Our Atomic Future

Al Gore recognizes that any solution to global warming is going to
require a revival of nuclear power. He was edging toward that in his
House of Representatives testimony last week -- yet downplayed the
idea on the following grounds: "Nuclear power plants are the costliest
to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in
only one size -- extra large."

This is a curious notion. At present, the U.S. Navy has 10 giant
aircraft carriers and 50 submarines that run on nuclear power; the
average reactor generates about 200 megawatts (MW). The French Rubis
class of submarines still operates on 48 MW. Although these reactors
are enough to provide power for the lifetime of a submarine or drive a
100,000-ton aircraft carrier, they are small by commercial standards.

When Adm. Hyman Rickover "beached" a submarine engine at Shippingport,
Pa., in 1957 to create the first country's civilian nuclear reactor,
it produced only 60 MW of electricity. Dresden 1, built privately in
1960, was 210 MW and Indian Point 1, built by Con Edison in 1961,
produced 275 MW.

Once the technology was established, reactors quickly grew to the
500-1000 MW range for one simple reason -- bigger is better. The
principles of thermodynamics dictate that a single 1,200 MW generating
station operates much more efficiently than two 600 MW plants. The
same thing holds true for coal plants, nuclear power's chief rival in
the electricity field. Both coal and nuclear plants are now built to
the 1,200-1,500 MW range for economic reasons.

Yet all this hardly suggests that nuclear reactors "come in only one
size -- extra large." Many research reactors produce only 5 MW. We've
never reached the point where nuclear electricity runs cars or
airplanes -- as early dreamers suggested -- but in theory it's
possible.

"Mini-reactors" are now being suggested in many remote locations --
just as wind and solar energy are thriving where other power sources
are not available. In Galena, Alaska, far up the Yukon River, Toshiba
has proposed a 10 MW reactor to replace the town's diesel generators,
which now produce electricity at ten times the normal price. The
Russians have started building "floating reactors" as small as 3 MW to
transport into isolated outposts of Siberia, where weather conditions
make construction of power plants impossible. Both Canada and
Venezuela are considering small reactors to cook the oil products out
of the ground at remote tar sand deposits.

One of the most promising technologies is the "pebble bed modular
reactor," in which nuclear material is reposited in tennis ball-sized
graphite-coated spheres that sit in the reactor vessel as in a giant
gumball machine. Each pebble is a "mini-reactor" with all the
necessary components and a collection of them produces enough power.
"We've found the optimum size to be around 250 MW," says Prof. Andrew
Kadak, who has been working on a design at MIT.

Since balls can be inserted and withdrawn individually, the reactor
never has to shut down for refueling. Temperatures do not climb high
enough to cause a meltdown and proponents say this eliminates the need
for an expensive containment structure -- although environmentalists
dispute this. South Africa is scheduled to complete a 200 MW pebble
bed reactor by 2012.

In his public testimony Mr. Gore seemed to be convoluting several
things, suggesting somehow that nuclear plants are too expensive and
take too long to build because they only come "extra-large." This is
not true.

Nuclear plants take more time to build and are more expensive than
comparative coal plants, but they are not prohibitively expensive. The
Japanese are now building reactors in five years at competitive
prices. Higher construction costs are more than compensated by lower
fuel costs and higher capacity ratings. America's existing nuclear
plants are now operating so profitably that Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal recently proposed a windfall profits tax
because the state's reactors were making too much money.

And this is all before environmental considerations are factored into
the equation. In three years of operation, a 1,500 MW coal plant will
spew three million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- the
prime source of the world's carbon emissions. An identical nuclear
reactor will produce only a few bundles of highly radioactive fuel
rods that can be safely stored in a nearby storage pool. Yet coal
currently pays for none of these environmental damages. A carbon tax
of roughly $10 per ton would level the playing field and make nuclear
power far more competitive.

The reason building nuclear plants has been expensive and time-
consuming is because of exaggerated popular fears of the technology.
The public is now coming around. Seventy percent now consider nuclear
plants acceptable, meaning new plants will probably not become bogged
down in endless court delays.

The only reasonable scenario for avoiding global warming is to
substitute nuclear power for coal as our prime source of base-load
electricity, supplementing it with wind and solar electricity for our
spinning reserve and peaking-power needs. If Al Gore were to support a
nuclear-solar alliance -- a joint effort by the carbon-free
technologies to impose a tax on carbon emissions -- we could take
giant steps toward solving the problem.

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar
Alliance Can Rescue the Planet," forthcoming by Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.

Let us hope the old regulars of the group appreciate the completely OT
crosspost, showing once more the desesperate need for this old man to be the
center of our attention.
Of course, he's the poor victim.


"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Al Gore recognizes that any solution to global warming is going to
require a revival of nuclear power. He was edging toward that in his
House of Representatives testimony last week -- yet downplayed the
idea on the following grounds: "Nuclear power plants are the costliest
to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in
only one size -- extra large."

