Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Expansion of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Suspended

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

Earth 114

mdsolar writes in with news that plans to build two new reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant have been put on hold. "On Friday, Luminant, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings, suspended its application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at the plant. Its partner on the project, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, said it was focusing on getting its nuclear reactors in Japan back in operation. The majority of Japan's reactors were shut down because of safety concerns following a 2011 tsunami that caused a radiation leak at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex 150 miles north of Tokyo. Mitsubishi 'has informed us that they will materially slow the development of their design control document for their new reactor design by several years. In addition, both [Mitsubishi] and Luminant understand the current economic reality of low Texas power prices driven in large part by the boom in natural gas,' read a statement from Luminant."

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Sunday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384055)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

It would have made more sense... (1, Offtopic)

moosehooey (953907) | about a year ago | (#45384577)

It would have better if you'd posted this in the topic about RUSSIANS in SPAAACE!!!!!!

Delays not surprising (3, Informative)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45384081)

A slow economy and depressed energy prices due to shale gas have certainly delayed plans for new nuclear. As we shut down more coal plants and when the economy picks up, we will be faced with the choice of becoming heavily dependant on gas, or building more nuclear. Shale gas prices will rise as our dependency increases. some dream that solar and wind can fill the huge gap but as most if us know it simply can't. Meanwhile, the worldwide expansion of nuclear continues, and appears to be picking up steam.

Side note: The reactors at Fukushima are GE design, not Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as some readers might conclude from the author's attempt to tie the two together.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384633)

Some dream that solar and wind can fill the huge gap but as most if us know it simply can't
Wow. Not even an argument here. Just "we can't do it".

Why not? Germany has a significant percentage of its electrical power from renewables. Why can't the US do that? Are we really not as capable, or more poor than Germany?

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384747)

Why? Because the US had made to movement to implement an electric grid that is capable of transporting or storing energy well enough to distribute it across the country from the windy and sunny places

We have a 20th century energy grid that is divided into three major sections and that is currently stretched to its limits. It serves large regional powerplants just fine, but it is not capable of handling input from multiple (tens of thousands) of power generators. Proposals have been made for a major revamp of the east coast power corridor and for a larger central switching nexus in new mexico, but those proposals, as well as basic research into superconductors, has been set aside by a government more interested in cutting taxes and ignoring the need for government funded infrastructure

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

haruchai (17472) | about a year ago | (#45384767)

That should be "we have an EARLY 20th-century energy grid".

Re:Delays not surprising -- please stand by (2)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year ago | (#45386851)

That should be "we have an EARLY 20th-century energy grid".

It was friggin' amazing when it was built, a time when few could even envision multi-gigawatt cities such as Las Vegas.

It all began with the dramatic and brutal the battle of the currents [youtube.com] . Tesla/Westinghouse AC was the right choice for small scale and the subscriber level, enabling the use of transformers to step voltage. The self-synchronizing 60 cycle grid grew, and in the age of miracles (practically) no one objected to corridors of uninsulated cable suspended between power plants, which grew to become the mighty pylons of today. Unlike the trans-continental railroad however, Eastern and Western grids cannot meet without a DC interface. At 60 cycles there is too much span across them to achieve stable synchronization.

Yet Edison's DC is needed today -- for the long haul, to re-configure the grid for greater current capacity and efficiency, better bridge existing grids allow massive direct energy transfer coast to coast. Burying these lines brings protection from natural disaster such as cataclysmic ice storms, Yellowstone or what ever. We'll also be able to reclaim much of the real estate presently allocated to these corridors.

[Faulkner, 2005 [scribd.com] ] "There are different trade-offs for AC versus DC power transmission. For example, voltage can only be taken up to about 500,000 volts (500 kV) for an overhead AC power line because beyond that, power dissipation through dielectric loss becomes severe. Voltage for DC overhead power lines can be taken up to double the maximum AC voltage, to about 1000 kV (one million volts from ground potential; 2 million volts between the conductors); beyond that, power dissipation through corona discharge becomes severe. Underground DC power lines can use even higher voltage, and can be quite large; the main factors limiting size and design details are the need to insulate the conductor and to dissipate heat. Wire diameter is limited for AC transmission lines, whether overhead or buried, due to the âoeskin effectâ that prevents an AC current from penetrating to the center of a large wire, whereas a DC line can be arbitrarily thick. For these and other reasons, underground high capacity power lines are necessarily DC.

The simplest way electric power could be sent coast to coast is to build power lines based on conductors with much lower electrical resistance than any long distance power lines in service today. These âoeelectric pipelinesâ can be either conventional conductor or superconductor-based, in principle. The superconductor approach to electric pipelines has gotten some press and research interest, but is not technically ready to deploy yet. There is also a more pedestrian way to decrease the electrical resistance of a power transmission line: use more conductor..."

Faulkner goes on to describe several electric pipeline projects with projected cost.

___
My letters on energy:
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate [scribd.com]
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate [scribd.com]

Re:Delays not surprising -- please stand by (1)

haruchai (17472) | about a year ago | (#45387695)

Thanks - I know the history of the grid, the war of currents, etc.
No matter how amazing it was then, it's badly outdated now.

Nothing like "Edison's DC" (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45388315)

Yet Edison's DC is needed today

The long HVDC connections are only possible with technology using not even thought of in Edison's day. I suggest you look at wikipedia for a far better description than the "flying cars of tommorrow!!!" thing from a guy dreaming of something that's already in use, but he just doesn't know it yet.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45384977)

but it is not capable of handling input from multiple (tens of thousands) of power generators

Any evidence to back that up? Having lots of smaller inputs into a system makes it 'less' vulnerable, as major spikes can be smoothed out.

