"New" nuke reaches criticality last month

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
A simple cycle gas turbine can achieve energy conversion efficiencies ranging between 20 and 35 percent. With the higher temperatures achieved in the Department of Energy's turbine program, future hydrogen and syngas fired gas turbine combined cycle plants are likely to achieve efficiencies of 60 percent or more. When waste heat is captured from these systems for heating or industrial purposes, the overall energy cycle efficiency could approach 80 percent.


You make my point again...and either don't get what you are saying or don't want to get it.

60s are where CCGTs are....that's the plant that is typically installed.

The 80 that you quoted as coming are only with waste heat district heating, which I'm not sure is going to go in anywhere in the US.

BUT as soon as you play the district heating card, you can apply it to anything.
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/

Quote:
The HP and IP steam paths are combined in a common HP/IP module. Steam is passed back to the boiler for reheating before it continues through the IP and LP turbine modules. With the double-reheat cycle and cold seawater for cooling, Unit 3 boasts a net electrical efficiency of 47% (LHV basis). The asymmetric double-flow IP steam path (steam is received in the center of the cylinder and discharges at the ends) is configured to suit district heating requirements. Extracted steam is passed through two heat exchangers where water from the Aalborg city grid is heated to 80–90°C. This dual use allows Unit 3 to utilize up to 91% of the energy content in the bituminous coals it burns.


Cherry picking, I would thumb my nose and say that coal can be 91% efficient...BUT you can only make your customer's houses so warm, so it's sister units are stuck at their thermal efficiency...

Just like the majority of the CCGTs that will be built actually.
Seeing as thread is about nuke plants in the US and it taking 40 years to open one, the talk of either nuclear or coal is a non issue. Whereas natural gas generation is being rapidly installed and developed.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
A simple cycle gas turbine can achieve energy conversion efficiencies ranging between 20 and 35 percent. With the higher temperatures achieved in the Department of Energy's turbine program, future hydrogen and syngas fired gas turbine combined cycle plants are likely to achieve efficiencies of 60 percent or more. When waste heat is captured from these systems for heating or industrial purposes, the overall energy cycle efficiency could approach 80 percent.


You make my point again...and either don't get what you are saying or don't want to get it.

60s are where CCGTs are....that's the plant that is typically installed.

The 80 that you quoted as coming are only with waste heat district heating, which I'm not sure is going to go in anywhere in the US.

BUT as soon as you play the district heating card, you can apply it to anything.
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/

Quote:
The HP and IP steam paths are combined in a common HP/IP module. Steam is passed back to the boiler for reheating before it continues through the IP and LP turbine modules. With the double-reheat cycle and cold seawater for cooling, Unit 3 boasts a net electrical efficiency of 47% (LHV basis). The asymmetric double-flow IP steam path (steam is received in the center of the cylinder and discharges at the ends) is configured to suit district heating requirements. Extracted steam is passed through two heat exchangers where water from the Aalborg city grid is heated to 80–90°C. This dual use allows Unit 3 to utilize up to 91% of the energy content in the bituminous coals it burns.


Cherry picking, I would thumb my nose and say that coal can be 91% efficient...BUT you can only make your customer's houses so warm, so it's sister units are stuck at their thermal efficiency...

Just like the majority of the CCGTs that will be built actually.
Seeing as thread is about nuke plants in the US and it taking 40 years to open one, the talk of either nuclear or coal is a non issue. Whereas natural gas generation is being rapidly installed and developed.


But unlike a nuke, the natural gas plant still emits carbon. And it uses massively more fuel to make the same amount of power because fossil fuels lack the density yield that a nuke has (and that doesn't even factor in other nuke technologies that I've mentioned). The stigma is the biggest obstacle to nuclear power, followed closely by the unwillingness to deal with the waste via reprocessing and advanced cycle reactors that can continue to make power from it. This isn't a limit of technology but rather one of bureaucracy.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
A simple cycle gas turbine can achieve energy conversion efficiencies ranging between 20 and 35 percent. With the higher temperatures achieved in the Department of Energy's turbine program, future hydrogen and syngas fired gas turbine combined cycle plants are likely to achieve efficiencies of 60 percent or more. When waste heat is captured from these systems for heating or industrial purposes, the overall energy cycle efficiency could approach 80 percent.


