tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post7721198221577050980..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Letters to Jessee 2: The coal yardCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-80863872392088174432009-10-09T18:47:59.534-05:002009-10-09T18:47:59.534-05:00Jessee, Generation IV reactors are here and now. ...Jessee, Generation IV reactors are here and now. The Indians plan to have a commercial generation IV prototype reactor up and running and will be completing 4 more within the next decade. A fast track program would give th United States a IFR within 5 years. (I am no great fan of FBRs, but things that you do nothing to acomplish seem to be a long way off.) Production models of LFTRs could be rolling out of a factory within a decade, if we make itr our national priority to make it happen.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-63812963762690115422009-10-09T18:25:16.950-05:002009-10-09T18:25:16.950-05:00Charles, this is a very interesting idea. You spe...Charles, this is a very interesting idea. You speak here about using Gen IV reactors. But Gen IV technologies are quite a ways off, are they not? Perhaps decades. Would this be possible with modifications Gen III or III+ reactor designs? Or is that impossible for some engineering reason? And if Gen IV is a must, then what is the earliest date you could see this kind of conversion of coal plants to nuclear plants begin? Thanks,<br />JesseJesse Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-38648089300334035392009-10-08T11:48:40.024-05:002009-10-08T11:48:40.024-05:00Quite a while ago I wrote this:
http://www.dailyk...Quite a while ago I wrote this:<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/12/111653/122<br /><br />It's a proposal on how the state of Missouri could phase out coal by going nuclear and explains, similarly to Charles answer, about the robust use of "Balance of Plant" equipment which includes extensive site preparation, size, grid access, river-rail-road access for components, cooling facilities and access, etc. The savings, *even* for Generation III reactors would be immense.DWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03070034894266417461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-46683977574252818092009-10-08T10:20:29.116-05:002009-10-08T10:20:29.116-05:00I also believe that converting existing coal fired...I also believe that converting existing coal fired power plants is a terrific idea. Any engineer familiar with power plant infrastructure can relate to the idea. In this idea only steam generating section of the power plant is replaced with high temperature reactor. All other expensive equipment, turbines, generators, switch gear, transformers, power lines, water treatment equipment etc.,is usable in conjunction with high temperature nuclear reactor. The best part is in possibility to convert to nuclear power while power plant is down for only very short time when steam lines are reconnected to nuclear steam generators and superheaters. To simplify the conversion and to maintain the steam conditions to existing coal fired power plant, it would be best to fire superheaters and reheaters with natural gas or coal itself. In this case simple reactors could be used and the scheme would satisfy fossil fuel lobby as well as nuclear agenda. Such plants would still generate major portion of power from nuclear heat and it would be the easiest transition to all nuclear plants in the future. This idea is highly executable in short frame of time with integration of existing equipment.Atomic Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873845715321111676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-25932844274318530062009-10-08T08:24:35.183-05:002009-10-08T08:24:35.183-05:00Richard, It would be unacceptable for the nuclear ...Richard, It would be unacceptable for the nuclear regulatory process to impeed the timely development of advanced nuclear technology. Given the serious consequences of allowing this to happen, I very much doubt that the politicians will allow a regulatory road block to develop. Yoo much is at stake.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-31116502061470989572009-10-08T08:14:31.214-05:002009-10-08T08:14:31.214-05:00Charles,
I would agree about the potential for th...Charles,<br /><br />I would agree about the potential for the Gen IV. I feel that the technology for Gen 3.5 is already as cheap as coal(at least in China), depending on the regulation. The nuclear plants can safely be built in 3.5 years. But if the regulator adds in 10 years of delays, then they will be very expensive.<br /><br />The secret to Gen IV will be designing them using techniques like in factory manufacturing to prevent the regulator from delaying construction.<br /><br />I feel the design difficulty will come not on technical needs for the reactors, but on understanding the regulator and designing around the bureaucracy.<br /><br />Richard BattyUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10224408883774007723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-64448025162993489612009-10-08T07:45:16.548-05:002009-10-08T07:45:16.548-05:00Actually Richard, Generation IV nuclear would be ...Actually Richard, Generation IV nuclear would be cheaper than conventional coal. Coal Gasification combined cycle would not be competitive. Anyway it is not going to happen. Be fore 2020 the goal of a world wide reduction of CO2 emissions is going to be accepted. Any technology that emits CO2 is going to be heavily taxed. The future of coal is as a chemical industry raw material, not as a heat source.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-29372780459015275632009-10-08T07:35:35.806-05:002009-10-08T07:35:35.806-05:00While I like the idea, it won't work, and here...While I like the idea, it won't work, and here is why.<br /><br />Today it is economic (cheaper than wind and solar) to replace coal plants with all new coal pants using "Coal Gasification Combine Cycle" technology. The result is almost elimination of most of the emission and a reduction in Co2 of almost 40%.<br /><br />So why is this not happening? It is because people don't want to make the big capital investment (the same investment would be involved in any nuclear plant), and risk that a 40% Co2 improvement is not good enough to keep the pant running long-term. In other wards the capital cost of natural gas is much cheaper and less risky in the short-term.<br /><br />I would argue that is would be better to plan to use nuclear as part of a long-term plan. Build all new plants using the newest and best of technology throughout the plant and completely replace the aging coal plants, not upgrading them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10224408883774007723noreply@blogger.com