We live in the age of the transistor! (0)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45388355)

Any evidence to back that up?

It would have been extremely difficult to do without semiconductors but now it is done wherever people have their solar panels hooked into the grid - there's your tens on thousands of power generators in each of quite a few cities around the world.
So there you go, counter evidence to the AC's rubbish that sounds like it came from someone ignorant in the 1980s is probably in your own street.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

siddesu (698447) | about a year ago | (#45384835)

Germany has the distinct advantages of being much smaller than the US and of having neighbors with large nuclear and hydro power capacity, so they can trade. If you want to compare US to something, it should be EU rather than Germany.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45384987)

If only there were entities in the United States that were semi-equivalent in size to countries in Europe....

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45386117)

Like Texas and California and New York? where are you attempting to go with this?

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45386649)

saying that EU regional entities have partners to trade with, then implying that the US (which is the size of the EU itself) doesn't also have trade prospects between the entities within it, i.e. States, is ridiculous. If anything, the US is better off because there are fewer rolls of red tape when transferring energy around our States compared with within the EU.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#45385055)

Germany also isn't crippled by a gov't that is split down the middle, where one side adamantly opposes anything interfering with the 'free market'.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385301)

And their electricity prices rose by how much over the last year? 20% or so if I recall correctly.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385647)

The assumptions here are wrong. France depends a lot on its nuclear reactors, Germany doesn't anymore. France has the dropouts in its electrical grid in winter time, not Germany. In fact, Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy and France regulary depends on it, not the other way around.

Stories about the unreliability of the German electrical grid due to the high percentage of regenerative energy are highly exaggerated by the usual suspects, the big four energy companies which neglected to invest in renewables and are now in panic.

Unfortunately these four companies have the money to pay the upcoming government, which is going to choke off the renewables in Germany :-(

Re: Delays not surprising (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45386247)

The numbers are disappointing. Fyi.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf

Re: Delays not surprising (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45390437)

Those numbers look quite encouraging. Note for example how Germany has become a huge net exporter of energy, and how wind and solar complement each other.

What you have to remember is that Germany is in a transition period at the moment. We won't know the real outcome until the mid 2020s when nuclear shutdown is complete and renewables have hit their targets. In the mean time though the predicted vast increase in coal use has not happened and instead renewables are taking up the slack, and have really pushed down gas usage.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45386821)

Germans also pay the highest electrical bills in the world.

My bill to run three bedroom house in the US a fraction of what a German friend of mine pays for his much smaller apartment.

Re:Delays not surprising (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45387055)

Incorrect on all points. Germany STILL depends on its nuclear reactors, they are NOT yet shutdown. But they already have a dangerous amount of grid instability that already causes very real problems for consumers: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html [spiegel.de]

And to combat this, they're building 25 new coal-burning power plants. Some of them just came online: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/ [wattsupwiththat.com] (sorry for a link to Wattsup, but it has a really nice table).

Oh, and electricity prices in Germany already cause energy-intensive production to move elsewhere.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388137)

German physicist here. A few "small" corrections: While renewables are more demanding to the grid, this is a well recognized problem which is being dealt with. Speaking of "dangerous amount grid instability" in Germany is ridicilous. And while Germany still uses nuclear power, 8 of 17 have been shut down after Fukushima. The missing power has been replaced by renewables and somewhat less exports (yes Germany still has net exports in electricity). And no, we don't built new coal power plants to combat this. While there was a small increase in coal after the shutdown, this was a the cost of natural gas because of a shift in prices. Coal power plants which are currently being built have been planned a long time ago and mostly replace older ones. This has not much to do with nuclear phase-out. Energy prices have been falling because of renewables, although for private end-user prices increased due to subsidies (for nuclear the subsidies have been hidden in general taxes). But energy-intensive industries are exempt, so no reason to move on. One final word about grid stability: Nuclear has the opposite problem: It is only useful for base load. This is in some sense a much bigger problem than what renewables have.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45388335)

Well, I worked at power generation industry. I personally worked at nuclear power plants (including Chernobyl, btw) and then I was employed at a green energy investment company and personally inspected quite a few solar and wind generation facilities. Right now Germany's power grid is in the constant state of emergency - they are literally working at the limits of their capacity to balance the loads. Transient violations of the N+2 rule are becoming commonplace. Right now everything doesn't fail constantly because Germany can buy reliable baseload from France and still has a pretty good nuclear baseload. And also abuses Poland and Czech networks to transmit power from southern to northern Germany.

Situation with France is particularly funny - France exports quite a lot of power to Switzerland but it flows through the German grid, greatly improving grid stability along the flow paths. And we're talking about quite a lot of power, more than 4% of Germany's usage. Oh, and Germany right now mostly exports the green power surplus to Netherlands and other countries.

So you can say whatever you want about green energy and smart grids, but everyone in the actual power production industry knows that it's a complete load of bullshit. Current grids can't work without a reliable baseload. And bullshit about "only to replace old coal powerplants" is only suitable for Greenpeace (it's well known that brain amputation is required to join them). Most of the new powerplants have been approved AFTER the nuclear pullout plans. And only _3_ coal powerplants are being dismantled completely, lots of others are going to be "retrofitted".

