Obama to announce loan help for U.S. nuclear power

Feb 15, 2010 Full story: www.reuters.com 149

The Obama administration, advancing nuclear power use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, will announce on Tuesday an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Co build two reactors, a government official told Reuters.

Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#124 Sep 6, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
But the loan guarantees are like a 'cosigner' so if the projects fail, it does cost the US taxpayer...
On this we agree.

My father always told me, "A cosigner is a fool with a fountain pen."
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#125 Sep 6, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> Although the regulations aren't changing, the NRC inspectors ans reviewers are increasing the regulatory burden without changing the regulations
Certainly they have tightened regulation since TMI, Chernobyl and fukushima. Can you blame anyone for that??
koz wrote:
<quoted text>stealth rulemakjng by personal whim.
If you have evidence of such, please present it. Pure unsupported rhetoric will get you a few 'hangers on' who like your politics ( or hatred of such) but no converts.
koz wrote:
<quoted text> Nuclear also beats coal in saving lives and improving health.
Nuclear has a strong role but only if we change to 'passive safe' designs and start considering how to reprocess the fuel with low pollution. I am sure the technology can be developed. Much of the 'toxic waste'[ from fuel reprocessing is from the PUREX process, designed to capture Plutonium for bombs. There is a competing process (electrowinning) that can produce mixed fuel with NO danger of nuclear proliferation,. And it should be much less toxic.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#127 Sep 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>On this we agree.
My father always told me, "A cosigner is a fool with a fountain pen."
But you were family so he had to try one more time...

that said, his limited experience with shady characters doesn't mean that the government cannot cosign loans that have a good chance of redemption. Even the banks risk money in similar ways if the cost/benefit is likely to pay off. Not EVERY loan in repaid in full.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#128 Oct 31, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Certainly they have tightened regulation since TMI, Chernobyl and fukushima. Can you blame anyone for that??
What rules needed to be tightened because of Chernobyl? There have never been such poorly designed or operated plants in the US. The anti-nuclear mantra was that nuclear power without containments was a good thing in the Soviet Union because the commies didn't care about profits.
PHD

Overton, TX

#129 Oct 31, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> What rules needed to be tightened because of Chernobyl? There have never been such poorly designed or operated plants in the US. The anti-nuclear mantra was that nuclear power without containments was a good thing in the Soviet Union because the commies didn't care about profits.
According to the New York Times, the Indian Point plant “has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginnings, and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants”. A 2003 report commissioned by then Governor George Pataki concluded that the "current radiological response system and capabilities are not adequate to...protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point. Just one of many with issues in this GREAT COUNTRY of ours.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#130 Oct 31, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> What rules needed to be tightened because of Chernobyl? There have never been such poorly designed or operated plants in the US. The anti-nuclear mantra......
Quote from a mechanical engineer who worked on the Fermi Reactor, commenting on the book, YES, WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT - by a design Engineer at Fermi 1., April 4, 2011:

* I was one of the "brilliant Engineers from Detroit Edison" that designed the Fermi 1 Fast Breeder Power Reactor. I was a young Mechanical Engineer designing the core of the reactor in 1958 & 1959. I was working towards my Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering at the University of Michigan. I grew up in Detroit.
* The Nuclear Physicist who rated this book 1* and said "this book is GARBAGE" and "nuclear reactors can not explode" and "Detroit was never in any danger" is DEAD WRONG! I lived through this nightmare - and for over four years after the meltdown - yes, there was a melt down - I didn't know whether my calculations had been the cause of the meltdown or not. Fortunately, for me, it wasn't my calculations, but another design flaw.
//////////
litesong continues:
The nuclear pile was on the verge of melting(the engineer said it did melt).
As it was heating, no way could be found to get water near the pile to cool it. Extensive review of blueprints, showed a water pipe, completely unrelated to safety in the vicinity. By redirecting that one pipe to the pile, the heats were conducted away from the pile.
Dan