You make my point again...and either don't get what you are saying or don't want to get it.

60s are where CCGTs are....that's the plant that is typically installed.

The 80 that you quoted as coming are only with waste heat district heating, which I'm not sure is going to go in anywhere in the US.

BUT as soon as you play the district heating card, you can apply it to anything.
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/

Quote:
The HP and IP steam paths are combined in a common HP/IP module. Steam is passed back to the boiler for reheating before it continues through the IP and LP turbine modules. With the double-reheat cycle and cold seawater for cooling, Unit 3 boasts a net electrical efficiency of 47% (LHV basis). The asymmetric double-flow IP steam path (steam is received in the center of the cylinder and discharges at the ends) is configured to suit district heating requirements. Extracted steam is passed through two heat exchangers where water from the Aalborg city grid is heated to 80–90°C. This dual use allows Unit 3 to utilize up to 91% of the energy content in the bituminous coals it burns.


Cherry picking, I would thumb my nose and say that coal can be 91% efficient...BUT you can only make your customer's houses so warm, so it's sister units are stuck at their thermal efficiency...

Just like the majority of the CCGTs that will be built actually.
Seeing as thread is about nuke plants in the US and it taking 40 years to open one, the talk of either nuclear or coal is a non issue. Whereas natural gas generation is being rapidly installed and developed.


But unlike a nuke, the natural gas plant still emits carbon. And it uses massively more fuel to make the same amount of power because fossil fuels lack the density yield that a nuke has (and that doesn't even factor in other nuke technologies that I've mentioned). The stigma is the biggest obstacle to nuclear power, followed closely by the unwillingness to deal with the waste via reprocessing and advanced cycle reactors that can continue to make power from it. This isn't a limit of technology but rather one of bureaucracy.
Can't get away from the radioactive waste that is deadly for eons with the nukes. Elimination of CO2 emissions is not the absolute goal. Nukes too have their CO2 footprint.

Quote:
Let's compare the CO2 emissions to produce 1 kWh of electricity by different technologies:
Technology g CO2 per kWh
electricity
Solar power, water power and wind power
10 - 40
Nuclear power plants
90 - 140
Combined heat and power in private houses
220 - 250
Gas buring plants
330 - 360
New coal burning plants
1'000 - 1'100


http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Can't get away from the radioactive waste that is deadly for eons with the nukes. Elimination of CO2 emissions is not the absolute goal. Nukes too have their CO2 footprint.


You can minimize the waste, and it most certainly isn't eons when the fuel is properly used. I posted a paper about this some time ago. The issue with the spent fuel is a political one, not a technological one, I have said that many times now.

The CO2 footprint from a nuke is due to the mining of uranium primarily. The process of creating steam to power the turbines does not emit CO2, which sets it apart from all the other methods being discussed and puts it in a similar class to hydro electric with environmental disruption (mining vs damming) as its major impact. However proper reprocessing and advanced reactor technologies greatly reduce the mining side of things, and subsequently the impact.

And yes, in the minds of many politicians, eliminating CO2 emissions IS the goal. But it isn't the goal with eliminating nukes, that's all based on stigma, paranoia and ignorance. The methods being pandered as "green" are, as Shannow already noted, not base-load providers, so they CANNOT, using current technologies, replace the current staples of that mode of generation. This is why Germany had to fire up their coal plants when they shuttered their nukes, their massive installed wind and solar base simply could not step in as the base-load, they needed a turbine.