And finally, energy intensive industries in Germany are most definitely NOT exempt from rising prices. And it already affects the industry: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html [spiegel.de]

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388435)

Also Germany building coal plants as replacment is mostly a myth:

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/power-plant-projects-on-hold-in-germany/150/537/61889/ [renewables...tional.net]

Not the best source (I have better ones in German), but well you did not provide any source.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45390331)

Any source from Greenshit is suspicious. It doesn't answer a simple question - if renewables are so good then why are 23 new plants are being built? It's a simple question, really.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388775)

Another link about the number of interuptions until 2011 (6 nuclear plants went offline in august 2011): See page 7 (55),
outages have not increased:
http://www.ffegmbh.de/download/veroeffentlichungen/351_tagung2013_roon/Tagung2013_roon.pdf [ffegmbh.de]
Also compare to other european countries, e.g. france on the next page. While i will admit that there are challenges, saying that the German grid is in a bad state far from the truth. And yes, peope will claim that this are only outages above 3 minutes. See page 8 (56). There is the graph for smaller ones. they also did not increase in 2011.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45390339)

It doesn't have recent enough data. The situation steadily got worse since then.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

gargleblast (683147) | about a year ago | (#45388843)

Twaddle.
* It is not the N+2 rule is is the N-2 rule
* It is more of a guideline
* The guideline applies to grid systems. The German grid is not a system. It is just a part of the European system
* Heck of a job at Chernobyl
* Everyone in the old power industry SAYS renewable is bullshit. Everyone in the old power industry rambles on about baseload. Why? Because everyone in the old power industry is worried about their job.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45390311)

Yes, sorry. It's N-2 of course (ability to withstand two linkages going down without causing overload somewhere else). It is a guideline in the sense that it's not codified in the EU laws, but so is a lot of engineering practices. And it certainly applies to Germany's grid, in fact, it can be applied to a grid of ANY size, including your local power distribution network (though it doesn't make a lot of sense at this scale).

As for Chernobyl, I worked on decommissioning the other nuclear reactors there.

And as for renewable folks - let them show that they can build something that can work just as well as the current power distribution network. Right now that green cretins go and cry for government handouts constantly.

Re:Delays not surprising (1, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45387019)

Germany can't do it as well. They are building 23 new coal power plants by 2020 to replace nuclear powerplants (which are NOT yet shutdown, btw).

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388289)

8 of 17 nuclear plants have been shut down after Fukushima.
The rest will be untl 2020. Numbers can be found here (sorry in German): http://ag-energiebilanzen.de/ [ag-energiebilanzen.de]

Energy production:
nuclear 140.6 (2010) -> 99.5 (2012) (in billion kWh)
renewables 104.8 (2010) -> 142.4 (2012)

Renewables almost completely replaced the missing nuclear power. Yes coal increased too, but only one kind and the usage
of natural gas decreased by about the same amount:
145.9 -> 161.1 (lignite)
117.0 -> 116.1 (black coal)
89.3 -> 75.7 (natural gas)
  If Germany would have had a desperate need to replace missing nuclear power, the use of all of those (lignite, black coal, and gas) would have gone up. This did not happen. The change from natural gas to coal reflects a shift in relative prices instead. (also the bad economy made CO2 licenses cheap which again makes coal cheaper relative to gas).

You also misrepresent the building of new coal plants. Those have been planned a long time ago. In Germany there are always plants being built and old ones are shut down. This is normal.
In summary: Get a fucking clue.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Stephen Thomas Kraus Jr (3382177) | about a year ago | (#45388349)

Its still burning coal vs. nuclear. Let's switch to a plant that releases radioactive isotopes as part of is normal operation! Please be less crass.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388641)

No it is not coal vs nuclear. You can easily replace both by renewables and less consumption. The speed Germany has ramped up renewables should give an indication that this is not a pipe dream. The thing with coal in Germany is that we have too much of it and that it still gets a lot of subsidies.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#45390379)

So, from your own data, coal replaced almost half of the disappeared nuclear baseload. And since not all of the baseload has been replaced, Germany started having grid problems. And as for "planned long time ago" - Germany still has plans for new nuclear power plants, though they are unlikely to be built. Get a fucking clue.

Anyway, why isn't Germany replacing all those old coal powerplants with oh-so-good renewables? WHY?

Re: Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388179)

And electricity costs 3X what it does in the US. So manufacturers are moving out of Germany to nations with lower electric costs - such as the US!

The German residents also got SCREWED. They paid billions in more taxes to subsidize solar capacity and their reward is the tripling of electric prices!

Re:Delays not surprising (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45384653)

Gas is quicker responding and more short-term. Nuclear is a long-haul technology. You don't just decide one day "hey, let's make a nuclear reactor" and then have it start up the following year. The time for planning and building reactors is NOW because of the amount of time and planning required to make it happen when you need it in the future.

As for shale gas, it's a matter of time before increased demand makes the price too high. Additionally, it's still burning stuff which puts more crap in the air. We don't need more of that. (Doesn't matter which side of the global warming issue you are on, putting crap into the air is just bad.)

The delays are not surprising. It's just sadening. Companies need to be less concerned about "quarterly" and "annual" figures and more concerned about re-establishing the 5-year plans.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385391)

Nuclear economics!

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#45384717)

"As we shut down more coal plants and when the economy picks up, we will be faced with the choice of becoming heavily dependant on gas, or building more nuclear."

Or, more solar and wind plugged into decentralised local grids. See: Germany and Denmark who are doing just that without the benefit of Texas Sun.

