Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward

In article <tomswift-57F0FB.00545718092007@[198.186.190.159]>, tomswift@xxxxxxxxxx says...
....

Where do you get off claiming I have a ring in my nose for natural gas
nonsense is anybody's guess. Dillusional and forgot your meds??

daestrom

You needn't get all upset Daestrom, I was just working from the data you
gave. As for the ring in the nose this refers to the fact that there is
no reliable and cost competitive source for new supplies of natural gas.
If I could supply new 1000 MW natural gas power plants for $1 each
delivered tomorrow there would be no takers, because of the gas supply
problem. Today the only viable plants that can supply large amounts of
new dispatchable power are nuclear and coal. If you say nuclear is out
then you get coal.
Your typical 7 to 10 year construction timetable is an artifact of the
tactics antinuclear groups used years ago to make it economically
impossible to build nuclear power plants. A common technique was to wait
until construction was started and orders for large ticket items had
been committed to then stall the project with lawsuits. As an example
of typical new designs the Westinghouse AP-1000 plant has a designed
construction schedule of 36 months from pouring first concrete to
loading fuel <http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm>.

--
Mike

And nuclear power of course is quite superior.

Concerning possible construction tempo for it, I've mentioned
some times that Sweden, from where I'm writing this, with 9 million
inhabitants, in 15 years, 1970-1985, constructed a capacity of
10+ GW of nuclear power plants. - That was before the arch-reactionary
ban set in here.

In such a country, then, 1 million people easily can construct a reactor
of 1 GW in 15 years.

For the USA, that would mean some 300 of them in such a time. Now
the economic system there seems to have caused a more impractical
reactor construction mode in history: One of a kind; no systematic
production in series. But technically, the - somewhat primitive? -
Yanks should manage at least some 200 in 15 years, one would guess.

Is there perhaps some mysterious factor in nature that prevents such
a thing today?

No, but there is the social system of capitalism, which has turned
into an enemy of progress, more and more so in the last 30-40 years

Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More problems for the stupid libs in California.
    ... The Clinton Administration halted all nuclear reactor ... construction. ... The last commercial nuclear power plant in the US came on ... how many nuclear power plants do you think are peaking power plants ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More problems for the stupid libs in California.
    ... construction. ... The last commercial nuclear power plant in the US came on ... how many nuclear power plants do you think are peaking power plants ... Natural gas is a fossil fuel, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More problems for the stupid libs in California.
    ... wrecked California's power system? ... construction. ... The last commercial nuclear power plant in the US came on ... how many nuclear power plants do you think are peaking power plants ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Coal mine editorial cartoons
    ... nuclear power plants. ... construction were halted immediately and the ... Thirty years of total opposition to nuclear power, ... unfortunate timing of that movie just *days* before TMI... ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Nuclear plant will require $8 billion
    ... Thailand's first nuclear power plant would require a massive capital investment ... If and when the government decides to start construction in 2014, ... the next decade according to the Energy Ministry's Power Development Plan. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
Loading