US Approves Two New Nuclear Reactors

[ElNono]

"For the first time in 30 years, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors (http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/02/09/nrc-approves-vogtle-reactor-construction-_2d00_-first-new-nuclear-plant-approval-in-34-years-_2800_with-new-plant-photos_2900_-020902.aspx) in Georgia. These are the first licenses to be issued since the Three Mile Island incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) in 1979. The pair of facilities will cost $14 billion and produce 2.2 GW of power (able to power ~1 million homes). They will be Westinghouse AP1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000) designs, which are the newest reactors approved by the NRC. These models passively cool their fuel rods using condensation and gravity, rather than electricity, preventing the possibility of another Fukushima Daiichi-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster) meltdown due to loss of power to cooling water pumps. Expected to begin operation in 2016 or 2017, the pair of new AP1000 reactors (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/12/23/0015228/nrc-approves-new-nuclear-reactor-design) will produce around 2GW of power for the southeast. This is the first of the new combined construction and operating licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Construction_and_Operating_License) ever issued by the NRC; hopefully this bodes well for the many other pending applications (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html)."

[RandomGuy]

They will end up costing, if history is any guide $28bn at least. I remain highly skeptical about nukes are the government subsidies, and cost overruns.

I will dig into the financials for the first, and time will tell for the second. It does point out how hollow the GOP criticism about the current administrations energy policy is.

[boutons_deux]

Who's financing construction loan? at what interest rate? Penalties for default?

What are the insurance caps? (iow, at what insurance payout level does the US taxpayer pick up the tab?)

[Wild Cobra]

Hopefully, we can see if this design becomes economically feasible for more. Not expecting it will be though. I think one way or another, environmentalist agendas will drive up the costs, beyond normal unstated or planned costs.

[ChumpDumper]

Why should they be subsidized?

[clambake]

we're doing it just to piss off iran.

[JoeChalupa]

Build them and start cranking out some power.

[mercos]

I would prefer if the government spent its money researching solar to get it at parity with current power generation methods. It is much cleaner and more abundant. We've got another billion years or so of solar power to play with.

[ElNono]

I would prefer if the government spent its money researching solar to get it at parity with current power generation methods. It is much cleaner and more abundant. We've got another billion years or so of solar power to play with.

Solar is still in it's infancy for all intents and purposes... Plus it's not like R&D on solar is going to be stopped...

For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution.

[mercos]

I have never been a fan of nuclear power. After seeing the incident in Japan last year I am even less of a fan. I would honestly prefer staying on coal fired plants and working on carbon capture techniques.

[boutons_deux]

"For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution."

immediate? Probably not a milliwatt delivered before 2020

[Wild Cobra]

Solar is still in it's infancy for all intents and purposes... Plus it's not like R&D on solar is going to be stopped...

For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution.
Is this the first time this year we agree?

Mark this day!

[Wild Cobra]

"For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution."

immediate? Probably not a milliwatt delivered before 2020
Relative to a nations existence, it is relatively immediate.

[TheSullyMonster]

Why should they be subsidized?

Infrastructure is pretty much always subsidized.:toast

[ElNono]

"For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution."

immediate? Probably not a milliwatt delivered before 2020

Even if delayed until 2020 (not sure where this date came from), it simply can provide with much more energy than solar in that lapse of time.

Solar isn't a non-viable tech. It simply still has to evolve (ie: better battery capacity and longevity, better power collection, etc). Right now building a massive scale solar project without having those hurdles worked out would simply be irresponsible.

Right now solar has evolved enough for smaller-scale generation, like a supplement of energy for houses. It's still evolving all the time, and one day perhaps it will make sense to build entire city power generators based on it. That day is not here yet.

[boutons_deux]

"Solar isn't a non-viable tech."

iow, solar is a viable tech.

Even without energy storage, it's a viable, and exploding, tech.

