GE's Advanced ESBWR Nuclear Reactor Chosen for Two Proposed Projects

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately this won't do much, if anything, to that end right now.

Once the utilities get back into the swing of building nuclear plants hopefully they will invest in the more advanced reactors that are in the development pipeline for hydrogen production.

The few hydrogen discussions I have followed indicated scientists back in the 60s and 70s when discussin Hydrogen as the next fuel for our economy thought there would be an over supply of Nuclear energy to make the hydrogen fuel.

I am guessing that they were referring to use of surplus electrical capacity in electrolysis cells. This is a rather inefficient way to produce hydrogen since the energy has to traverse the steam cycle and electrolysis process where much is lost.

The current goal is to use nuclear heat directly to separate hydrogen in a thermochemical reaction. The temperatures required are substantially higher than our current reactors are able to provide so they are looking at alternative reactor designs. Some Gen IV reactors being designed with this purpose in mind, reactors like the pebble bed system are looking most promising.

Yes that was the gist of what I heard.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
New reactors in the heart of the hurricane zone. Sounds like a brilliant idea to me.

The containment structures can handle the wind and water. They are several feet of steel reinforced concrete over a six inch thick steel pressure shell and the fuel iteslf behind several more feet of concrete and several inches of steel vessel.

They are most likely the safest thing to be inside in a hurricane strike zone.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Solar is great and all, but I just don't see it surpassing nuclear anytime soon. However, I'm all for putting solar panels on houses. I wouldn't be surprised if local energy companies don't give some kind of credit for them. I know ones around here essentially subsidize those low power consumption light bulbs.

One guy who lives around me has solar panels on his house and actually gets credits back from the power company. On Sunny days if every house has a solar panel you could maybe see a positive energy flow from each house?

No idea but I think we are kicking ourselves in the shins by not exploring the idea of putting panels on every new home built and maybe even retrofitting older ones when their roofs need to be replaced.

One of my clients has this setup. While in the summer he saves losts of money, the upfront cost and the maintenence on the solar array show that it may take 20 years or longer to recover his initial expense.

The only benefit is that he can run his A/C like crazy in the summer, but he's got this ugly wall of solar panels in his backyard to look at.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

I would think if they can pass legislation that will help companies develope cheaper and more efficient solar panels. That we could start putting these panels on the roofs of houses and reduce the load on the power plants which will allow them to shift their energy capabilities to producing hydrogen.

I think without the ability to create a Fusion reactor in the end solar may be our best bet. The Sun drops a lot of energy onto our surface. If we could somehow capture it then we are talking about a lot of relatively free energy.

I agree with you about the means, but not the ways. Government financed R&D is often notoriously slow and bureuacratic. I think it would be better for government to give individuals massive credits/refunds for installing solar panels; credits that would make purchasing such a system very attractive. The upturn in the purchasing of solar panels would spur the commercial industry to invest and innovate. Not to mention the positive impact such a program would have on the economy.

Unfortunately, politicians from both sides of the aisle are too entrenched in the oil and energy industries to permit that to happen. The last thing the power company wants to see if people generating their own power.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Genx87

Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

I would think if they can pass legislation that will help companies develope cheaper and more efficient solar panels. That we could start putting these panels on the roofs of houses and reduce the load on the power plants which will allow them to shift their energy capabilities to producing hydrogen.

I think without the ability to create a Fusion reactor in the end solar may be our best bet. The Sun drops a lot of energy onto our surface. If we could somehow capture it then we are talking about a lot of relatively free energy.

I agree with you about the means, but not the ways. Government financed R&D is often notoriously slow and bureuacratic. I think it would be better for government to give individuals massive credits/refunds for installing solar panels; credits that would make purchasing such a system very attractive. The upturn in the purchasing of solar panels would spur the commercial industry to invest and innovate. Not to mention the positive impact such a program would have on the economy.

Unfortunately, politicians from both sides of the aisle are too entrenched in the oil and energy industries to permit that to happen. The last thing the power company wants to see if people generating their own power.

There are incentives for solar and wind power.