An edit because you added the link:

1. Do you have a more reputable link? The link in that article doesn't take you anywhere (so I can't see the original study)

2. Based on just that article, they are talking about mining fresh uranium, no mention of reprocessing, advanced reactor technologies, using Thorium.....etc. So there's already a bias from the get-go, as France actively reprocesses their waste, yet there isn't even a tiny mention of it.

 

[SHOZ]

Again we are talking about the US. I guess eons depends on your definition.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Again we are talking about the US. I guess eons depends on your definition.


An Eon is half a billion years.

And yes, you keep focusing on the US because it helps make your point. There is a world outside the United States, particularly with respect to Nuclear Power.

 

[SHOZ]

Yes there is but this thread is about a US nuke plant. And they are closing them down because they are money loosers.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Yes there is but this thread is about a US nuke plant. And they are closing them down because they are money loosers.


Which makes alternatives that are more efficient and cost effective as well as minimizing waste, making the final waste product vastly less hazardous and have no design costs associated with them (as they already exist) all the more relevant!

This is like an exercise in confirmation bias, as all that keeps getting drummed up is information that supports your initial viewpoint, despite our best attempts at expanding your knowledge via information outside that scope.

I have a question for you, and I want you to answer it honestly: Do you have a PERSONAL aversion to Nuclear power? And if so, why?

 

[SHOZ]

You could say that with 7 reactors within 70 miles of me and a dishonest profit driven company that operates them.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
You could say that with 7 reactors within 70 miles of me and a dishonest profit driven company that operates them.


You see, that's a fair and understandable reason, not against the technology, or technologies that exist, but based on fear of poor management due to profit-driven agenda and concern over the integrity of the company managing them.

I get your position now at least.

In comparison, I have two nukes in similar proximity, Darlington with 4 reactors, and Pickering with 6 (two shuttered). But both of those are owned and operated by OPG (still majority owned by the province of Ontario) and operate under the oversight of Atomic Energy Canada and the Ontario Energy Board.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
An edit because you added the link:

1. Do you have a more reputable link? The link in that article doesn't take you anywhere (so I can't see the original study)

2. Based on just that article, they are talking about mining fresh uranium, no mention of reprocessing, advanced reactor technologies, using Thorium.....etc. So there's already a bias from the get-go, as France actively reprocesses their waste, yet there isn't even a tiny mention of it.


A site with an agenda, which is clearly understating a lot of the emissions...hydro/solar/wind simply CAN'T be lumped together without analysis of the methane emissions from hydro...

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_tremblaypaper.pdf

Also, is wind/solar become baseload, you need three+ times the nameplate capacity, and batteries/storage, which have their own costs.

For detailed comparison, here's all of Australia's thermal (coal gas and liquid) fueld generation CO2/MWh

http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/Related-Information/~/media/Files/Other/planning/Emissions%202014/20140411_Emissions_report_V2.ashx

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
An edit because you added the link:

1. Do you have a more reputable link? The link in that article doesn't take you anywhere (so I can't see the original study)

2. Based on just that article, they are talking about mining fresh uranium, no mention of reprocessing, advanced reactor technologies, using Thorium.....etc. So there's already a bias from the get-go, as France actively reprocesses their waste, yet there isn't even a tiny mention of it.


A site with an agenda, which is clearly understating a lot of the emissions...hydro/solar/wind simply CAN'T be lumped together without analysis of the methane emissions from hydro...

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_tremblaypaper.pdf

Also, is wind/solar become baseload, you need three+ times the nameplate capacity, and batteries/storage, which have their own costs.

For detailed comparison, here's all of Australia's thermal (coal gas and liquid) fueld generation CO2/MWh

http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/Related-Information/~/media/Files/Other/planning/Emissions%202014/20140411_Emissions_report_V2.ashx
I can only assume you have an agenda too. I assume too, you have google.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I can only assume you have an agenda too. I assume too, you have google.