"Right now building a massive scale solar project without having those hurdles worked out would simply be irresponsible."

There are 100s, 1000s of irresponsible massive scale solar projects financed and under construction, just an incredible momentum. And probably 1000000s of residential/small-scale projects, too.

"Right now solar has evolved enough for smaller-scale generation, like a supplement of energy for houses"

you are TOTALLY out of touch with solar industry.

Repug/oil/coal-dominated TX will of course lag badly in govt policies to encourage renewable energy. Feed-in tariffs as found in more progressive states and time-of-day electricity pricing will keep new coal and nuclear plants to a minimum.

eg, CPS charges $0.11 to sell you power (this will probably soon go to the TX avg of $0.13+/hr as SA metro grows but CPS has no new coal or nuclear imminent), but credits you only $0.02 for your fed-in electricity.

[Agloco]

:tu

Top notch designs.

[boutons_deux]

what about total life-cycle costs including mining, environmental destruction, and nuclear waste disposal?

[cheguevara]

The NRC approved the license over the objections of its chairman, Gregory Jaczko, who wanted the license to stipulate that the units would meet new standards recommended by the agency’s Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) report:

“I think this license needed something that ensured that the changes as a result of Fukushima would be implemented,” Jaczko said in an interview after the vote. “It’s like when you go to buy a house and the home inspector identifies things that should be fixed. You don’t go to closing before those things are fixed.”

[The Reckoning]

if anything theyll bring in jobs to an area thats starving for them

[mercos]

I don't believe the solar field is as weak as others believe. Working technology already exists, it just needs to be improved. In the years it will take to build a nuclear plant the technology will grow in leaps and bounds. If the proper time and resources are put into it I believe we will see exponential growth. If the government is smart and keeps parts production for the industry within the US it will also create a lot of jobs. If all this means slightly higher power bills for a short amount of time I think it is worth it to gain energy independence sooner.

[coyotes_geek]

IMO we're pretty close to small-scale solar being viable, but I think we're a ways off from large-scale solar projects being viable. I think solar's future is more about individual rooftops than it is about utility grade electrical generation facilities. At least for the next couple of decades.

[SnakeBoy]

IMO we're pretty close to small-scale solar being viable, but I think we're a ways off from large-scale solar projects being viable. I think solar's future is more about individual rooftops than it is about utility grade electrical generation facilities. At least for the next couple of decades.

Yep, hopefully someday we will see solar panels on top of the White House as a symbol of the future.

[RandomGuy]

Solar is still in it's infancy for all intents and purposes... Plus it's not like R&D on solar is going to be stopped...

For scaling immediate needs, this seems like a reasonable solution.

Solar's first use will be to replace expensive "stand-by" natural gas capacity.

Recent declines in natural gas prices have made that less economical, all things equal.

All things are not equal, however, and solar is benefitting rather from economies of scale and increased efficiency gains.

Between the manufacturing learning curve, efficiencies of scale, and the increases in capture efficiency, solar PV looks to cross some rather crucial thresholds when it comes to cost competitiveness with oil/coal/gas within about 10 years. Solar thermal is also on the same trendlines, as protoype plants move into operation.

Once that happens, new capacity will shift to solar, and older plants being decomissioned will start to be replaced by renewables. We are already seeing this with wind.

We will still make wide use of coal and gas for electricity and so forth, and certainly use gas for heating.

In the current investment environment with low interest rates, the long-term economics favor solar PV quite heavily. If interest rates stay low for another few years, as I think is likely, we are going to see a LOT of money poured into PV not because of any government subsidy, but because the economics will favor them heavily.

Solar has moved out of its infancy. I think it is closer to being a toddler. :)

Lastly, I would point out:

PV can start producing power from the very first months of a project, as they can hook up rows of panels to the converter as they build and install them.

