| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JohnDenver
Light Sweet Crude
![]()
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: 1844
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: Nuclear Power Plant in 3 Years |
  |
|
We've heard many times that it requires 10 years or more to build a new nuclear power plant. That appears to be a myth.
| Quote: | The new-generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past, though the designs should make them safer, more efficient and easier to build.
[...]
Here are some characteristics of each of the top three light-water reactor designs and a next-generation gas-cooled reactor:
The Westinghouse AP1000:
This would have one-third fewer pumps, half as many valves, and more than 80 percent fewer pipes than current reactors. It can be built using modular units manufactured in a factory and transported to the reactor site, cutting construction time to three years. |
Link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DriveElectric
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 639
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Construction time is potentially 3 years. That's fabulous.
Now we just need to cut down the application time and the NIMBY lawsuit time. That is the remaining 5 to 10 year period which sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jato
Moderator
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 2063
Location: San Diego, Ca.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly DriveElectric. The total time from conception to the competed power plant takes more time. Now, if during a government certified power crisis, I could see 3 years as being doable. (But what do I know!?!)
_________________
"Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heineken
Expert
Joined: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 6173
Location: Rural Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: Reality check, guys |
|
|
Maybe we will have lots of new nuclear power plants relatively soon. But as these plants proliferate, the risk of a major accident or a terrorist event (e.g., terrorists hijack a shipment of nuclear waste---potentially the world's biggest dirty bomb) increases geometrically. Nobody's talking about that. As soon as there's a major event, you'll find your "nimby" problem takes on interesting new proportions.
More plants = larger chance of dangerous failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aahala
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Feb 03, 2005
Posts: 954
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I can tell, the Westinghouse 1000 has never been built,
so the 3 year construction period is a claim, which can only be
proven once one is finished in that time period, or disproven if
it takes longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DriveElectric
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 639
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Reality check, guys |
|
|
| Heineken wrote: |
More plants = larger chance of dangerous failure. |
Not really. Most of these new designs are safer than anything currently in use. Read the link at the top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DriveElectric
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 639
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aahala wrote: | As far as I can tell, the Westinghouse 1000 has never been built,
so the 3 year construction period is a claim, which can only be
proven once one is finished in that time period, or disproven if
it takes longer. |
3 years, or 3.6 years with construction delays, it hardly matters. The real delay is with the lawsuits and court orders to stop activity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
savethehumans
Light Sweet Crude
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1541
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
. . .and the first leak will occur in four years.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvid
Fission
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 2683
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| savethehumans wrote: | | . . .and the first leak will occur in four years. |
Source?
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy
Intermediate Crude
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 519
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It doesn't have to be a leak or failure. I will firmly stand by my claim that routine emissions are a problem as well, every bit as much as coal etc. The establishment refuses to accept this however so it is up to grassroots individuals and scientists to challenge the official claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy
Intermediate Crude
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 519
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
This represents the main criticism of the present radiation standards.
| Quote: | ICRP's scientific model, which is used as the basis of radiation protection almost everywhere,
is based on studies which are completely silent on the health effects of internal contamination
is an averaging model, which is inappropriate -- like saying that the energy you receive from warming yourself at an open fire could just as safely be absorbed by means of taking one of the burning coals and swallowing it. |
Note that man made radionuclides have physical properties that tend to get in the body and stay there like in bones (strontium90, plutonium) lungs, lymph nodes (plutonium, uranium aerosols ; not natural uranium in rocks); radioactive iodine goes to the thyroid just like regular iodine etc. etc. Remember also that other natural radionuclides like potassium tend to emit gamma and beta radiation which are known to be less harmful inside the body than alpha radiation and for which the body has evolved complex mechanisms to deal with their harmful effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobcousins
Light Sweet Crude
Joined: Oct 14, 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: Left the cult
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Starvid wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | . . .and the first leak will occur in four years. |
Source? |
Usually, the source is a faulty cooling system, but sometimes operator error leading to melt down. Nuclear power is interesting stuff you know, you should read up on it. 
_________________
It's all downhill from here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smallpoxgirl
Moderator
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 5212
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobcousins wrote: | | Usually, the source is a faulty cooling system, but sometimes operator error leading to melt down. Nuclear power is interesting stuff you know, you should read up on it. |
Don't be such a worry wort. The new containment vessels will be made of pykrete. It's great stuff really. Very sturdy.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvid
Fission
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 2683
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobcousins wrote: | | Starvid wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | . . .and the first leak will occur in four years. |
Source? |
Usually, the source is a faulty cooling system, but sometimes operator error leading to melt down. Nuclear power is interesting stuff you know, you should read up on it. |
I was not aware that meltdowns occured in a plant every four years.
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heineken
Expert
Joined: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 6173
Location: Rural Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Reality check, guys |
|
|
| DriveElectric wrote: | | Heineken wrote: |
More plants = larger chance of dangerous failure. |
Not really. Most of these new designs are safer than anything currently in use. Read the link at the top. |
We'll see, Drive. New designs haven't yet been tested in the real world. I do think that as nuclear energy proliferates, the probability of nuclear accidents grows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
