2 New Nuclear Reactors Scheduled to Come Online in 2016

View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
Page 1/3  >  >>
User Rank
Re: Nuclear power is "Safe"
patb2009   7/19/2013 8:24:22 PM


the System reliability needs to be significantly higher.

About every 15 years we have a major incident in the field.


The problem is that the cost of prepping for real contingencies makes these

reactors very expensive.


here is Ft Calhoun  


with 5 feet of water surrounding it. The Reactor needs to be able to withstand a 1000 year flood event, it can barely handle a 25 year flood event on a predicted basis.


here's a story about the NRC covering up flood risks from bad dams at nuclear power plants


If a dam bursts they need hardening to wtihstand a decent wave of water hitting on 5 minutes notice.


Here's a story about a tornado hitting a nuke plant


what happens when an F-3 hits an operating plant?

How hardened do all the support systems have to be, to keep it running

if the cooling towers go down and they lose the switching yard?


Can you tell me how long a nuke plant can survive after both towers are down

and the switching yard is torn apart?



User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
patb2009   7/19/2013 4:16:56 PM


Your arguments are cogent, compelling and carrying for 1984.


Unfortunately, your arguments are failing a test called reality.




The increasing number of installs, is driving beneficial effects in the business.

but if you look at Nukes


by 1990 pretty much everyone stopped building these. China is adding some,

they will figure out that it's a mistake.


Solar PV makes a very good peak power source, it nicely matches the daytime demand.

Wind makes excellent baseload power.  A little battery storage, which we are seeing in both Hybrid PV and GE Brilliant wind turbines and we will see some terrific penetration of renewables. Don't forget Hydro provides a nice baseload for keeping the grid synced.


Nuclear won't be part of the story, the economics have been bad for 3 decades and

Post Fukushima, nobody believes the nonsense from GE.

Do you realize the GE guys had the balls to actually say "Oh It's okay at Fukushima, the plants were designed to do this to relieve pressure".


Wind and Solar are way cheaper then Nuclear and hitting parity with new coal.

Give it some time and if they can figure out the model for Vehicle 2 Grid and in the 2020's

we will see Electric cars come in as good technology and a great way to stabilize the grid.



User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
ervin0072002   7/19/2013 3:22:43 PM
Dont forget that we only have 5 hours of reliable sunlight a day. Maybe 12 hours during the summer. That means that you need at least 4 times the capacity to cover your power grid and the storage was not included. Photovoltaic has very dim future for energy storage. Electric batteries are very inefficient loosing 10%-80% of the energy through heat during charging discharging or just idle storage. On a best case you can store energy at 80% efficiency at roughly 1$ per W ratting capital investment alone. Solar panels average 10% to 20% efficiency keep in mind cost is a big factor. What happens when you pile up charging efficiency, discharging efficiency of the batteries, inverter efficiency to that value? The reason nuclear outperforms solar is because of the compiling problems solar has. You turn nuclear reactor on and it's on for the remainder of its life. (Sun, no sun, rainy day, windy, cloudy, dust storm all these will not be a problem reactor still runs)


Your claims that nuclear is outperformed by solar are on a best case (no storage needed) best solar output and incidence angle. You add infrastructure for moving the panels, energy storage, the panels, inverters, chargers for the storage and maybe wire the same inverters to pull power from panels or batteries. The cost adds up. In Ten years I can see solar outperforming nuclear if china debacle does not ruin the market until then let's wait and see.

User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
patb2009   7/19/2013 12:02:01 PM
When the market grows, the recycling industry for solar panels will grow.

We recycle 97% of lead batteries, now, it's marvelous really.

we are starting to recycle NIMH and Lithium batteries.

The cost for solar installed in megawatts is down to $3//watt,  

consumers get them on rooftops for $5. Less if they install them themselves.


then according to wikipedia 


On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees toward the construction cost.[21] The cost of building the two reactors is expected to be $14 billion.


No nuclear power plant has ever come in on cost or schedule, it's going to be closer to 24 billion.

using the estimated costs these will be $7/watt using likely costs it will be $12/watt.

Ervin,  if this is your hobby, i'd suggest you get a new hobby.



User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
patb2009   7/19/2013 11:53:16 AM


Maybe you are a math major, and consequently have very little understanding

of the real world, but, while from a performance point of view solar optimizes in

watts/meter or watts/kg in tropical deserts the metrics real people are

using are $/KW and $/KWH.  


second real world panels http://solar-panels-review.toptenreviews.com/

the kyocera panel is 315 watts at 65x52 inches or 2.1 SQM.

Do the math and it's 144 W/SQM


so you need closer to 16 SQKM not 24.

now you can buy land near barstow for $1000/Acre, today.