Nah, not really (only agenda is to help people realise that they are being snowed by certain parties)...but a website that calls itself "time for change"...?

Versus energy regulator facts and data, and a U.N. sustainability paper.

The energy regulator data I've used before today...for technical purposes.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The biggest problem with nukes is their waste. Until we start producing less dangerous waste or start reprocessing it they should not be expanded. They are not even economical to run currently.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I read the article. It is propaganda. The tax credit runs out in 10 years here in the US for new windfarms. Coal is dead and so is nuclear if they don't get a way to fix the waste problem.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Coal is finding out that the ash they have stored and need to get rid of will cost 100s 0f millions and the same for the nuclear plants. The two in Illinois that are getting shut down, Clinton and Quad Cities and lost $100M a year each for the last 8 years. This is the second time Clinton has been shut down due to unprofitably since it was built in 1987. It never has turned a profit.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nat Gas is much lower in CO2 emissions, doesn't require major mountain top mining and leaves behind no ash nor the other heavy metal pollutants. It's not even close. And the new Nat Gas plants are approaching 70-80% efficiency. Something coal can never come close too. Nukes by the way are only about 6% efficient as far as getting the thermal value from the fuel.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nuclear waste is the big bug a boo. Not much sense in building new ones when they are closing existing ones.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Seeing as thread is about nuke plants in the US and it taking 40 years to open one, the talk of either nuclear or coal is a non issue. Whereas natural gas generation is being rapidly installed and developed.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Can't get away from the radioactive waste that is deadly for eons with the nukes. Elimination of CO2 emissions is not the absolute goal. Nukes too have their CO2 footprint.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Again we are talking about the US. I guess eons depends on your definition.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Yes there is but this thread is about a US nuke plant. And they are closing them down because they are money loosers.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
You could say that with 7 reactors within 70 miles of me and a dishonest profit driven company that operates them.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I can only assume you have an agenda too. I assume too, you have google.


Anyone else see a pattern here?

Very interesting pattern of responses here when confronted by FACTS posted by both Overkill & Shannow. Closed-minded, defensive and drive-by responses...repeatedly...over & over & over again. Same old, same old that's the same old thinking by minds like this that threw such a fit during the 70's about nuclear power in the first place.

The biggest WASTE is the idiotic policy signed by Carter PROHIBITING the reprocessing of spent fuel rods. The second is labeling "spent fuel" WASTE, when the vast majority (96%?) of it is anything but. One would think the manic recycling crowd would have caught on by now, but they've been brainwashed and are incapable of critical thinking.

Further, Illinois is one, if not the worst, disasters of government led boondoggles, debt & corruption in the entire US. Primarly focused in the North. Only could that level of corruption lead to a city with the most restrictive guns laws, yet achieve the highest murder rates throughout the shores. Talk about twisted & distorted!! Small wonder everything there is so expensive!

But I digress.......back to nuclear power generation and the US vs. France & Canada.

Small wonder "two in Illinois are being shut down" and "never turned a profit". Well, yeah!

Arguing power production based on CO2 emissions?? You just unzipped and exposed yourself. Gimme a break. I find it very entertaining to watch the already overheated, manic eco crowd go into convulsions and drive their Euro SUVs on the sidewalk when confronted with the fact that nuclear power is GREENER than all their incredibly low-density power schemes.

What a mess a mass of emotional contradictions makes when colliding head on with FACTS & REALITY. "Clean up on aisle 9!"

As Shannow pointed out, even NG can't come close to "70-80% efficiency". Talk about agit-prop, and distorted figures! Sheer nonsense. You nail NG, coal & nuclear in three short sentences. More drive-by shooting (speaking of Illinois....).

The "big bug a boo" is the fact that the US Nuclear industry is so far behind compared to the rest of the world due to the statist baby-boomers and their now 50 yr. fit-throwing-rants about politicizing power generation and nuclear power in particular. I have yet to see a glowing child or a US nuclear plant turn into a bomb or cause a city to be evacuated. It hasn't happened. China Syndrome? More overheated rhetoric & fear propagation by the very unstable/emotional crowd who is fear-based.