Upton, NY

#131 Oct 31, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The nuclear pile was on the verge of melting(the engineer said it did melt).
As it was heating, no way could be found to get water near the pile to cool it. Extensive review of blueprints, showed a water pipe, completely unrelated to safety in the vicinity. By redirecting that one pipe to the pile, the heats were conducted away from the pile.
You are correct as 4 subassemblies did partially melt but I have to ask where you got this garbage about water. The Fermi ! reactor was an experimental fast breeder and it was cooled by liquid sodium. The liquid sodium is used due to the higher temperatures attained in the breeder but also for the nuetron profile as well. If they put water into the reactor it would have exploded!!!!!. Check it out sodium and water do not mix at all the reaction is instantaneous, violent and extremely exothermic.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#132 Oct 31, 2012
Dan wrote:
You are correct as 4 subassemblies did partially melt but I have to ask where you got this garbage about water.
Water was conducted to a heat exchanger... never came into contact with the pile. Your knowledge wasn't complete!
PHD

Overton, TX

#133 Oct 31, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Water was conducted to a heat exchanger... never came into contact with the pile. Your knowledge wasn't complete!
Actually back then the insurance companies would rate people living near Monroe due to the issues with Fermi. They made no mention in their explanation as why other than living near a generating plant.
I have worked at a gas plant where the Gen was cooled by H2 and exploded moving the gen set off its pedestal with minor injuries to the staff.My hat is off to you.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#134 Nov 1, 2012
PHD wrote:
According to the New York Times,
Your regurgitation of NYT lies did not answer my question.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#135 Nov 1, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> What rules needed to be tightened because of Chernobyl?
Wrong question. The Chernobyl accident was cleary caused by running the plant out of specification. This was doen under government authority. You cannot guard against stupidity.
koz wrote:
<quoted text>There have never been such poorly designed or operated plants in the US.
Actually, there have been exactly the same types of plants in the US and stupidity is NOT exclusive to Russia. The US has been 'luckier', that is all.
koz wrote:
<quoted text>The anti-nuclear mantra was that nuclear power without containments was a good thing in the Soviet Union because the commies didn't care about profits.
The type of reactor isn't suitable to a containment shield. One reason that the graphite cored reactor is out of favor. But TMI and Fukishima show that the 'standard light water reactors' of the current US generation are ALSO not 'safe'.

I am pro nuclear. I would have no problem with a CANDU 6 or Molten Salt Thorium reactor. Both passive safe and easily shut down in the event of an event. I highly favor traveling wave mini-nukes for the polar regions where transportation is a bummer. I would also favor a nuclear power generation for the oil sands to create process heat and H2 from water. It makes NO sense to use Natural Gas to make H2 to provide the extra hydrogen for 'upgrading'. Etc etc.

Nuclear has a place in the future, but we need to end 'once through' and accept that nuclear power requires reprocessing (by electrowinning or similar to run in reactors that can use mixed oxide fuels). That eliminates the 'waste problem' which is artificially created by bureaucrats. And the US (and the world) needs to replace aging light water reactors with 'passive safe' designs for the next generation.
PHD

Overton, TX

#136 Nov 2, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> Your regurgitation of NYT lies did not answer my question.
Sure did try to read it again and go slower this time. Bold statement about the New York times do send them a message of your distaste I'm sure they will print a retraction for you.
Dan

Upton, NY

#137 Nov 5, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Water was conducted to a heat exchanger... never came into contact with the pile. Your knowledge wasn't complete!
I am just reading what you wrote which was a direct quote from the book. The wording said the water pipe was redirected to the pile!!!! If that is not what you meant then don't say it that way!!! If you said at the last minute an alternate source of cooling water for the heat exchanger was found and implemented that is easily understandable even by some one who is unaware of how a power plant works.
PHD

Overton, TX

#138 Nov 5, 2012
Much like the subway flooded for the first time in 108 yrs.
koz

Broadview Heights, OH

#139 Nov 9, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Actually, there have been exactly the same types of plants in the US and stupidity is NOT exclusive to Russia.
What were the names of those plants? Not all of them, just a couple would do.
koz

