Page 1/3  >  >>
User Rank
' New design' cannot solve U.S. nuclear issues
cary2   5/1/2014 4:50:47 PM

      Nuclear Technology will forever be incrementally improved upon, and therein has been the problem. Each of the reactors are their own 'special snow flake'. Past and future problems with nuclear power will not be in in the design, but the national implementation.

The U.S. has 100 DIFFERENT reactors, each with their own P&ID, SOP creation, training and support, each requiring separate (but similar) considerations for personnel training, maintenance, calibration, forms, and different conceptual grasping by inspector after inspector, after inspector.... Each special snowflake of a power plant requires Special 'snow flake' validation treatment; that is where the costs become astronomical. Each system develops a hundred different opinions on criticality of each component and the incumbent education of (each new) federal, state and county inspector. The problems of the past haven't been 'technical design' problems, have all been ongoing 'technical support' problems.

These problems of the latter are only addressed in France, a countrywhere 78% of their power is nuclear from 60 reactors. They exported $3-billion worth of power last year (much of it to Germany), of which 18% was from recycled rods. The problem is addressed by having all their nuclear systems being identical. Any operation, inspection, up-date, SOP is essentially the SAME for all of their plants, not just one. A trained operator can walk into any plant, and read their operations board, and continue operation. Same with inspectors, and if revisions are called for, they are 'global.'

They also addressed the problem of high-salaries for Homer Simpson jobs: nuclear plant training and 'service' is offered as an alternative for (required) military service. An obvious positive spin-off is that their population has become highly educated regarding nuclear power in sharp contrast to the rest of the world. (When Chernobyl went critical, the French population said, 'yeah, and...?') . It is ignorance among the three 'P's here: Public, Press, and Politicians that is america's big gorilla, and ignorance of the French Solution will be fed by companies that make money supporting 'special snowflake' reactors.

I don't suffer francophilia, and I don't support old french reactor designs, but sometimes they get things right. I would look at the new one they have in the wings (Rev. III). I do support their national implementation of identical snowflakes, and recommend putting nuclear power under the aegis of a 'military' service, similar to the U.S. Coast Guard. If the '3 P's' don't grasp the situation, then the U.S. will continue to have a 'failed' nuclear policy; you can't expect your local pump or sensor manufacturer to wish for all their sales to go out to government bid.


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.

Page 1/3  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
General Motors is putting an off-road twist on hydrogen fuel cell technology with an imposing new pickup demonstrator called the Chevrolet Colorado ZH2.
Fine powder printing of industry-standard metal and ceramic powders with a grain size of less than 10 microns is now available from industrial 3D printer maker ExOne for its Innovent printer.
At ARM TechCon 2016, CEO Simon Segars will discuss how he sees billions of devices scaling to trillions as IoT applications proliferate. We know it’s happening. How do we prepare?
The term “autopilot” is now at the heart of a growing debate between Tesla Motors Inc. and Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority.
A make-your-own Star Wars Sith Lightsaber hilt is heftier and better-looking than most others out there, according to its maker, Sean Charlesworth. You can 3D print it from free source files, and there's even a hardware kit available -- not free -- so you can build one just in time for Halloween.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 10 - 14, Embedded System Design Techniques™: Getting Started Developing Professional Embedded Software
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10

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 Course September 27-29:
Sponsored by 3M
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service