Re:Delays not surprising (2, Informative)

dasunt (249686) | about a year ago | (#45385451)

Or, more solar and wind plugged into decentralised local grids. See: Germany and Denmark who are doing just that without the benefit of Texas Sun.

Lets check on Germany and run the numbers.

Germany peaked at 23.9 GW [cleantechnica.com] . At the peak, it was providing for 40% of Germany's electrical usage. Impressive.

But that's the peak. How about overall?

Wolfram Alpha gives 549.1 billion kwh/year for German's total electricity consumption. It also gives 19.1 billion kwh a year from solar, tide or waves [wolframalpha.com] and 46 billion kwh a year from wind [wolframalpha.com] .

Now we're mixing data from different years (so this is a rough estimate), but I'm seeing a total of 65.1 billion kwh/year from solar + wind, with a usage of 549.1 billion kwh/year. So about 12%. Compare this to to the 94.1 billion kwh/year [wolframalpha.com] from nuclear.

Now this neglects another problem - the variability of solar and wind. If solar and wind make up a small fraction of the grid, or it's possible to sell to neighboring countries, it's pretty easy to sell excess energy when it's windy/sunny, and use other power plants when it's not. I'm not sure what overcapacity the US would need if it primarily resorted to wind & solar power.

Not to mention the false dichotomy. We can build solar, we can build wind, we can build nuclear - but we can also build coal power plants, natural gas power plants, and oil power plants.

There's nothing preventing us from building both nuclear and renewable energy power plants in order to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel power plants. If you believe that anthropological global warming is a real problem, I'd suggest that reducing CO2 emissions through a combination of solar, wind & nuclear would be quicker than reducing CO2 emissions by just wind & solar, or by just nuclear.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#45386145)

Let's check Germany and run the numbers again, this on photovolt alone:

Year......Capacity......Yield
2002......296......162
2003......435......313
2004......1,105......556
2005......2,056......1,282
2006......2,899......2,220
2007......4,170......3,075
2008......6,120......4,420
2009......10,565......6,583
2010......17,554......11,729
2011......25,039......19,340
2012......32,643......28,000

So, conservatively, it's doubling every 2 years or so. It is presently at about 5% of total electrical production. At present rates of growth, it will be at 100% of present production in 9 years. That, of course, isn't going to happen, but even doubling that length to 18 years means that nuclear power is superfluous. Oh and FUKUSHIMA MOFO.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45390395)

Your numbers are way off. Wolfram Alpha doesn't give me any sources, but Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] states that renewables were at 23% back in 2012. As you can see here [wikipedia.org] renewables overtook nuclear a few years ago, and are well on target for the goal of 35% by 2020.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year ago | (#45384797)

Side note: The reactors at Fukushima are GE design, not Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as some readers might conclude from the author's attempt to tie the two together.

Not only that but the Fuku reactors are an early BWR design that is no way like the current designs from GE, Westinghouse, CE et. al.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45388401)

Not only that, but most operating US reactors are a far older design with less safety features as well. Do you see where this pointless game of misdirection leads?
What is really depressing is that even South Africa has reactor technology that far exceeds all of the above. The US nuclear lobby is a dinosaur on welfare that ate it's own children (eg. lobbying against the thorium projects) and Japanese development was cut for economic reasons. Comparing one thing from the 1970s to another from the early 1980s is fairly pointless.

Re:Delays not surprising (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45384961)

there is more Solar energy available every 'hour' than the entire planet uses from 'all' sources in an entire 'year'. It's not the availability that's the problem.

Energy 'storage' is currently not capable of handling the variability of renewable sources at grid scale. But putting up solar panels/windmills such that during the day (or windy) time we only use as much energy as the night time is still the best and most economical answer to energy and environmental requirements.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45385027)

Good luck getting the world to comply with your views on how we should use energy, even if it were feasible and affordable.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45385153)

Since mine is based on facts and yours apparently is based on denying them, I'm not too worried about it.

Re:Delays not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388145)

Seems your 'position' is based on the 'suspicious use of scare quotes' around 'terms' that most people believe have an 'umabiguous' 'definition'.

You will 'excuse' us for being skeptical.

Or was that 'skeptical'?

Regardless, feel free to supply citations for your points. No 'citations', please.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45388379)

Google is you're enemy apparently, because it will give you all the facts you need about how much energy hits the earth as sunlight compared with how much humanity uses planet wide.

The irony of an AC asking for 'citations' is noteworthy at least.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

dj245 (732906) | about a year ago | (#45386367)

Side note: The reactors at Fukushima are GE design, not Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as some readers might conclude from the author's attempt to tie the two together.

Mitsubishi's reactor design probably originates from GE or Westinghouse. In the 1970's, the cool thing to do was for an American company to liscense their design to a Japanese company. Many foreign markets tough to break into, so foreign companies would make technology deals and get royalties. GE licensed their steam turbines to Toshiba, Hitachi, and later Doosan (Korea) and Ansaldo (Italy). Westinghouse licensed their steam turbines to Mitsubishi, and Westinghouse steam turbines have strong design ties to Siemens.