Broadview Heights, OH

#140 Nov 9, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The type of reactor isn't suitable to a containment shield.
The Soviets did not have containments on PWRs that they built in the Soviet Union or in their captive nations.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#141 Nov 9, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> What were the names of those plants? Not all of them, just a couple would do.
Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor
The Peach Bottom HTGR reactor
Fort St. Vrain Generating Station

Basically there was a move to High Temperature Gas Reactors (Graphite moderated, steel vessel) at one point to provided heat greater than you could get from even pressurized water loops.

The latest development is the 'pebble bed' which at least distributes the graphite out a lot more but I still worry about a fire scenario under operation.

ANY of these reactors could have generated a Chernobyl if MISHANLDED in the SAME way that was done in Russia.

There is no such thing as 'fool proof' systems as nature is hard at work making bigger and better fools.
Dan

Upton, NY

#142 Nov 13, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor
The Peach Bottom HTGR reactor
Fort St. Vrain Generating Station
Basically there was a move to High Temperature Gas Reactors (Graphite moderated, steel vessel) at one point to provided heat greater than you could get from even pressurized water loops.
The latest development is the 'pebble bed' which at least distributes the graphite out a lot more but I still worry about a fire scenario under operation.
ANY of these reactors could have generated a Chernobyl if MISHANLDED in the SAME way that was done in Russia.
There is no such thing as 'fool proof' systems as nature is hard at work making bigger and better fools.
I agree there is no such thing as a fool proof system but you are comparing apples and oranges with your examples!!!
The BGRR was a 20 MWt neutron scattering reactor cooled by air.
The HTGR at PB1 and the FSV reactor where helium cooled reactors at 110 and 842 MWt outputs. In all cases the fuel was an integral part of the graphite matrix and if cooling had stopped as long as control rods are inserted the fuel can never reach the temperature to melt the fuel.
Chernobyl however used water to cool its core. The power transient that resulted as a matter of several issues which included, low rod worth and rod speed as well as graphite followers for the control rods, poor power control charateristics at low power, a positive void coefficient for reactivity, a lack of basic knowledge by operators of power rector operations (Xenon buildup) and a blatant disregard for operational procedures was about 10,000 times max reactor power in under 1 second this is what led to the water in the core flashing to steam and blowing the lid off the reactor and rupturing the building.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#143 Nov 13, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
ANY of these reactors could have generated a Chernobyl if MISHANLDED in the SAME way that was done in Russia.
No.
There is no such thing as 'fool proof' systems as nature is hard at work making bigger and better fools.
There is no other explanation for oil over 100 US$ a barrel.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#144 Nov 13, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree there is no such thing as a fool proof system but you are comparing apples and oranges with your examples!!!
They were not exactly the same, no. But they had the common elements of

1: no containment vessel (just steel)
2: flammable graphic moderator
3: high running temperature
4: the physics of "xenon poisoning" doesn't change because the reactor is in the USA.

I repeat the point. IF these reactors were MISHANDLED in the same way as Chernobyl, they would have produced a similar incident to Chernoby. Now stop diddling about irrelevant trivia like air cooling vs helium cooling.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
APS will move ahead with free solar Dec 20 Solarman 1
Ex-Enron CEO gets 10 years cut from sentence (Jun '13) Dec 16 swedenforever 6
Abandoned Chevron gas project deals blow to Ukr... Dec 16 government of Ukr... 1
Natural Gas Futures Rebound From Six-Week Low o... Dec 14 One way or another 3
PNM defends 10.8% rate hike (Apr '11) Dec 14 Ralph 117
NCWARN runs ad criticizing Duke Energy's approa... Dec 13 Solarman 1
U.S. Getting Rid of Oil Addiction as Price Plum... Dec 12 Kid_Tomorrow 1
More from around the web