16 SQKM is 4000 acres,  so, it's looking to be about $4 Million in land acquisition costs.


Ervin, I don't know if you ever get out in the real world, but you should check your

math before running your mouth.  It's just embarassing.


and if you ever need 20 SQ KM to land your UFO in, try here

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=california&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=California&gl=us&ll=36.778261,-119.417932&spn=0.7416,1.446075&t=h&z=10&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=california&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=California&gl=us&ll=36.778261,-119.417932&spn=0.7416,1.446075&t=h&z=10&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>




User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
ervin0072002   7/19/2013 8:04:38 AM
One More Thing... Nuclear does not need the same amount of land as solar. Solar requires land on nice sunny hot dry places that have not no dust. Sadly on planet earth the only places like that are deserts which have lots of dust. Also if you compare the land that Vogtle Electric Generating Plant used to solar would have needed roughly 1square meter per 100 W that translates to 24,000,000 square meters or 24 square kilometers. Yes that is a patch of land 5 kilometers by 5 kilometers the 6USD per watt of solar i mentioned below does not calculate the cost of the land. Try buying that land in California...

User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
ervin0072002   7/19/2013 7:57:28 AM
FYI The test term nukes is reserved for the weapon and over 2000 such tests have been performed sad to say they are cheaper than a reactor by orders of magnitude.

Solar is not the solution, solar poses a recycling nightmare. Currently most of our solar has heavy metals in reasonable quantities. And contrary to popular belief for the same power output solar is far more expensive.

 The reason Germany and Japan are performing these decisions is the public lacking the knowledge.

 Also if you took the time to read www.Nrel.gov site you would educate yourself some.

 Average photovoltaic system without storage installation and life maintenance for 30 years costs 6 USD per year Watt minimum. if you compare them to the Georgia Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and based on what you told me 8 billion was needed for this project then let's do the math.

 The two reactors are 2,400,000,000 Watts at 8,000,000,000 USD that puts it under 4 USD per W.

 Note that it's cheaper than the 6USD per W of solar and keep in mind that reactors can work at night solar without storage does not work at night. What you talk about is uneducated and just a string of guesses. I have made a hobby of this subject. READ UP.

 FYI initial quote was 700mill USD. The reason for the jump once again was "Paranoia" and public panic kicking the plant into a frenzy to test and improve everything spending needless amounts of money.

User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
patb2009   7/18/2013 7:36:32 PM
"Solar cannot replace nuclear"

Japan shut down their reactors 2.5 years ago, they've been installing Solar like mad

and it's been infilling their needs for power nicely.


Germany shut down their reactors 2 years ago, they've added a lot of solar, it has been working.


If Nuclear was a great idea, we would see cheap nuclear plants around the world.

The reality is nuclear is not very economical. it's why so few nukes have been built.

In an era of cheap money, the VOGTLE nuclear plants need 8 billion in federal loan guarantess.


Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
Ann R. Thryft   7/18/2013 1:11:59 PM
Germany, which depends heavily on solar energy, lies between 49 degrees north and 54 degrees north latitude, more or less. In North America, that's the equivalent of southern Canada.
Latitude alone, i.e., how far north an area is, is not a precise enough measurement for determining how much solar energy there is to be collected. A common measurement is available daylight hours, which varies considerably within a single latitude due to variables such as weather. This measurement also depends heavily on the type of solar collectors used: passive or active. We're all conditioned to think active solar collectors = all solar collectors. Passive solar energy, the oldest form used by humans, depends on building type, materials, design, orientation and location, and does not require any other form of energy to collect solar energy. It's capable of collecting solar energy even on cloudy days, and was used in the northern plains in the US for thousands of years before Europeans got here, as well as in the mountainous southwest where it can get quite cold in winter. Depending on materials used, it's can also be stored fairly easily. It's ideal for heating and may also be sufficient for electrical needs, depending on levels needed.

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Re: Nuclear reactor
TJ McDermott   7/18/2013 1:09:21 AM
Ann, Solar energy makes sense in the Southwest.  The states have the right latitude for solar collection, and lots of desert space to plant the solar farms.

Solar doesn't make sense for the northern latitudes of the country.  On the coasts, tidal energy collection or wind power are more sensible.  Where neither wind nor solar nor tidal nor hydro power work well, these are the places nuclear power would shine.

There is no single silver bullet which will fix this problem.  I'm very very glad to see new nuclear plants.  The country must get past hysteria and its mongers and begin thinking just slightly rationally.

Page 1/3  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs
These are the toys that inspired budding engineers to try out sublime designs, create miniature structures, and experiment with bizarre contraptions using sets that could be torn down and reconstructed over and over.
PowerStream is deploying the microgrid at its headquarters to demonstrate how people can generate and distribute their own energy and make their homes and businesses more sustainable through renewables.
Printrbot unveils its all-metal Printrbot Simple, bringing durability to low-cost 3D printers.
Today's robots should be respected, and humans should be wary of their growing skills and sophistication. Quite simply, robots are better than us in a lot of ways. Here are 10 of them.
Product design is changing with advances in technology and outsourced manufacturing. The Art of Product Design spells out the future of design engineering.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service