Nuclear is a good base-load plant, but be aware of the high costs. Generally accepted figures in the cost analyses I have seen for installed watts are around $6,000. If you do the math, this project comes in right around there at $6300 for the "sticker" price. If they have the normal cost overruns that nukes seem to be subject to, that figure will balloon to about $13,000-$25,000, and end up making this a very pricey chunk of power indeed.

[RandomGuy]

Yep, hopefully someday we will see solar panels on top of the White House as a symbol of the future.

Oooh, snap. That was a good one. (tip 'o the hat)


(reference: solar panels put there by Carter, and subsequently removed, which is I assume what you are getting at)

A couple of things to bear in mind:

The first PV panels ever produced 50 years ago, still work. One of the complications of cost analysis for PV is that we have yet to figure out how long they will actually last, because they haven't worn out yet.

The costs per installed watt have come down quite a bit since Jimmy had the first experimental units put in. If I remember correctly the cost of a unit of capacity in 2012 is less than 10% of what it was in Carter's time.

[ElNono]

Solar as a large-scale generation includes much more than just solar-tech. As I pointed out earlier, you'll also need massive improvements in battery tech, among other things. And that's one of the areas that's been doing R&D for many, many years because it's applicable not just to solar, but other areas as well. The improvements will likely keep on coming, but it's unlikely you'll see a short term "leaps and bounds" increase in said tech. The good news is that investment on R&D in those areas is not slowing down.

I would argue that building a nuclear plant will actually provide more jobs. China has basically taken over the manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. Anything that's small enough size (or can be broken down into small enough size) and transported relatively easily will find it's way to China for manufacturing.

[ElNono]

Solar's first use will be to replace expensive "stand-by" natural gas capacity.

I agree solar might already make for a good secondary power generation at this point.


Nuclear is a good base-load plant, but be aware of the high costs. Generally accepted figures in the cost analyses I have seen for installed watts are around $6,000. If you do the math, this project comes in right around there at $6300 for the "sticker" price. If they have the normal cost overruns that nukes seem to be subject to, that figure will balloon to about $13,000-$25,000, and end up making this a very pricey chunk of power indeed.

Well, they seemingly need the extra power now. If you're sitting right now having to make a decision to build a primary power generation facility that gives you a specific output in 3/4 years time, I would assume you would go with proven tech. Solar simply isn't there yet to provide primary power generation. Hopefully we'll get there in a few years/decades.

[RandomGuy]

I agree solar might already make for a good secondary power generation at this point.



Well, they seemingly need the extra power now. If you're sitting right now having to make a decision to build a primary power generation facility that gives you a specific output in 3/4 years time, I would assume you would go with proven tech. Solar simply isn't there yet to provide primary power generation. Hopefully we'll get there in a few years/decades.

NIMBY will prevent this from coming online within the estimated time frame and drive the costs far beyond the sticker price.

It won't be the "environmentalists", it will be the neighbors.

Honestly, I think this project is an important test bed for a lot of reasons, and should be done, even if the overruns go into the 400% range, if only to learn that nukes can go 400% over projected costs and should be avoided like the plague.

Solar will be there within about 10 years, if not sooner, probably about the time this reactor comes online.

[ElNono]

NIMBY will prevent this from coming online within the estimated time frame and drive the costs far beyond the sticker price.

It won't be the "environmentalists", it will be the neighbors.

Honestly, I think this project is an important test bed for a lot of reasons, and should be done, even if the overruns go into the 400% range, if only to learn that nukes can go 400% over projected costs and should be avoided like the plague.

Solar will be there within about 10 years, if not sooner, probably about the time this reactor comes online.

I don't necessarily disagree. But again, if you have to make a decision today, anything but proven tech today would be irresponsible.

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, hopefully someday we will see solar panels on top of the White House as a symbol of the future.
You mean for a third time?

[Wild Cobra]

Oooh, snap. That was a good one. (tip 'o the hat)


(reference: solar panels put there by Carter, and subsequently removed, which is I assume what you are getting at)

A couple of things to bear in mind:

The first PV panels ever produced 50 years ago, still work. One of the complications of cost analysis for PV is that we have yet to figure out how long they will actually last, because they haven't worn out yet.

