Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward


<dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1189114615.270056.152310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 6, 11:53 am, Rolf Martens <rolf.mart...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <46ddbe6a$0$17072$4c368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
<snip>
>> Experience here in Sweden in 1970-1985, before the ban set in,
>> shows that a population section of 1 million people easily can
>> build 1 reactor of 1 GW in 15 years. That would be 300 such
>> in the USA in that time, for instance.

>But 300 in 15 years does not mean 1 reactor every 6 months. It does >take a
>lot longer time to build a 1000 MW nuc plant than it does to build a >1000 MW
>natural gas turbine plant. There's just no denying that.

>daestrom

Well, it should mean 1 every 6 months.

Now it also has been said that reactor building in the USA
has been less effective than in Europe - one of a kind often
has been built, instead of several of a standard model.

But anyway, a lot of such, technically, could be built in the
USA too.

Rolf M.www.rolf-martens.com

Rolf is correct. Once infrastructure is in place: factories to build
the components (there is only 1 in the US after all the others
shutdown) are built, then the US should be building at least 2 a month
on average.

Actually, there is only one steel mill in the *world* that can manufacture the large vessels used for LWR reactors and its in Japan. No US manufacturer can forge LWR reactor vessels.

Even with a 'crash' course in building nucs, *starting* 2 a month, the first unit won't be on-line for between 5 and 7 years.

The costs of financing a construction project that can take 5 years to complete is not trivial. The 'experts' believe they can do it, but a lot would depend on the financial markets. If we start seeing a return to double digit interest rates, the cost of starting a nuc may very well rise to the point of non-profitability.

Considering the risks involved, no business entity is going to risk starting construction on 24 nucs (2/month * 12 months) without even knowing if the first ones are going to be fully completed. You and Rolf may *want* to build a lot of nucs, but I don't think you have the money to do it on your own. And those that do have the money are a bit more cautious (that's one reason why *they* have the money).


Let's look at what is going on now. There are 33 "planned" with one or
two (I forget which) that have filed C&O license. It takes 2 to 4
years to get approval. There are about 12 more with C&O L being
submitted over the next 2 years. This is of course *nothing* to what
we need but we can look at it's expansion. To wit: the 33 "planned"
all get approved and break ground in 4 to 5 years. At that point, with
the world infrastructure back up to snuff, we can plan 2 a month, 24 a
year, 100 every 5 years for the next 30 years bringing us (in the US)
up to the *originally planned* 600-800 GWs of power.

This is completely doable and ALL for under $1 trillion US dollars, or
about 3 years of the US defense budget.

Are you suggesting the government step in and start funding this? Boy, I can just imagine what all the other special interest groups have to say about that.


The US energy load is about 1,000 GW. 600-800 is what we could
effectively use right now with current designs. Loading and 'peaker'
nukes can be built and have been so it's not inconceivable that a 100%
nuclear-to-load project is possible out toward 2040/2050. This would
presume breeder and smaller HTR type plants in mix as well.


So you'll have replaced the large oil-based energy economy with one based on nuclear. I'd much rather see a diverse energy economy based on several technologies (nuclear included). It would be much more robust, able to sustain a number of 'hits' from a variety of unforeseen directions. Take a lesson from nature, life on the planet is very diverse and adaptable to changes in the environment. If mankind is going to continue to survive and flourish we must be similarly adaptable and diverse.

daestrom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Congress screws up highway planning
    ... Knowing the interstate system as I do, ... I knew a lot of those engineers in the late 60's and early 70's. ... They used those to save money. ... Do you have proof that the I-10 bridge was built on the cheap? ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Who are the greedy stockholders of Americas Corprations / cartels? Do they (the stockholders) know w
    ... In murder it is malice aforethought; in burglary it is the intent to ... Sutton's book Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, ... built by McKee Corp., it is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, ... "Our money system is nothing better than a confidence trick... ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy
    ... The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy ... Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear ... Hmmmmm, While the merits of the idea are worthy ones, the headaches of a whole nuc force is huge. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: How Congress screws up highway planning
    ... Those engineers were building to 1950's standards. ... I knew a lot of those engineers in the late 60's and early 70's. ... They used those to save money. ... Do you have proof that the I-10 bridge was built on the cheap? ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: kind of on-topic... The postulate edition
    ... Money is wonderful as a tool, it allows you and me to exchange our talents and efforts for those of others who might not need the particular skills or products we have. ... Prezident Billary should be about enuf to ... than I have a past, and have built up a pretty comfortable existence, ... Steven Colbert is interviewing bill o'really... ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)