This is a curious notion. At present, the U.S. Navy has 10 giant
aircraft carriers and 50 submarines that run on nuclear power; the
average reactor generates about 200 megawatts (MW). The French Rubis
class of submarines still operates on 48 MW. Although these reactors
are enough to provide power for the lifetime of a submarine or drive a
100,000-ton aircraft carrier, they are small by commercial standards.

When Adm. Hyman Rickover "beached" a submarine engine at Shippingport,
Pa., in 1957 to create the first country's civilian nuclear reactor,
it produced only 60 MW of electricity. Dresden 1, built privately in
1960, was 210 MW and Indian Point 1, built by Con Edison in 1961,
produced 275 MW.

Once the technology was established, reactors quickly grew to the
500-1000 MW range for one simple reason -- bigger is better. The
principles of thermodynamics dictate that a single 1,200 MW generating
station operates much more efficiently than two 600 MW plants. The
same thing holds true for coal plants, nuclear power's chief rival in
the electricity field. Both coal and nuclear plants are now built to
the 1,200-1,500 MW range for economic reasons.

Yet all this hardly suggests that nuclear reactors "come in only one
size -- extra large." Many research reactors produce only 5 MW. We've
never reached the point where nuclear electricity runs cars or
airplanes -- as early dreamers suggested -- but in theory it's
possible.

"Mini-reactors" are now being suggested in many remote locations --
just as wind and solar energy are thriving where other power sources
are not available. In Galena, Alaska, far up the Yukon River, Toshiba
has proposed a 10 MW reactor to replace the town's diesel generators,
which now produce electricity at ten times the normal price. The
Russians have started building "floating reactors" as small as 3 MW to
transport into isolated outposts of Siberia, where weather conditions
make construction of power plants impossible. Both Canada and
Venezuela are considering small reactors to cook the oil products out
of the ground at remote tar sand deposits.

One of the most promising technologies is the "pebble bed modular
reactor," in which nuclear material is reposited in tennis ball-sized
graphite-coated spheres that sit in the reactor vessel as in a giant
gumball machine. Each pebble is a "mini-reactor" with all the
necessary components and a collection of them produces enough power.
"We've found the optimum size to be around 250 MW," says Prof. Andrew
Kadak, who has been working on a design at MIT.

Since balls can be inserted and withdrawn individually, the reactor
never has to shut down for refueling. Temperatures do not climb high
enough to cause a meltdown and proponents say this eliminates the need
for an expensive containment structure -- although environmentalists
dispute this. South Africa is scheduled to complete a 200 MW pebble
bed reactor by 2012.

In his public testimony Mr. Gore seemed to be convoluting several
things, suggesting somehow that nuclear plants are too expensive and
take too long to build because they only come "extra-large." This is
not true.

Nuclear plants take more time to build and are more expensive than
comparative coal plants, but they are not prohibitively expensive. The
Japanese are now building reactors in five years at competitive
prices. Higher construction costs are more than compensated by lower
fuel costs and higher capacity ratings. America's existing nuclear
plants are now operating so profitably that Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal recently proposed a windfall profits tax
because the state's reactors were making too much money.

And this is all before environmental considerations are factored into
the equation. In three years of operation, a 1,500 MW coal plant will
spew three million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- the
prime source of the world's carbon emissions. An identical nuclear
reactor will produce only a few bundles of highly radioactive fuel
rods that can be safely stored in a nearby storage pool. Yet coal
currently pays for none of these environmental damages. A carbon tax
of roughly $10 per ton would level the playing field and make nuclear
power far more competitive.

The reason building nuclear plants has been expensive and time-
consuming is because of exaggerated popular fears of the technology.
The public is now coming around. Seventy percent now consider nuclear
plants acceptable, meaning new plants will probably not become bogged
down in endless court delays.

The only reasonable scenario for avoiding global warming is to
substitute nuclear power for coal as our prime source of base-load
electricity, supplementing it with wind and solar electricity for our
spinning reserve and peaking-power needs. If Al Gore were to support a
nuclear-solar alliance -- a joint effort by the carbon-free
technologies to impose a tax on carbon emissions -- we could take
giant steps toward solving the problem.

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar
Alliance Can Rescue the Planet," forthcoming by Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.

On 28 Mar 2007 10:39:14 -0700, "Earl Evleth"
wrote:

Al Gore recognizes that any solution to global warming is going to
require a revival of nuclear power. He was edging toward that in his
House of Representatives testimony last week -- yet downplayed the
idea on the following grounds: "Nuclear power plants are the costliest
to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in
only one size -- extra large."

This is a curious notion. At present, the U.S. Navy has 10 giant
aircraft carriers and 50 submarines that run on nuclear power; the
average reactor generates about 200 megawatts (MW). The French Rubis
class of submarines still operates on 48 MW. Although these reactors
are enough to provide power for the lifetime of a submarine or drive a
100,000-ton aircraft carrier, they are small by commercial standards.

Of course nukes can be smaller.

In the US nuclear power plants once came in smaller sizes, but
presumed economies of scale forced them to become large by the
1970s. They don't need to be, and the scaling up in size caused a
lot of problems that eliminAted any economies of scale.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *