I dunno when that's from, but natural gas has gotten much cheaper recently.
Here's what our finance guys provided to the execs last week as they mull the decision to build a new reactor.
Last edited:
I dunno when that's from, but natural gas has gotten much cheaper recently.
If it takes a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami to almost kinda sorta meltdown a nuclear reactor, then I want Japan building all my power plants.
If it takes a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami to almost kinda sorta meltdown a nuclear reactor, then I want Japan building all my power plants.
The problem in one super big nuclear plant serving a large geographical area is in line loss.
As it is, 50% of electrical power is lost in electrical resistance. Ideally we would want millions of tiny electric power plants spaced every block or so.
There are no easy answers.
I dunno when that's from, but natural gas has gotten much cheaper recently.
Here's what our finance guys provided to the execs last week as they mull the decision to build a new reactor.
It doesn't. We're not eligible for any.Supposedly the building costs for the next generation reactors will be lower, but there is no way in hell the older ones were even remotely competitive. Hence they were subsidized to the tune of 93 billion dollars. I wonder if your graph takes any subsides into account.
We haven't started building a Nuclear Power Plant since 1977 and it took 20 years to come online. The odds of us starting one before the Japan eartquake was about 20 trillion to one.
Kind of, but not really. The COL still hasn't been approved (nor the DCD for the AP1000). They're doing pre-construction prep work.They have starting to build Units 3&4 at Plant Vogtle.
http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/construction.aspx
Kind of, but not really. The COL still hasn't been approved (nor the DCD for the AP1000). They're doing pre-construction prep work.
So we stop nuclear, and obama wants to kill the coal industry.......what does that leave us with?
Some of the new reactor designs are walk away safe. If the coolant is lost, the reactor quits working. The Soviet bismuth/lead cooled reactors from their Alpha class subs are like that.
* * *
Until this diaster it was my layman's understanding that all US nuclear plants were supposed to be like this. It was my understanding that if there is a problem/loss of power the rods were supposed to drop by gravity into the block that stops/greatly slows the reaction. I thought the multiple redundant backup systems beyond simple gravity were just icing on the cake. At least that's the way it has always been sold to us from PR material and tours of the power plants I went on as a kid.
Chernobyl didn't worry me much-Russian design and Russian workmanship. Only the North Koreans would cut more corners on safety than them. This worries me a lot because I think it's safe to assume the nuclear plants in Japan are at least as well designed, built and maintained as those here, including the one about ten miles from my home.
The pro-nuclear proponents here are grossly overreacting, to use a bad pun. All Lieberman said was let's hold up until we figure out what went wrong in Japan, and whether we should make corrections here. Pretty common sense, especially when we don't have a whole lot (if any) new nuclear plants in the construction pipeline anyway. He did not call for shutting down our current plants, or a future ban. The reaction is kind of like when the NRA gets its panties twisted when there are calls to regulate in any way cop killing armor piercing bullets, machine guns or bazookas.
That is how it works. That was not the issue in this case. The rods were fully inserted seconds after seismic activity was detected.Until this diaster it was my layman's understanding that all US nuclear plants were supposed to be like this. It was my understanding that if there is a problem/loss of power the rods were supposed to drop by gravity into the block that stops/greatly slows the reaction. I thought the multiple redundant backup systems beyond simple gravity were just icing on the cake. At least that's the way it has always been sold to us from PR material and tours of the power plants I went on as a kid.
Chernobyl didn't worry me much-Russian design and Russian workmanship. Only the North Koreans would cut more corners on safety than them. This worries me a lot because I think it's safe to assume the nuclear plants in Japan are at least as well designed, built and maintained as those here, including the one about ten miles from my home.
The pro-nuclear proponents here are grossly overreacting, to use a bad pun. All Lieberman said was let's hold up until we figure out what went wrong in Japan, and whether we should make corrections here. Pretty common sense, especially when we don't have a whole lot (if any) new nuclear plants in the construction pipeline anyway. He did not call for shutting down our current plants, or a future ban. The reaction is kind of like when the NRA gets its panties twisted when there are calls to regulate in any way cop killing armor piercing bullets, machine guns or bazookas.
Shens. I refuse to believe that anything could become more efficient with time. A car in 1970 with 140HP probably got the same gas mileage as a modern Honda Civic, computers were the size of small note pads and could be run from batteries, and nuclear technology was better than ever.Dumbass. Any new design is going to incorporate newer building techniques for seismic activity that weren't designed in to that level 30+ years ago....
New reactors have much higher output too... So in theory you could reduce the number of plants you have if you would only get off your ass and build a few new ones.
So we stop nuclear, and obama wants to kill the coal industry.......what does that leave us with?
Decisions, decisions... Let's see, first their's Libya and then Iran which both have tons of oil. I just can't make up my mind so let's flip a coin.