tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post2455398736983269922..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Barack Obama Still Deserves an F on EnergyCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-295183429530777002010-10-23T10:55:15.395-05:002010-10-23T10:55:15.395-05:00Charles,
I am less pessimistic about cost and tim...Charles,<br /><br />I am less pessimistic about cost and time to build for large reactors. The key is to get going. When you are building a plant with 8 reactors at the same site as China is planning, then I think cost/time are going to drop dramatically. <br /><br />It's a smaller point and they haven't actually built one but, for example the Atmea design from Areva/Mitsubishi claim: load following capability of 100% -30%, 5% /min, including automatic frequency control, instantaneous return to full power capability, and effluent reduction by variable temperature control.'SteveK9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-7181981741838991892010-10-22T17:41:35.359-05:002010-10-22T17:41:35.359-05:00Steve, while I agree with the idea of building as ...Steve, while I agree with the idea of building as many conventional reactors as possible, conventional light ewater reactors are not appropriate for load following, and back up, power reserve roles. Nore ate they useful for providing industrial process heat. Large LWRs are expensive to build and take a long time. The market seems very uncomfortable with them. We need alternative nuclear technology.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-45941995921031207012010-10-22T16:52:37.438-05:002010-10-22T16:52:37.438-05:00The idea that what we really need is more R&D ...The idea that what we really need is more R&D is misguided (and I am a scientist). What we need right now is to get on with building as many AP1000's, EPR's and ESBWR's as we can. We have the designs. Once nuclear is generally recognized as the 'way to go' we can develop wonderful improvements like LFTR, etc. If we focus on that now --- we are sunk.SteveK9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-2785422492654250752010-10-21T12:28:36.409-05:002010-10-21T12:28:36.409-05:00Charles, interesting post. When I watched Obama gi...Charles, interesting post. When I watched Obama give his SOI in January, and announce the Vogtle loan guarantee in Feb, I thought he had learned from the Copenhagen debacle. (Let's remember he went to Copenhagen all full of ideas from the phoney green lobby, then embarrassed himself with that incoherent speech at the end, which was incoherent because the "greens" have no credible ideas at all).<br /><br />But subsequent events have proved you are right. So I totally agree with you, he deserves an F. He could have gotten Republican support for a carbon cap by supporting nuclear just a bit more strongly and putting the weight of the White House behind facilitating loan guarantees for at least two of the projects that were in the hopper (on top of Vogtle). He could then have legitimately claimed credit for creating nearly 15,000 high-paid, high-skilled jobs, during a period of persistent low-quality under-employment.<br /><br />Instead he got nothing.Steve Aplinhttp://www.canadianenergyissues.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-36549765517939292242010-10-20T19:21:52.516-05:002010-10-20T19:21:52.516-05:00Today's political climate is very negative on ...Today's political climate is very negative on nuclear power on the left and negative on climate action on the right. Do you really expect Obama to accomplish any high-visibility nuclear progress?<br /><br />I'm hoping that some important behind the scenes work is happening. Like maybe the NRC is staffing up to process new applications.<br /><br />The good news is that the Very High Temp Reactor has not been killed. Importantly, some of the funding will apparently go to the molten-salt cooled reactor, which is a useful step towards a LFTR.Nathan2gohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06027370395249364154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-52338187446429048582010-10-19T19:48:39.559-05:002010-10-19T19:48:39.559-05:00Legislation for Energy R&D Funding is essentia...Legislation for Energy R&D Funding is essential. It appears that the transition from fossil fuel to a replacement fuel cannot occur fast enough to prevent some continued drop in our standard of living. This lower living standard can be minimized if government makes a major investment in R&D to develop the most economically viable replacement energy sources. The American Energy Innovation Council, the AEIC, calls for a national energy policy that would increase U.S. investment in energy research every year from $5 billion to $16 billion. Bill Gates, a member of the AEIC, said that he was stunned that the DOE budget for R&D was only $5 billion; by comparison the National Institutes of Health invests a bit more than $30 billion. To pay for more R&D, Gates favors a 2% tax on energy. He does not favor cap and trade or a tax on carbon, but he favors a time table for closing coal power plants so that each utility can have a dependable long range plan.<br />I had given thought to funding more R&D for energy before I saw Gates’ ideas. My thought was that energy subsidies should be phased out and the government investment in subsidies be placed in the DOE’s R&D fund. The first subside to go should be the 45 cent per gallon ethanol subsidy. It goes to the blenders. Removing this subsidy would not affect the amount of ethanol sold because its use is mandated by our government. The $1.59/ MWH for nuclear power are not justified. Our 104 nuclear power plants are now paid for and the O&M is less than 2 cent/kWh. Our nuclear plants have the lowest generating costs of all generating sources. Renewable subsidies are much larger (wind $23.37 MWH and solar $24.34/ MWH). Wind and solar would not be competitive without these subsidies plus a subsidy for 30% of construction costs. I will make a general statement: Subsidies do not encourage innovation and they often do not favor the most cost effective strategy.<br />Money spent on R&D, education, and infrastructure is investment that pays back big dividends. Our regulatory infrastructure needs to be streamlined and beefed up to assure timely deployment of the fruits of our R&D investments.<br /><br />John TjostemAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-40843186944348781402010-10-19T15:18:09.915-05:002010-10-19T15:18:09.915-05:00Bill Hannahan
A commission is just a way to kick ...Bill Hannahan<br /><br />A commission is just a way to kick the problem down the road without doing anything. What is really needed is money.<br /><br />The U.S. should be spending $100 billion per year on R&D of new energy sources. Most of that money should go toward Development, the expensive part of R&D. It would be far more beneficial to people all over the world than bailing out Wall Street bankers.<br /><br />It should include the development of several types of fission plants [molten salt, IFR, lead bismuth, small modular designs] up to at least one full sized commercial plant of each.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com