The costs per installed watt have come down quite a bit since Jimmy had the first experimental units put in. If I remember correctly the cost of a unit of capacity in 2012 is less than 10% of what it was in Carter's time.
Yes, but president Bush put in the first PV panels, and they are 9 kw. The ones Carter put in were to heat water. These at the time were costing more than they saved. The Multnomah County Maintenance shops that I worked in right after the military had removed their panels too. just too expensive in maintenance costs. Now Obama, by a 2011 article puts more panel up, but they are to heat water...

Drip... Drip... Drip...

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

I should have kept looking before posting the last one:

Obama Administration Fails On Promise To Put Solar Panels On White House Roof (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/solar-panels-white-house-roof_n_880940.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Is it possible they didn't know president bush already did this?

5uPurcFrYbs

[boutons_deux]

World’s Largest Concentrating Solar Power Plant Hits Milestone


http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/02/SolarReserve.jpg

America’s first commercial-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) facility took a major step forward this week with completion of the project’s 540-foot tower.

When complete, the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, located near Tonopah, Nevada, will feature 110-megawatts of new solar capacity with fully integrated energy storage, and be the largest CSP facility in the world.

Crescent Dunes has secured a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with NV Energy, and will supply 480,000 megawatt-hours annually – enough to power 75,000 homes. The project is being built on federal land operated by the Bureau of Land Management, and is expected to be operational by the end of 2013.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/10/worlds-largest-concentrating-solar-power-plant-hits-milestone/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Wild Cobra]

I hope it's cost effective so we can build more.

[RandomGuy]

I hope it's cost effective so we can build more.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57373508-76/solar-tower-will-power-las-vegas-at-night/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=GreenTech

That steady operation through storage results in more energy produced over the course of a year compared to solar photovoltaic projects with the same power rating. The 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes project will produce about 500,000 megawatt-hours per year. A solar photovoltaic project with 110 megawatts capable of peak output would produce less than half the energy on a yearly basis, Smith said.

Funding for this size of project is significant. SolarReserve raised $260 million in private equity and $737 million in debt from the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program.

The company is already working on other projects, including larger ones in the Middle East, Smith said. But the primary challenge, apart from completing this project, is bringing the cost of electricity down. With the plunge in solar panel prices, a few large-scale solar projects have scrapped solar thermal technologies for photovoltaics.

The cost for energy from this plant is projected to be 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour and will go up 1 percent a year during its 25-year power purchase agreement. That's cheaper than a new nuclear power plant or a coal plant with carbon capture and storage, but more expensive than a new natural gas plant, Smith said

"This technology has been well proven. (But) this is project No. 1, so it's like a hand-crafted large-scale project," he said. "The key for future projects is to make improvements on the pricing."

----------------------------------------------

That last bit is very important. The learning curve dictates that the next project from the company will come a fair amount cheaper, as the bugs are worked out.

13.5 should be considered the baseline cost and future costs should be fairly heavily discounted.

After the financing is paid off, 20 years or so from now, the residents of Nevada will be getting some cheeeeeeap power. The 13.5cents per watt includes financing costs.

[ElNono]

I wonder what their revenue looks like. The article only mentions tax revenue.

[johnsmith]

RG, I know we've had this discussion before, but I feel like I'm older and more mature now and therefore, can have it without resorting to calling you a douche.......so here it goes.....

When nuke power is brought up, you always mention cost overruns....which I understand your thinking on it, but what, in your opinion, is the cause of these overruns and can you provide examples?

Not trying to sound like a dick here with the examples thing, but I want to know what your referencing or thinking about when you say this.

[RandomGuy]

RG, I know we've had this discussion before, but I feel like I'm older and more mature now and therefore, can have it without resorting to calling you a douche.......so here it goes.....