Did Mitsubishi license reactor technology from GE when they bought the steam turbine technology? Of that I am not sure. But I would place a good bet that they did not develop their technology entirely on their own and most likely licensed the reactor from somebody.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45386493)

While you are right, a lot of reactor designs are based on previously built designs, in the case of Comanche Peak, MHI is offering the APWR which is Pressurized Water Reactor technology and not the Boiling Water Reactor technology which comprise the GE line, and of which the Fukushima reactors are an early model. Two completely different designs. The turbines are generally interchangeable, you could use any brand turbine on the APWR provided it is large enough.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45388295)

or building more nuclear

That's a choice you need to make nearly twenty years before it is going to start delivering. If governments don't see a good reason for it then nobody else is going to bother since they don't want to see their money tied up without a return for so long.

the worldwide expansion of nuclear continues

It's a bit of a stretch to call business as usual in China and India as a "worldwide expansion". Why are you doing this? What exactly is your motivation to mislead the readers here?

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45390153)

10 years can be a sufficient turnaround time for nuclear. Why are you trying to mislead and say it takes 20? What is your motivation? As for as worldwide expansion, just read the news. Great Britain, Jordan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, are some of the other countries besides the US very actively pursing nuclear and in contracting phases, in addition to the increased building going on in China. France and Finland are building plants as well. Meanwhile, in South America, Angra is now contracted to be completed. All this at a time when the global economy is tremendously depressed. So I am not misleading anybody. I share my knowledge here just like anybody else. I have been pretty clear about my positions. If you want to inquire about motivation, how about questioning the motivation of a member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis. I have never submitted a single article on any side of these issues. Maybe you question my motivation simply because you do not see things the same way?

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45390451)

10 years can be a sufficient turnaround time for nuclear.

That plus a bit more is how long it takes before construction starts. However something that large requires a certain amount of planning which does not happen instantly, as should be obvious, so why are you pretending it is not obvious to you?
It takes many years to plan and then build a major coal fired power station so why do you think something that has a large number of challenges to overcome, since there are so few or none exactly like it, is going to somehow be a lot easier. Are you trying to pretend it will be done by magic?

member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis

How dare you paint me as that strawman you disgusting weasel - I have never submitted an article on energy issue to this site let alone anti-nuclear or pro-solar.

worldwide expansion ... Great Britain

Oh really? You are going to have to back that blatant lie up with something good.

Jordan

With what money?

India

Sadly they've cancelled some projects such as a very promising thorium one, so a little bit slower than business as usual there.

Can we have some reality instead of pathetic fanboy bullshit. I'm interested in nuclear energy and interested in fiction but the two make a poor mix when we aare trying to discuss reality.

Typo (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45390473)

Should be "after construction starts".

As an example consider the AP1000 which is close to completion and consider the date when China was considering what to get and where to site it. Most recent reactors have taken far longer still than that.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45390591)

I can see your ears are closed. Resorting to insults is a typical tactic for those who do not want to have a true discussion. I'm done here, good day.

Re:Delays not surprising (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45390643)

How dare you paint me as that strawman you disgusting weasel - I have never submitted an article on energy issue to this site let alone anti-nuclear or pro-solar.

FWIW, I was not referring to you. I don't think you have an agenda or motivation. The point was, don't assign an agenda or motivation to me when you have no evidence and while you seem to accept it from others when its blatantly obvious......

renewability of nuclear power (-1, Flamebait)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45384125)

Obviously nuclear power is technically non-renewable, so how long would it be expected to last, assuming no refinements to extraction or fission methods? This is a question of curiosity rather than an attempt to criticise nuclear power.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384159)

There's a section with that information, in this book on the prospects for clean energy, here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Re:renewability of nuclear power (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45384201)

The ideal situation would be to re-process used fuel. In that scenario, fuel supply would be plentiful for about as long as you want to project. Under the existing structure, with little re-processing, the known Uranium supplies are plentiful, but I don't know what the amount really is. I feel comfortable saying we could go for centuries, but again, I have not looked up the number.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45384249)

Here is a link [scientificamerican.com] that confirms my reply.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#45384301)

Worth noticing that the availability of thorium is around 10 times more frequent than uranium, and liquid thorium reactors do not suffer from "melt downs".

Re:renewability of nuclear power (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45384347)

I agree that we should fully explore the benefits of thorium reactors. Note that there are Uranium based fuels that also do not suffer from melt down. This can be seen in the high temperature gas reactors, such as the pebble bed, for example.

Re: renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384407)

Sadly, other factors conspire to make thorium less practical. As evidenced by the industry's lack of pursuit. There is no perfect solution...

Re: renewability of nuclear power (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45385019)

Thorium was dropped from R&D because it didn't produce fissile material for bombs. And once we had working nuclear reactors, that we thought were safe, there was little need to create another type of nuclear plant.

Now there's a pressing need to not have the downsides of uranium based reactors, and thorium may fit that bill if the engineering challenges can be worked out.

Re: renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45386157)

The chinese will figure it out before us. There is no political will for it in the USA, at least we can buy them from the Chinese when they succeed where we fail to be able to even pass a damn budget.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about a year ago | (#45384941)

the known Uranium supplies are plentiful

What? Although Uranium is fairly plentiful, the vast majority is U238, which is not fissile. The only Uranium we can reliably "burn" is U235, which is about as plentiful as Gold or Platinum. (That's why we "enrich" the stuff, to increase the portion of U235 over U238.) If we keep going at status quo, the current fleet of reactors will burn out the "usable" Uranium supply in a few decades.

The big "revolution" in the next few years will be the transition from solid-fuel to liquid-fuel reactors. Liquid fuels can be reprocessed on-the-fly but solid fuels cannot. This is a HUGE advantage, because it allows us to burn the fuel completely with very little waste. Whereas the current LWR uses only 0.5% of the energy in the fuel rods, leaving hundreds of tons of long-term waste to deal with.