Good-God man, France has been reprocessing spent nuclear fuel since the mid-60's.....

I remember all of the fit throwing while in engineering school about the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP). Even Austin Energy has NOW admitted it's now one of the best and most reliable operating plants. Imagine that? Where are all of the ranting, spewing, spitting, dope-smoking hippy crazies now?

As Overkill pointed out, the US nuclear industry is more-than-decades behind compared to others. I remember studying CANDU and the French plants while in school. French plants are located next to schools & cities. Even their kids don't confuse a cooling tower with a smoke stack. Here in the US? We had the screaming Ralph Nader influincing our nuclear policy. And we're still behind due to our crazy federal government & congress with no national energy policy, and idiots like Carter's 1977 decision.

How would you like to be driving a '77 Nova in 2016?

"Dishonest profit driven company". You unzipped again: Union. Profits are evil. Right? Your political bias and agenda is leaking out all over. It runs through all of your short, drive-by posts. It does take time to research and post references and both Shannow & Overkill are to be applauded for doing so.

Facts are indeed "Inconvienent Truths" eh?

I'm indeed [censored] off that as an educated engineer, I've had to live in the shadows of the older BB generation statist policital class that rose to power in the 60's, that made such idiotic decisions based on FEAR, progressivism, over-heated emotions and politik. That such nonsense and idiocy could ever last this long just amazes me. Yet here we are, more in a mess than ever before, with a narcissistic community organizer from the south side of ChiCOGo in the White House for eight years....the absolute WORST city for any political history of crime, corruption and cronyism has now infected the executive branch of the federal government.

I AM VERY PLEASED THOUGH TO HEAR THE TVA HAS BROUGHT A NEW REACTOR ON-LINE! That is indeed good news to shout about! Thanks for posting that Shannow!

Cheers & Beers to you both for your excellent presentation of the FACTS!

and

 

[SHOZ]

Well I hoped you were able to figure out I was against them. I don't think it takes a genius to see that. Excuse me for my views that have been formed by living in the middle of the largest concentration of nuke plant sin the USA.

Here's some more info about those benevolent companies and what they want out of the taxpayer or rate payer. The youtube is about the plant closest to me, about 40 miles.

This is what Exelon wanted to do so they could keep their money loosing plants open in Illinois.

In the glory days of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when nuclear power generation held the promise of electricity “too cheap to meter,” Illinois jumped in with both feet. Fourteen nuclear generating plants were built at nine sites across the state. The 11 that remain provide half of the state’s electricity.

But now those plants are getting old. Like any piece of complex equipment, the older a nuclear station gets, the more it costs to operate and maintain. Exelon Corp., the multistate holding company based in Chicago that owns 23 reactors among its operations around the country, has announced plans to close three reactors at two sites in Illinois. Unless, of course, the state would like to bail it out.

Here’s a $34.5 billion company that earned $2.2 billion last year, operating monopoly utilities, that for two straight years tried to convince Illinois lawmakers to cover its losses. Exelon wanted permission to pass on an estimated $170 million in costs to taxpayers and ratepayers in each of the next six years. The idea’s not dead, but it’s on life support.

The Legislature and Gov. Bruce Rauner, a year into their staring match over the state’s budget crisis, are too busy to entertain Exelon’s request. The Republican governor generally supports it. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan calls it a bailout and opposes it. But it’s not like the state has a spare $170 million in its budget. If it had a budget.

Editorial: In Illinois, the nuclear age comes creaking to a halt

Critics wary as California regulators prepare to reopen San Onofre nuclear settlement case

Initial comments are due tomorrow at the California Public Utilities Commission, as regulators try and determine how best to move forward following revelations of ex parte communications surrounding the settlement to close the San Onofre nuclear plant, KPBS.org reports.
Southern California Edison (SCE) closed the plant after radioactive steam leaks were discovered in 2012, and a deal shouldered consumers with $3.3 billion in closing costs.
Critics say those costs should have been borne by shareholders, and following discovery of secret meetings between utility officials and regulators, they may get another chance to make their case.