When nuke power is brought up, you always mention cost overruns....which I understand your thinking on it, but what, in your opinion, is the cause of these overruns and can you provide examples?

Not trying to sound like a dick here with the examples thing, but I want to know what your referencing or thinking about when you say this.

Asking for some underlying support does not make you sound like a dick. It is very reasonable and a good thing. The cost overruns tend to come from redesigns to plans, and from lawsuits that delay construction. The best example I can think of is San Antonio's own utility. Dig a bit and you will find the specifics. Ian on my cell phone, so what I can post is somewhat limited, otherwise I would get for ya right away.

[johnsmith]

Asking for some underlying support does not make you sound like a dick. It is very reasonable and a good thing. The cost overruns tend to come from redesigns to plans, and from lawsuits that delay construction. The best example I can think of is San Antonio's own utility. Dig a bit and you will find the specifics. Ian on my cell phone, so what I can post is somewhat limited, otherwise I would get for ya right away.

Ok, so here me out on this because you're exactly right, redesigns and to a lesser extent lawsuits are what generally increase cost (and commodity and material price escalation), which is tough to judge based on the fact that steel, oil, and concrete prices have fluctuated more in the past few years than they ever have.

So having said that, wouldn't building a couple of these things now, and perfecting this construction to prevent redesign issues help mitigate overruns on future projects?

And wouldn't getting rid of some of the "red tape" that contractors have to go through also mitigate cost issues?

My point being, if we made construction a simple process and allowed the engineers and designers do their thing up front, wouldn't these plants make sense? So are we (gov't) getting in our own way of making these work?

[johnsmith]

However, now that I'm thinking more about it, Engineers nowadays are not what they used to be. I struggle to look at a complete set of plans for a fucking starbucks so the thought of them actually designing to completion a nuke plant that doesn't require 3 million RFI's and even more change orders doesn't sound very realistic to me.

However, the contractors that will build these plants stand to make a bundle because of all the initial design issues and the fact that engineers are fucking lazy.

[boutons_deux]

Industry Forecasts Strong Investments in Energy Storage Markets

Within the U.S., industry analysts forecast that $240 billion will be invested in storage grid applications over the next 10 years. Overall, government support is strong with the Department of Energy (DOE) Smart Grid Demonstration Grants project investing $772 million. Strong investments from the government and venture capitalists, successful demonstration projects, and recent technological advancements have all contributed to strong growth in the storage market.

Market drivers are energy independence and security; smart grid investments; time of use/peak demand rates; increase in renewables and distributed generation; and government policies, incentives and regulations. Though all sectors of the energy storage market show strong potential, from an application perspective distributed generation devices, renewable systems, and ancillary services show the greatest near term growth potential. Global opportunity over the next 10 to 20 years is estimated at upwards of 300 gigawatts (GW) in size, which translates into $200-$600 billion in value.

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2012/02/us-grid-energy-storage-market-is-strong-and-poised-for-exponential-growth/453

========

Lots of complaints and criticisms of US's creaky, unreliable grid, which contributes to restricting growth of wind and solar (see CPS' problems getting transmission lines from West TX through the Hill Country). Pretty stupid to build any new energy sources without also upgrading/adding transmission.

[Borat Sagyidev]

:tu

Top notch designs.

In terms of safety and non-proliferation concerns, absolutely agree. The design is absolutely progressive and will do much do ease public concerns.

However, my view is that all new reactors should be a fuel breeder at this point. It's sort of ancient view from the 60's, but it's time has come. These reactors could serve as a starting point for new development, but it's not a given.

The largest uranium reserves in the world are in Australia, Kazakhstan (greatest country in world) and Canada and they are being heavily exploited. Most forecasts give those reserves 80 years until depletion. That's not long enough and puts the sustainability on par with petroleum.

If humans are going to continue to develop technologically more than a few centuries from today we're going to need a high density power source that is more convenient than the sun. It's going to take extreme power densities for humans to leave this planet (or anything for that matter), something nuclear energy can readily provide.