Furthermore, a molten-salt reactor [wikipedia.org] can be configured to use spent nuclear fuel as a fuel source. [transatomicpower.com]

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384225)

If you allow the price to increase, estimates for useful recoverable Uranium with a once-through cycle are ~1000 years. Multiply by 100-1000 if you allow for reprocessing. Add in Thorium and get possibly another factor of 2. Bottom line: Nuclear offers many orders of magnitude more available power than oil/coal/gas.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx

Re:renewability of nuclear power (3, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year ago | (#45384261)

Obviously nuclear power is technically non-renewable, so how long would it be expected to last, assuming no refinements to extraction or fission methods?

One answer is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last [scientificamerican.com] . The short version is that with current techniques, and usage levels, the available uranium will last a couple hundred years. However, there are methods that we expect would increase that by multiple orders of magnitude.

Just 10% of current production though (2)

grimJester (890090) | about a year ago | (#45384357)

A couple hundred years quickly turns into decades if nuclear is ramped up.

Re:Just 10% of current production though (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45384397)

Not if you use breeder reactors. Besides there are plenty more exploitable reserves of uranium than those mined traditionally. It is present in seawater and granite for example.

Re:Just 10% of current production though (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45385039)

Yes but breeders produce fully fissile material don't they?

Re:Just 10% of current production though (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45386047)

Breeders use the neutrons in the fission reaction to generate Plutonium from U-238. They are called breeders because they generate more Plutonium than they consume while also generating heat and power in the process. Examples of such reactors include the US Integral Fast Reactor or the French Superphénix.

Breeder research basically stopped in the West after the end of the Cold War. With the decommissioning of nuclear warheads nuclear fuel was so cheap most mines became uneconomic and had to close down. I believe the price of uranium fuel has gone up 10x since. Everyone since has been mostly focused on improving the efficiency of nuclear separation to make it cheaper. The gas-centrifuge process is now used in France and was previously used in Russia and China. The US is presently investigating the gas-centrifuge and SILEX processes of nuclear separation. I think SILEX has a lot of potential for nuclear reprocessing if it is exploited fully. This is part of the reason why Japan and South Korea were interested in ALVIS in the first place but its a double-edged sword so it may get canned to show up elsewhere. Just like gas-centrifuges did. I guess you cannot stop the invisible hand of the market and the laws of thermodynamics.

The Russians are probably the current leaders in research of this kind of reactor. Their lead cooled fast reactors are probably the current leading contenders in this field since they had a lot of experience operating it in their submarines. They seem to be quite safe.

Re:Just 10% of current production though (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#45386057)

s/ALVIS/AVLIS/

Re:Just 10% of current production though (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year ago | (#45390069)

Examples of such reactors include the US Integral Fast Reactor or the French Superphénix.

An IFR is a different reactor from a breeder reactor, it is a burner reactor and has a different fuel cycle from a breeder. They are both fast neutron reactors however they have different design goals. Also IFR includes a reprocessing facility as part of the design and a breeder does not.

A burner reactor (such as IFR) has a burn-up rate of fuel (usually pu-239) approaching 20% whereas a breeder *creates* plutonium from the other elements that are combined and transmuted in the core.

There is currently 70,000 tons of plutonium available as fuel and the IFR can utilise U-238 as a fuel, at current estimates there exists roughly 5000 years of fuel for a reactor of this type however it suffers a critical materials technology issue to implement to avoid the issues of negative net energy return.

Breeders, however, are simply obsolete.

Re:Just 10% of current production though (2)

nojayuk (567177) | about a year ago | (#45385185)

Folks have mostly stopped exploring for large uranium ore bodies in part because current reserves are being exploited so efficiently the actual value of uranium is very low -- the current price for yellowcake (refined U3O8) is $35 per pound at the minehead. There are big known reserves (probably counted in the overall availability estimates) in placves like northern Canada which can't be exploited commercially as yet since the geographical limitations would put the price up above the market rates.

If the price of yellowcake doubled, by the way, it would add less than a cent US to the cost of a kWh of nuclear power. This is not true for gas, coal and other fossil fuel generators.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385135)

Obviously nuclear power is technically non-renewable, so how long would it be expected to last, assuming no refinements to extraction or fission methods? This is a question of curiosity rather than an attempt to criticise nuclear power.

At least a thousand years based on easily accessible uranium. And if you are desperate, then you can get uranium from sea water. Costs about $200-$300/lb - fuel costs are then still not important because capital costs dominate in nuclear power plants. So in that regard, nuclear fission is not limited on human civilization timescale.

You also cannot assume "no improvements in fission methods". That's like saying no improvement in steel making processes since 1800. For example, reprocessing and fast neutron reactors become profitable at about $120/lb mark. It is purely a $$$ issue.

Uranium does not suffer from "peak uranium" and does not suffer from lack of resources.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385277)

Longer than civilization will be around. If you also include thorium which is far more plentiful.

The resistance to nuclear is patently ridiculous, and exposes what the environmental movement was all about, which is control over technology and society in some sort of quasi-feudal state.

European Commission (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#45385283)

estimates 72 years at the current rate of use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Pessimistic_predictions [wikipedia.org]

It is worth noting that the uranium from seawater idea is flawed by the huge amount of ocean current you'd need to get at the uranium. It becomes a project with climate implication owing to disturbed currents.

Re:renewability of nuclear power (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year ago | (#45385377)

If we switch to molten salt based thorium we'll have thousands of years of fuel.

