Nuclear Power Plant in 3 Years

MarkR · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:31 am Post subject:

[q]We'll see, Drive. New designs haven't yet been tested in the real world.[/q]

The full designs, no. However, there is substantial experience with similar designs.

The AP1000 mentioned earlier, is derived from Westinghouse's earlier plants. In fact, every key part in the AP1000 has been used before in previous plants - reactor, valves, piping, heat exchangers, pumps, etc. None of these are new.

It's essentially a different design philosophy. E.g. old reactors need to keep coolant flowing at all times, even after shutdown to prevent meltdown. So there need to be spare pumps, and backup diesel generators to power the pumps and backup diesels on the diesels.

The AP1000 uses a simpler backup cooling system: you've got the reactor producing heat, so it can use the heat to pump the coolant using a gravity pump (the same system that pumps water from your boiler to your hot water cylinder). No mechanical parts to break, and no chance that your power source will fail.

All the new designs use similar techniques to improve safety.

In fact, the NRC when they reviewed the AP600 (smaller version of the AP1000) commented that the risk of a serious accident was approx 10,000 times lower than their current recommendation.

PhilBiker · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 1326

China ordered four AP1000s last year. I would assume that they are currently in production.

aahala · Intermediate Crude Joined: Feb 03, 2005 Posts: 954

turmoil · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Reality check, guys

Heineken · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject: I hope not the last word

Sure. It's interesting to note that, as we start seriously contemplating the prospect of summer heat with no air conditioning, everybody, including so-called environmentalists, is suddenly willing to jump on the nuclear bandwagon and "forgive" the potential risks and problems of a world jam-packed with nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.

I don't embrace the idea that newer technology and better designs are going to eliminate the problems with nuclear. The waste problem, for one, still sits there like a giant fat do-do, utterly unresolved. Also, I'm sure there will be all sorts of unanticipated consequences of a nuclear-powered world. Technology has a nasty habit of creating as many problems as it solves.

I think the only realistic answer to our dilemma is to "power down." But we aren't going to do that, we'd rather ride off the cliff.

Cyrus · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2005 Posts: 608

Starvid · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:25 am Post subject:

I do not believe in the power down scenario for a fraction of a second. Those who think it is The Way should make examples out of themselves, showing how well everything will work in their world. Start living according to your own lore.
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

Cyrus · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2005 Posts: 608

Doly · Expert Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 4031

Cyrus · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2005 Posts: 608

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

Cyrus, it is like preaching to the dead. It is exactly why we are doomed to exterminate ourselves. Nobody said powerdown means giving up all the advances made and living brutish lives. What we are saying is that the philosophy of capitalism and exponential growth in a finite world is bound to be proven stupid and impossible.
_________________
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

RG73 · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: I hope not the last word

Heineken · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject:

There are simply too many people in the world, and projections are now for up to 10 billion by mid-century. What percentage of that vast population is going to be served by nuclear energy, even under the most optimistic scenarios for nuclear buildout? 5% might be pushing it.

We need to stop planning vast new engineering projects intended to maintain the inherently unstable structure we've built on this planet. Instead, we need to address the structure itself. A rational species would begin that process by partly dismantling the damned thing. We aren't rational, which is exactly why we're planning to construct hundreds and hundreds of new nukes and debating on electronic bulletins just how quickly that miracle can be accomplished.

We also need to address the problem of our numbers, or nature will do it herself in a most unpleasant way.

But we aren't going to do any of that stuff. All our primary institutions, from the Catholic Church to the good 'ol US government, will keep working to keep the merry-go-round whirling until it blows up.

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

Ah!! It is refreshing to see that there are others who understand the folly of trying to perpetuate the house of cards that we have set up for ourselves. The hard, brute force approach can only work for so long before it crumbles under its own weight. It will only lead to either (1) war and extermination or (2) poisoning and extermination. Our third choice is to get wise and live with an appreciation for the limits around us and make decisons accordingly.
_________________
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