Barring any spontaneous cold fusion developments, we shouldn't be wasting fissile material that in some sense is irreplaceable without some foresight.

[Borat Sagyidev]

However, now that I'm thinking more about it, Engineers nowadays are not what they used to be. I struggle to look at a complete set of plans for a fucking starbucks so the thought of them actually designing to completion a nuke plant that doesn't require 3 million RFI's and even more change orders doesn't sound very realistic to me.

However, the contractors that will build these plants stand to make a bundle because of all the initial design issues and the fact that engineers are fucking lazy.

Not what they used to be? Lazy? You show me a lazy engineer today, and I'll show you someone who is not an engineer. I've had students go through nervous breakdowns with engineering courses with this sort of thing. These designs have been vetted over many years. It's not some douchebag designed Total Gym completed in 3 months.


1940 Tacoma Bridge. Not what they used to be.
http://blogofbad.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/tacoma.jpg

[Hermey]

Agloco must be masturbating to this topic.

[boutons_deux]

Engineering competence, esp mass production engineering, is less of a problem than the bean-counters (working for mgmt and investors, not for customrs) cutting corners (quality).

[Agloco]

I struggle to look at a complete set of plans for a fucking starbucks so the thought of them actually designing to completion a nuke plant that doesn't require 3 million RFI's and even more change orders doesn't sound very realistic to me.

Not surprising considering that you struggle to look through design plans for Starbucks. It's an entirely different scope as you point out. How many engineers does it take to......



Agloco must be masturbating to this topic.

I don't tend to mix work and private life tbh. Thanks for your concern though.

[Agloco]

Not surprising considering that you struggle to look through design plans for Starbucks. It's an entirely different scope as you point out. How many engineers does it take to......

Whoops JS, this was poorly worded. Apologies.

My intent was to say: I can understand why it seems unrealistic to you if looking at Starbucks plans gives you that much grief. for the record though, I don't see most issues as a fault of engineering.

[mouse]

Agloco must be masturbating to this topic.

The man wont be happy until everyone's piss is glowing.

[boutons_deux]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Vogtle Reactor Approval Should Blow Lid Off Nuclear Finance Scam

Coming almost exactly two years after the Obama administration granted the project $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees, the NRC’s OK for the project did not signal a groundbreaking at Vogtle. Thanks to a redefinition of what constitutes construction [5], drafted under a former NRC commissioner who now works for the nuclear industry, Southern started building on the site long before the AP1000 reactor design was finally approved by the NRC last December. And foundations were poured into the Georgia earth before environmental impact surveys were even required to be filed. So, Thursday’s move did not actually start construction, but it did start the roulette wheel turning on a massive financial gamble where Southern Company is pretty much assured of winning, and US taxpayers and Georgia utility customers are guaranteed to lose.

To date, DOE has produced heavily censored documents that have provided little or no information in an effort to frustrate any analysis that would be useful to taxpayers. Based on the limited information produced to date, it appears that the power companies had to put almost no “skin in the game,” only promising to pay a token credit subsidy fee of what could be as little as 0.5 or 1.5 percent of the total loan principal.

DOE claims that the loan guarantee terms and credit subsidy fee estimates are confidential and may only be viewed by Georgia Power and its utility partners. Let’s hope DOE is wrong. For such information to be withheld as confidential, it must have been obtained from the utilities themselves. If the power companies are literally writing their own guarantees and credit subsidy fee estimates, the Loan Guarantee Program is more flawed than anyone could have imagined.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/12465

[Wild Cobra]

The man wont be happy until everyone's piss is glowing.
No, just yours.

[Agloco]

However, my view is that all new reactors should be a fuel breeder at this point. It's sort of ancient view from the 60's, but it's time has come. These reactors could serve as a starting point for new development, but it's not a given.