The 1960s question (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45388523)

When that question was asked in the early 1960s it was "it won't last very long, so let's build plutonium fast breeders". Then mining exploration turned up a lot more Uranium in places where it was really just a unexpected extra in the same ore as copper, silver or gold that was well worth mining anyway.
Coming from the other direction newer Uranium reactors (late 1960s) were running on fuel that didn't need as much enrichment so less Uranium would be needed to be mined to run them. So now we are in the situation where Uranium mines have been closed (eg. Niger) or expansion delayed indefinitely pending a rise in price (eg. Australia - Olympic Dam), plus a large number of known untapped reserves, supplying what could be a diminishing market. So that means Uranium is going to last for a while, then you can add to the mix Thorium reactors which can start up on Thorium (of which there is a lot) and continue on higher grade waste than what current reactors can use plus the very large stockpiles of expired weapons material (it's not usable forever). If they are liquid fuelled reactors they can avoid all of the very difficult reprocessing used to make new fuel rods from bits of the old ones.

So that means the answer is a long time even with current experimental technology but depends entirely on how much is used.

Explosion of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Sus (1)

icemanwol (2446776) | about a year ago | (#45384135)

ya, i mis-read the title on the first pass...

We're putting X on hold so we can concentrate on Y (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45384377)

In my experience, that usually translates as: we've come to realize that X was a bad idea.

Re:We're putting X on hold so we can concentrate o (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about a year ago | (#45384799)

In this case it sounds more like, "we've got to put out fire Z first"

The poisonous fruits of globalisation (-1, Troll)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year ago | (#45384829)

Remember when America actually developed and MANUFACTURED its own technologies and was an industrial powerhouse? Those days are long gone, and this is the poisonous fruit of the Globalist traitors who have infiltrated the US government, in the globalist plot to destroy America. Are we really better off than we were in the 50s and 60s when the US still manufactured most of what it uses and globalisation was not common? If globalisation is so wonderful, why have the last 3 decades of globalisation produces a shrinking middle class, a stagnant economy that has not grown at all for the middle class in over 3 decades, to the point that a growing percentage of the US population now earns less than the Mininum wage of 1968, to that a massive percenrtage of the country is now on food stamps and this grows relentlessly? The US economy was growing by leaps and bounds in those two decades of the 50s and 60s, every year of those decades poverty declined, and the middle class was growing in the 50s and 60s. The middle class has not grown at all since the 70s, and there has been no reduction in poverty since the 70s. Ever since the offshoring of the US economy (read: gutting), there has been virtually no growth of the middle class in the country. Instead, the super rich have pocketed massive amounts of money by laying off American workers and replacing them with third world labor. I think its time to realize that globalisation is a scam and the perpetuators of this free trade snake oil are liars who have sold out this country and destroyed it. Further reprensible is the immigration invasion which is turning the US into Mexico North and is quite frankly a genocidal assault that is destroying the traditional identity of the United States. Studies have been done that Mexicans have a 20% lower IQ than European Americans and studies have shown that this is almost entirely due to genetics. This means that he average population IQ is declining because of the influx of low IQ racial groups and the country is basically being turned into a third world cesspit. We need to go back to what worked, what we had prior to the 70s, that is 1) very low levels of immigration that maintain the racial demographics of the country, exactly as it was in the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act (in effect 1924-1965), re-enacting this law and repealing the 1965 immigration law, and reflected in the countries first citizenship and naturalization law, the 1790 Naturalization Act which was signed by President George Washington and signed by the founding fathers themselves 2) Strong tariffs, favouring national industry and keeping manufacturing and industrial know how in country 3) recognize that manufacturing and blue collar professions are noble and worthwhile, abandon the absurd "everyone must go to college" mentality, and encourage more people to go into blue collar work, including by building a pipeline from high school into vocational/trade schools and apprenticeships for everything from trucking, car manufacture, to plumbing 4) encouraging a family values society with large families to encourage internal birth population growth, by incentivizing a high birth rate among the middle class through larger per child percentage income tax incentives for the middle class 5) cap export of foodstuffs to other countries in such a manner that allows maintainence of current population level in other countries but does not incentivize population growth in those countries, to allow for compensation of temporary decline in food production due to natural disasters, but prohibits an increase in exports due to population growth in those countries.

Globalisation and importation of cheap labor via immigration, benefits one group of people, the super rich. It is destroying the country for the rest of us, and as well is anti-diversity because it is destroying the unique qualities of countries.

Re:The poisonous fruits of globalisation (-1, Troll)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year ago | (#45384981)

PS it would also be a good idea to prohibit interbreeding between low IQ and high IQ racial groups and as well to prohibit interracial breeding altogether to preserve the various, unique and distinct racial groups. Technically, since it threatens to interfere with the ability of a racial group to regenerate its population and threatens the existance of racial groups, interracial breeding is genocide and is a threat to the diversity of distinct, unique, ancient races. Genocide is anything that threatens to destroy a racial group in whole or in part. A race is a closed breeding group which evolved over thousands of years of divergent evolution, which has unique and distinct genetic traits. Such a law would be anti-genocidal and would preserve all of humanities distinct and unique races into the future, assuring that they continue to exist. Since interracial breeding threatens to destroy our races, it is an expression of contempt, disregard and even hatred for our races, and should not be allowed. We ought to oppose anything that would pose a threat to or would cause a population decline of any distinct or unique racial group, including interracial breeding genocide.