Radioactive Leaks at Illinois Nuclear Plant

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ

But now those plants are getting old. Like any piece of complex equipment, the older a nuclear station gets, the more it costs to operate and maintain.



Our plants (and I assume the same goes for the French ones) have a refurb cycle, which means, once the reactors reach a specific age, things get overhauled, which costs a few billion dollars. This is offset by the 30 or so years of close to 99% reliable power output, at close to maximum capacity, that those facilities provide however. Once the refurb is complete, that reactor is set for another 30 years or so. Bruce has already been mostly done, Darlington just started on its first refresh. It's a great investment when you consider our local provincial government has earmarked 100 billion for wind and solar which don't have anywhere near the potential for the same sort of power yield and reliability for that kind of money.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Yes there is but this thread is about a US nuke plant. And they are closing them down because they are money loosers.
They are CLOSING plants that have run beyond their projected lifespan already.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ

But now those plants are getting old. Like any piece of complex equipment, the older a nuclear station gets, the more it costs to operate and maintain.



Our plants (and I assume the same goes for the French ones) have a refurb cycle, which means, once the reactors reach a specific age, things get overhauled, which costs a few billion dollars. This is offset by the 30 or so years of close to 99% reliable power output, at close to maximum capacity, that those facilities provide however. Once the refurb is complete, that reactor is set for another 30 years or so. Bruce has already been mostly done, Darlington just started on its first refresh. It's a great investment when you consider our local provincial government has earmarked 100 billion for wind and solar which don't have anywhere near the potential for the same sort of power yield and reliability for that kind of money.
+1

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The biggest problem with nukes is their waste. Until we start producing less dangerous waste or start reprocessing it they should not be expanded. They are not even economical to run currently.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I read the article. It is propaganda. The tax credit runs out in 10 years here in the US for new windfarms. Coal is dead and so is nuclear if they don't get a way to fix the waste problem.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Coal is finding out that the ash they have stored and need to get rid of will cost 100s 0f millions and the same for the nuclear plants. The two in Illinois that are getting shut down, Clinton and Quad Cities and lost $100M a year each for the last 8 years. This is the second time Clinton has been shut down due to unprofitably since it was built in 1987. It never has turned a profit.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nat Gas is much lower in CO2 emissions, doesn't require major mountain top mining and leaves behind no ash nor the other heavy metal pollutants. It's not even close. And the new Nat Gas plants are approaching 70-80% efficiency. Something coal can never come close too. Nukes by the way are only about 6% efficient as far as getting the thermal value from the fuel.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nuclear waste is the big bug a boo. Not much sense in building new ones when they are closing existing ones.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Seeing as thread is about nuke plants in the US and it taking 40 years to open one, the talk of either nuclear or coal is a non issue. Whereas natural gas generation is being rapidly installed and developed.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Can't get away from the radioactive waste that is deadly for eons with the nukes. Elimination of CO2 emissions is not the absolute goal. Nukes too have their CO2 footprint.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Again we are talking about the US. I guess eons depends on your definition.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Yes there is but this thread is about a US nuke plant. And they are closing them down because they are money loosers.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
You could say that with 7 reactors within 70 miles of me and a dishonest profit driven company that operates them.

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I can only assume you have an agenda too. I assume too, you have google.


Anyone else see a pattern here?

Very interesting pattern of responses here when confronted by FACTS posted by both Overkill & Shannow. Closed-minded, defensive and drive-by responses...repeatedly...over & over & over again. Same old, same old that's the same old thinking by minds like this that threw such a fit during the 70's about nuclear power in the first place.

