar and geothermal. It's the most seismically active region in the US.
_________________
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.

rwwff

Graeme · Last edited by Graeme on Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

San Andreas Fault Set for the 'Big One'

http://www.physorg.com/news70114196.html
_________________
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.

rwwff

Starvid

SILENTTODD

For East Texas:

What's the old Joke? How do you get to Texas?

Answr: Go east till you smell crap, that's Oklahoma,
Then go south till your standing in it, that's Texas.

In a nutshell that's why some people choose to live in L.A.
and instead of Houston or Dallas.

DoctorDoom

Andy · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 519

I have stated tirelessly, if the same resources and attention were given to the renewables and efficiency as nuclear, there would be no brownouts, blackouts etc. in California. The scale of the resource is large enough. Distributed rooftop solar alone in California can supply at least 10% of demand. That is not even including concentrating solar thermal that can supply another 20% without issue. We keep saying that the renewables are not large enough which is simply not factual when the total available renewable resource is considered.

Just think about this, There are probably 5 million or more households in California that can accomodate 3KW of PV on the roof which equates to 15,000 MW installed. Take a capacity factor of 20% and you have 3,000 MW equivalent. That does not include industrial rooftops and parking lots that can probably produce another 3,000 - 5,000 equivalent. Take into consideration that these cells are producing energy at the time of maximum demand (hot, summer afternoons thus making the effective capacity factor even larger). Add in the known potential for at least a 20% saving in electricity use at lower cost than any supply alternative, add in concentrating solar in the southern part of the state, the geothermal potential (Baseload), also in the thousand megawatt range, wave and tidal off the coast and they would be sitting pretty. Then use natural gas and gasified coal to cover the variability using small to medium scale cogeneration and fuel cell/turbine hybrids and there would be no issue.

Importation of power from other sun baked states like Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and possibly Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana etx. further diversifies supply. These states have renewable generating potential far in excess of their local demand.
_________________
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4

rwwff

rwwff

Terrapin

There’s a plan afoot to put some tidal powered turbines under the Golden Gate Bridge. It seems like a great idea if it doesn’t kill too many fish. We'll see if anything comes of it. I remember reading about some plans for prototype wave generator up in Arcata (seems a little more far fetched).

I do agree however that we should be more responsible for our own power generation. Maybe more geothermal plants in the Long Valley / Mammoth area would help a little.

Starvid

gg3

Take a piece of good news about some new reactor construction, add a heaping helping of chronic reactive depression (who among us isn't frequently depressed from reading the news?), and end up with Balkan-style sectional faction-fights. Sigh.

California also exports far more in Federal tax dollars than it gets back in Federal benefits. Not that we're not willing to do our share, but for bridges-to-nowhere in Alaska at $50mm a pop, and that's just scratching the surface...? We've also produced the last two major economic booms: PCs and then the Internet. "You're soaking in it."

The coastal regions are seismically unstable. As for me I'm getting the hell out of here ASAP, and that plan is proceeding apace (i.e. not just me alone, but our community planning group). However, the entire central valley and eastern region is relatively stable. Now rule out the flood plains, and there is still plenty of available land for building reactors. If it were up to me, start with one just north of Sacramento (outside the flood hazard zone) (self-interest disclosure: we plan to go north, so we'll benefit from this one directly), and then another somewhere near Fresno, and then another around Bakersfield. That's a start anyway.

(Maybe we need to bring over some engineers from Japan to address the seismic issue along the coasts. OK, fine, except all the H1B visa slots are being eaten up by companies eager to hire immigrants on the cheap to replace their US engineering workforces. Priorities, anyone?)

The Golden Gate region is also viable for wind. Tidal power can be designed to minimize fish impact; if wind & birds are any indication, higher power output will coincide with safer for wildlife.

So back to the main topics: does anyone here know what reactor designs are being used for the Texas installations? Are they sticking with the tried-and-true, or going for one of the new-generation designs?