Re:The poisonous fruits of globalisation (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#45385107)

you are of mixed racial ancestry, you're too late

if you don't believe me, tell my what regions each of your grandparent are from, and I will tell you of the racial mixing proven by genetic analysis

Need Thorium (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year ago | (#45384883)

This is an ideal time for Obama to support thorium plants and get them going. We have 2 companies minimum that with .5B each could have designs and perhaps small prototypes done within a relatively short time.

Re:Need Thorium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385863)

This is an ideal time for Obama to support thorium plants and get them going. We have 2 companies minimum that with .5B each could have designs and perhaps small prototypes done within a relatively short time.

...but ObamaPower can only supply electrical energy to 6 homes...or a few large & influential unions, depending on which one is willing to pay him more for it.

Wind power may be to blame (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#45385203)

Wind power sometimes puts the wholesale price of electricity down to zero in Texas. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/20/wholesale-price-of-electricity-drops-to-0-00-in-texas-due-to-wind-energy/ [cleantechnica.com] So natural gas may simply be acting a the medium through which wind discourages nuclear power. This has been the case in the Midwest. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf [illinois.edu] Wind power has cut off the top of the gas generation price curve and forced a reactor to close down there through the subsequent lowering of the wholesale electricity price. Gas can still be expensive if the less efficient turbines are used. Wind lowers demand for those.

Re:Wind power may be to blame (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#45390191)

Wind power in Texas does generate quite a bit of electricity - 12,212 MW to be exact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas [wikipedia.org]

It looks like the Roscoe Wind Farm is the largest generating 781MW over 100,000 acres of land, several times the size of Manhatten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Wind_Farm [wikipedia.org]

Likewise, Comanche Peak generates around 2,100 MW of electricity between its current two reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant [wikipedia.org]

The question comes to how much land you want to use to generate power. It should be pointed out, though, that the land that windfarms are on can also be used for agricultual purposes,

So if you are talking cost wise, wind and gas is more efficient, but if you want to generate a ton of power in a relatively small footprint, nuclear is the way to go.

Luckily, the one thing we have here in Texas is tons of land. The wind farms are said by many to be eyesores. I kind of like them, because they are kind of unique, but I certainly wouldn't want to see the whole state littered with windfarms to generate power. Nuclear is the way of the future, but it looks like the way of the present is going to be wind and gas. That's fine for now, but with the growth of the cities in Texas, do you really want to set aside another 500,000 acres of land for wind when two new reactors, on land already being used for a nuclear power plant, can generate roughly the same amount of power?

Then when natural gas prices inevitably spike (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45385441)

We will all be incredibly fucked as the United states energy portfolio has been shifted to be almost entirely dependent on natural gas. Get another hurricane in the gulf and americans will be shivering in the dark the next winter with massive rate hikes and energy shortages. People will be whining about why we didn't build nuclear reactors. Meanwhile america will be shivering in the dark for another 20 years because that's the lead time to build a nuclear power plant.

OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (4, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45385473)

CNN has started doing these long-form documentaries and the 2 I've seen have been mind altering. I went from being a total nuclear power skeptic to being 99% in favor. The documentary is done from the perspective of environmentalists who did their own research into nuclear power and were really surprised by their findings. The clincher for me was the milliSievert readings from all over the world; including Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Re:OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (0, Troll)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#45385819)

Re:OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45387883)

That is an opinion piece, if I read the URL correctly. I saw one citation in the article, debunking a claim that a cell phone uses as much energy as a refrigerator. I agree that claim is dubious. This however does nothing to change the facts. If you can do arithmetic, and also agree that burning things to produce electricity is not healthy and/or sustainable, you start running out of options rather quickly.

Solar PV, wind, tidal, etc., are all too variable/intermittent to form the bulk of supply, unless massive amounts of storage are implemented, which carries commensurate costs, and risks. Lead acid batteries everywhere? Oh goody. Lithium supplies aren't infinite either. We should increase these, and more quickly than we have been in the US.

Nuclear should be expanded significantly as a solid, reliable source of electricity as a complement to the above. I believe that we should rethink the designs urgently though to focus on building actual nuclear power plants via thorium LFTR, rather than plutonium factories that happen to generate electricity. The research was done 40 years ago. Then Nixon screwed us all, lube-free in favor of a political buddy and shut the project down.

Posting anonymously because of moderation earlier in the thread.

Re:OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#45387995)

There isn't any need for nuclear in the US. It is actually going away. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/former-nrc-chairman-says-us-nuclear-industry-is-going-away [ieee.org] Iran wants nuclear power. Perhaps your expansion should happen there once they can be trusted.

Re:OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388331)

If the nuclear industry in this country is going away, so is what remains of manufacturing, and probably IT data centers, and any other electricity-intensive business. Time to move elsewhere. I suppose I could dust off my high school French.

Re:OT: Watch Pandora's Promise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45389207)

Yeah good idea. I recommend seeing some other parts of the world to every American. Ofcourse, if your electrical heating works in winter in France, it might just be powered by electricity imports from Germany's wind turbines.

Wow, written by the NRC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45388955)

An earthquake caused the greatest nuclear disaster in history - a triple melt through. It was locally only mag 7.1 which is just on the edge of design spec. Neutron radiation damaged pipes broke at all afflicted reactors during the quake. Leaks, steam and explosion reported by multiple workers.

The tsunami just came to mop up.

This is why they bag on about the wave, quakes can fuck an ancient, primitive reactor anywhere, any time, especially the 15 identical GE BWRs in USA.

Re:Wow, written by the NRC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45389959)

Shut up and keep chanting "too cheap to meter"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?