McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

[hanelyp]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080619/D91CQTCO0.html

"...he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new (reactors) by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future."

I would not be too surprised to see polywell tech ready for use in some of the later reactors in that time frame.

"He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed."

Note that when that policy was set in place "reprocessing" pretty much meant plutonium extraction. Other methods have since been devised, though the fuel some produce isn't compatible with many reactors in current use. Something to consider when building a new reactor.

[Tom Ligon]

A little bird (hawk of the buteos group) told me Carter, in spite of his nuclear Navy background, thought we should not use nuclear reactors because they transmuted elements ... alchemy ... a work of the Devil.

Carter is a really nice guy, and I'm glad he has found something he is actually good at with Habitat for Humanity.

[MSimon]

Carter never completed his quals.

[JohnP]

Carter, in spite of his nuclear Navy background, thought we should not use nuclear reactors because they transmuted elements ... alchemy ... a work of the Devil.

If religious folk ever find out what's going on in the Sun, we're done for.

[Tom Ligon]

A lot of the old Soviet weapons arsenal is being torn down and reprocessed as fuel. I believe they mix the plutonium with natural uranium, or something along those lines. I expect that could fundamentally work in most US reactors, but the control systems and procedures might need substantial changes. Nukes are very dependent on various delayed fission reactions, and a change in the timing of the reactions might make it sporty to just drop those in instead of enriched uranium.

The push for a new generation of nukes started with the idea to reprocess bombs into fuel. Part of the reason the Greens are warming up to the idea is the "swords to plowshares" aspect. Overall, they are coming to believe the nuclear waste problem is easier to deal with than alternatives such as burning coal or blowing up bombs.

[olivier]

If you're interested, here is some info on the US MOX fuel fabrication facility which will turn some military Pu into civilian fuel. According to a dual agreement, the Russians are supposed to do the same, but TTBOMK their programme is not as advanced.
It is not very different whether you burn a mix of U and military Pu or standard PWR fuel, since the latter contains up to one percent of Pu, sometimes more, built up by neutron captures and beta emissions in U238. Minor changes are required due to higher reactivity : more control rods with a higher boron grade.

[WillKell]

Carter is a really nice guy, and I'm glad he has found something he is actually good at with Habitat for Humanity.

I thought I read that just two months ago he went to the middle-east to do "Habitat for Hamas" since a lot of safe houses had been destroyed?

[MSimon]

Carter is a really nice guy, and I'm glad he has found something he is actually good at with Habitat for Humanity.

I thought I read that just two months ago he went to the middle-east to do "Habitat for Hamas" since a lot of safe houses had been destroyed?

That is so wicked. You naughty boy.

[TallDave]

If religious folk ever find out what's going on in the Sun, we're done for.

The Aztec priests had a solution.

[Roger]

I would not be too surprised to see polywell tech ready for use in some of the later reactors in that time frame.

@ 15-20 billion per nuke? You actually think that many would be built ?

100 new nukes ? 45 by 2030 ?

Solar wind and tar sands look to come out on top at that price. Thats where some nukes might be built, in Alberta, to process the bitumen. Not enough natgas, holding back the project.

A new nuke At Indian Point NJ is slated to cost 15 billion, right now. If that gets delayed 2 years, call it 20 billion. For what ? 1000mw ? That comes online in 2013, 2018 ?

100 new nukes ? 45 by 2030 ? That represents a large scale up in construction talent and assets.

Sounds like the same problem scaling up BFR production. Except if Dr Nebel gets his wish to biuld a 100mw pulse mode WB-8, and it works. Give it 10 years to production @ 2020 we'll see the first production models...

At that point BFR's could be rolling off the production line at 100/annum.

[Roger]

From the same article:


"and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality,"



OMG, Coal Industry studies show that peak coal comes at 2025, sooner if we use more. Carbon sequestration is probably just as far away as the ITER is.

So mine coal, drill for oil, but GW is real...... so we'll build nukes ?

How about $2 billion a year in federal funds "to install existing solar panel technology"... How about $2 billion a year in federal funds "to install existing wind turbine technology".

World wide experts say solar and wind is ready to provide 20% of electrical needs NOW.

Peak demand for air conditioners is the same time that solar hits peak production, thats a pretty good fit. Not the classical definition of load, never the less a oood fit.

[seedload]

World wide experts say solar and wind is ready to provide 20% of electrical needs NOW.

That is the problem isn't it. 20% of today is 10% of tomorrow and a fraction of a percent of the next day.

[MSimon]

GW is real?

Even the GW folks say another 10 years of stall or even declining temperatures.

The solar guys who have worked out that the resonance of the Jupiter/Sun/Solar system center of mass say that we are in for a little ice age.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm

We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

178.7/19.86 =~ 8.998 178.7/22.3=~8.0135

The implication is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... l-cooling/

According to an interview with Andrew Bolt, of the Australian Newspaper, Herald Sun, Ian Wilson, one of the authors explained:

It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C.

We are going to need a lot of cheap energy if we hope to keep everyone fed and warm. CO2 is going to be the least of our problems.

[MSimon]

World wide experts say solar and wind is ready to provide 20% of electrical needs NOW.

That is the problem isn't it. 20% of today is 10% of tomorrow and a fraction of a percent of the next day.

The 20% limit in the USA is mostly a stability limit of the grid with no long term storage (i.e. 24 hour storage with >85% energy recovery).

[TheRadicalModerate]

Does anybody know what's going on with the modular pebble-bed R&D? What are the engineering snags that are preventing this from being deployed? PBMR seems like a pretty straighforward way to take the cost of a nuke plant down by at least a factor of 10.