The biggest WASTE is the idiotic policy signed by Carter PROHIBITING the reprocessing of spent fuel rods. The second is labeling "spent fuel" WASTE, when the vast majority (96%?) of it is anything but. One would think the manic recycling crowd would have caught on by now, but they've been brainwashed and are incapable of critical thinking.

Further, Illinois is one, if not the worst, disasters of government led boondoggles, debt & corruption in the entire US. Primarly focused in the North. Only could that level of corruption lead to a city with the most restrictive guns laws, yet achieve the highest murder rates throughout the shores. Talk about twisted & distorted!! Small wonder everything there is so expensive!

But I digress.......back to nuclear power generation and the US vs. France & Canada.

Small wonder "two in Illinois are being shut down" and "never turned a profit". Well, yeah!

Arguing power production based on CO2 emissions?? You just unzipped and exposed yourself. Gimme a break. I find it very entertaining to watch the already overheated, manic eco crowd go into convulsions and drive their Euro SUVs on the sidewalk when confronted with the fact that nuclear power is GREENER than all their incredibly low-density power schemes.

What a mess a mass of emotional contradictions makes when colliding head on with FACTS & REALITY. "Clean up on aisle 9!"

As Shannow pointed out, even NG can't come close to "70-80% efficiency". Talk about agit-prop, and distorted figures! Sheer nonsense. You nail NG, coal & nuclear in three short sentences. More drive-by shooting (speaking of Illinois....).

The "big bug a boo" is the fact that the US Nuclear industry is so far behind compared to the rest of the world due to the statist baby-boomers and their now 50 yr. fit-throwing-rants about politicizing power generation and nuclear power in particular. I have yet to see a glowing child or a US nuclear plant turn into a bomb or cause a city to be evacuated. It hasn't happened. China Syndrome? More overheated rhetoric & fear propagation by the very unstable/emotional crowd who is fear-based.

Good-God man, France has been reprocessing spent nuclear fuel since the mid-60's.....

I remember all of the fit throwing while in engineering school about the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP). Even Austin Energy has NOW admitted it's now one of the best and most reliable operating plants. Imagine that? Where are all of the ranting, spewing, spitting, dope-smoking hippy crazies now?

As Overkill pointed out, the US nuclear industry is more-than-decades behind compared to others. I remember studying CANDU and the French plants while in school. French plants are located next to schools & cities. Even their kids don't confuse a cooling tower with a smoke stack. Here in the US? We had the screaming Ralph Nader influincing our nuclear policy. And we're still behind due to our crazy federal government & congress with no national energy policy, and idiots like Carter's 1977 decision.

How would you like to be driving a '77 Nova in 2016?

"Dishonest profit driven company". You unzipped again: Union. Profits are evil. Right? Your political bias and agenda is leaking out all over. It runs through all of your short, drive-by posts. It does take time to research and post references and both Shannow & Overkill are to be applauded for doing so.

Facts are indeed "Inconvienent Truths" eh?

I'm indeed [censored] off that as an educated engineer, I've had to live in the shadows of the older BB generation statist policital class that rose to power in the 60's, that made such idiotic decisions based on FEAR, progressivism, over-heated emotions and politik. That such nonsense and idiocy could ever last this long just amazes me. Yet here we are, more in a mess than ever before, with a narcissistic community organizer from the south side of ChiCOGo in the White House for eight years....the absolute WORST city for any political history of crime, corruption and cronyism has now infected the executive branch of the federal government.

I AM VERY PLEASED THOUGH TO HEAR THE TVA HAS BROUGHT A NEW REACTOR ON-LINE! That is indeed good news to shout about! Thanks for posting that Shannow!

Cheers & Beers to you both for your excellent presentation of the FACTS!

and

A big +1 from me.

 

[Koz1]

Nuclear needs power so as not to go critical and meltdown. If the grid pops completely the Earth is as good as dead.
The Sun can do produce this.