The largest uranium reserves in the world are in Australia, Kazakhstan (greatest country in world) and Canada and they are being heavily exploited. Most forecasts give those reserves 80 years until depletion. That's not long enough and puts the sustainability on par with petroleum.

If humans are going to continue to develop technologically more than a few centuries from today we're going to need a high density power source that is more convenient than the sun. It's going to take extreme power densities for humans to leave this planet (or anything for that matter), something nuclear energy can readily provide.

Barring any spontaneous cold fusion developments, we shouldn't be wasting fissile material that in some sense is irreplaceable without some foresight.

Good insights. :tu

I'm not up to speed on the latest projections for pitchblende reserves tbh. Back in my reactor design days projections were that we had well over 130 years worth. The number you cite seems reasonable in that context.

Also agree about breeder reactors as a more mainstream design consideration for future plants. Why not take advantage of the vast quantities of Actinides lying around? Reduce waste stockpiles by using them as a fuel source.

[Agloco]

The man wont be happy until everyone's piss is glowing.

:cry

[mouse]

No, just yours.

Neon showers?

[Wild Cobra]

Neon showers?
Neon isn't radioactive.

[boutons_deux]

More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-shot-2012-02-10-at-7.37.06-AM.png

Even with a few countries pulling back on government support of the industry because of fiscal troubles, 2011 was still a huge year for deployment — with wind and solar alone representing almost 70% of new capacity.

That’s almost a 10-fold increase over deployment in 2000, when only 3.5 GW of renewable energy projects were installed. Last year, 32 GW of renewables — mostly wind and solar — were deployed across European countries.

The figures come from the European Wind Energy Association, which just released a report on industry growth.

Growth in Europe has consistently outstripped forecasts. The EU currently has a target of getting 20% of its final energy (heat, electricity and fuels) from renewable energy. Numerous countries have already surpassed their needed targets in the electricity and heating sectors, and it’s likely that the entire region will move past the goal well ahead of schedule.

It’s expected that renewable electricity sources will meet 34% of demand in Europe by 2020, with 25 of 27 countries to surpass their targets beforehand.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/12/422649/new-european-electricity-capacity-wind-solar-in-2011/

[boutons_deux]

Latest Accident at San Onofre Nuclear Plant Worries Activists, Residents

“And now we have an incident in our own backyard.”

The incident to which Hirsch refers happened Jan. 31, when a warning sensor detected a small leak in a recently installed steam-generator tube at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is on the beach 45 miles north of San Diego, near one of Southern California’s most popular surfing spots.

The leak resulted in the release of a small amount of radioactive gas into the atmosphere, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the plant has been shut down ever since as investigators try to determine what happened.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/latest-accident-at-san-onofre-nuclear-plant-worries-activists-residents.html

Nuke mgmt: "we don't know what happened, but nobody worry. we know all is OK"

[johnsmith]

Not what they used to be? Lazy? You show me a lazy engineer today, and I'll show you someone who is not an engineer. I've had students go through nervous breakdowns with engineering courses with this sort of thing. These designs have been vetted over many years. It's not some douchebag designed Total Gym completed in 3 months.


1940 Tacoma Bridge. Not what they used to be.
http://blogofbad.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/tacoma.jpg

Lol....I can't see the pic because my phone is f'd up....but yes, lazy. I look thru more "for construction" drawings on a daily basis and I have no choice but to put the quotes around the words "for construction". Perhaps you should go easier on them while they're students so that they'll have something left in the tank when it comes to their actual careers.

And you're correct about these designs in particular, and I'm sure they've been vetted. My comment was more just a shot at the state of basic engineering and drawings in today's market.....imo.....but I bet most contractors would agree with me.

[johnsmith]

Whoops JS, this was poorly worded. Apologies.

My intent was to say: I can understand why it seems unrealistic to you if looking at Starbucks plans gives you that much grief. for the record though, I don't see most issues as a fault of engineering.

Lol....thanks for clearing that up....and I generally agree that its not all the engineers fault, but the end result are really piss poor drawings, so its very easy to blame them first.

[Wild Cobra]

They simply learned the hard way about wind and resonance of those scale of structures.

[mouse]

Neon isn't radioactive.


http://omnima.co.uk/docs/measure_corner_with_glass.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

http://omnima.co.uk/docs/measure_corner_with_glass.jpg
LOL...

WTF is that?

Now if you are talking about exited neon when light is produced, there is some induce radiation. But it's not radioactivity.

The element Ne (neon) has three stable isotopes. The radioactive isotopes are man made and very short lived.

[Agloco]

http://omnima.co.uk/docs/measure_corner_with_glass.jpg

What do you suppose that thing measures mouse?

[clambake]

What do you suppose that thing measures mouse?

IQ levels?

[Wild Cobra]

What do you suppose that thing measures mouse?
LOL...

No shit...


In order to keep lighting at constant levels optimal for coral growth it is possible to measure and monitor levels of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) as well as LUX. Metal halide lamps alongside fluorescent lamps will loose some intensity over a period of time. By measuring PAR it is possible to adjust lighting levels accordingly:

Change MH and fluorescent lamps only when it is needed and at the right time
Adjust the distance of the lighting fixture from the aquarium. The distance of the lighting fixture from the aquarium can be increased when the lamps are new and later lowered to maintain constant lighting levels
Position corals requiring more intensive light at a correct depth

[Winehole23]

A commission appointed to find alternatives to a failed plan to store nuclear waste in the Nevada desert declared on Thursday that the United States would have to develop a “consent-based approach” for choosing a site because leaving the decision to Congress had failed.

By securing local consent, the panel said, the government might avoid the kind of conflicts that led to the cancellation of plans to create a repository at Yucca Mountain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/nevada/yucca-mountain/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), a site 100 miles from Las Vegas, in 2010. It noted that local willingness had been crucial to decision-making on sites for nuclear waste depots in Finland, France, Spain and Sweden.


The panel, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, also suggested that the government, which assumed responsibility for high-level waste 30 years ago, take the job of managing the waste out of the hands of the Energy Department and give it to a federally chartered corporation created for that purpose.



Such an agency would be more effective than the Department of Energy, which “must balance multiple agendas or policy priorities,” it said.



The commission, appointed two years ago by President Obama, warned that finding a solution to the waste issue was urgent. “This generation has a fundamental, ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task of finding a safe, permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating,” the panel wrote.



Most of those materials are civilian, but some are leftovers of a half-century of nuclear weapons production, beginning in the mid-1940s. A smaller volume is from naval propulsion reactors and government research reactors.



Congress settled on Yucca Mountain as a disposal site in 1987 after powerful senators from Louisiana, Texas and Washington fought off proposals for waste storage in their states. But when Harry Reid of Nevada became Senate majority leader after the 2006 elections, he maneuvered the project to a near-standstill, and Mr. Obama, campaigning in 2008, promised to shelve it if elected.



The Energy Department announced in 2010 that it was withdrawing its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/science/earth/nuclear-waste-panel-urges-consent-based-approach.html

[mouse]

IQ levels?

post your IQ score.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/room.jpg

[clambake]

4

[johnsmith]

4

What is the amount of times that mouse will tell everyone that he should be on the radio today?

[johnsmith]

Oh, we weren't playing jeopardy?

[clambake]

he still doin that?

[johnsmith]

Yeah, I ventured into the 'club' for some reason that is totally beyond me.

[clambake]

how many times will he and dan not tell us what happened on 911.

[mouse]

What is the amount of times that mouse will tell everyone that he should be on the radio today?

Are you saying you wouldn't tune in?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/th_mouse-ESPN.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=mouse-ESPN.mp4)

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/business/energy-environment/energy-dept-to-give-226-million-to-new-nuclear-reactor-design.html?hpw&rref=business