But overall you're right both parties are entrenched with big business. So much so that it'll take years to ween our country off of oil when in reality we could drastically cut consumption in as little as 15 years. But that wont happen.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Solar is great and all, but I just don't see it surpassing nuclear anytime soon. However, I'm all for putting solar panels on houses. I wouldn't be surprised if local energy companies don't give some kind of credit for them. I know ones around here essentially subsidize those low power consumption light bulbs.

One guy who lives around me has solar panels on his house and actually gets credits back from the power company. On Sunny days if every house has a solar panel you could maybe see a positive energy flow from each house?

No idea but I think we are kicking ourselves in the shins by not exploring the idea of putting panels on every new home built and maybe even retrofitting older ones when their roofs need to be replaced.

One of my clients has this setup. While in the summer he saves losts of money, the upfront cost and the maintenence on the solar array show that it may take 20 years or longer to recover his initial expense.

The only benefit is that he can run his A/C like crazy in the summer, but he's got this ugly wall of solar panels in his backyard to look at.

Yeah, I've heard from other people that the number is between 10-20 years as far as the cost goes. However, most of us will eventually buy a house to stay in for quite some time. 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Genx87

Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

I would think if they can pass legislation that will help companies develope cheaper and more efficient solar panels. That we could start putting these panels on the roofs of houses and reduce the load on the power plants which will allow them to shift their energy capabilities to producing hydrogen.

I think without the ability to create a Fusion reactor in the end solar may be our best bet. The Sun drops a lot of energy onto our surface. If we could somehow capture it then we are talking about a lot of relatively free energy.

I agree with you about the means, but not the ways. Government financed R&D is often notoriously slow and bureuacratic. I think it would be better for government to give individuals massive credits/refunds for installing solar panels; credits that would make purchasing such a system very attractive. The upturn in the purchasing of solar panels would spur the commercial industry to invest and innovate. Not to mention the positive impact such a program would have on the economy.

Unfortunately, politicians from both sides of the aisle are too entrenched in the oil and energy industries to permit that to happen. The last thing the power company wants to see if people generating their own power.

There are incentives for solar and wind power.

But overall you're right both parties are entrenched with big business. So much so that it'll take years to ween our country off of oil when in reality we could drastically cut consumption in as little as 15 years. But that wont happen.

Yeah, I know there are incentives currently, but they are not very attractive to the average joe considering the overall cost of installing a solar system that can power an entire house.

I remember reading a story a while back about a retired dentist in Gainesville, Fl. that did just that, but it still cost him quite a bit of coin. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

Good to see the US get back into nuclear power. Maybe the pain of relying on foreign oil will overpower the environmentalists and chicken littles that have thwarted nuclear power for so long?

Yeah the NIMBY effect is a drawback to wind but I dont mind them and neither do some of the folks around here. What a lot of companies are doing is giving people money to put them in areas around them or free electricity. As for limitations actually with the new windmills they're not too limited most places have sufficient wind for at least a moderate amount of power generation. These things are huge and have awesome bearings in them. To give you an idea, one blade on the props is 37 meters long. At least the ones they're building just norht of here. Thats more than 110 feet, so the total prop is 225 feet in diameter and these thing stand some 300 feet tall its actually pretty cool. And they generate a lot of power.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Strk
Yeah, I've heard from other people that the number is between 10-20 years as far as the cost goes. However, most of us will eventually buy a house to stay in for quite some time. 🙂

I thought the average person moved every 7 years... if that is what the statistics are, then it's not worth the investment. Plus if the panel has to be replaced, it may never recoup its cost.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's the story I was looking for. A retired doctor here in town has outfitted his house for solar energy. Supposedly it can power his entire house, but he still has a monthly utility bill, however it's much lower than it would be otherwise.

He says it'll take about 60 years to recoup the system cost.

(Originally this story was in the Orlando Sentinel, but they don't have it available any longer.)

http://www.wapa.gov/es/greennews/2002/oct20'02.htm

Orlando, Fla., Doctor's House Runs on Energy from Solar Panels
The electricity that cools and lights Orlando homes comes from two very different sources: a massive coal-fired plant and the roof of a retired doctor. Bob Stonerock captures the sun's rays with dozens of panels mounted on his spacious home in a south Orlando neighborhood. He generates a tiny bit of electricity -- worth about $50 a month -- that feeds into the city's power grid. The cash isn't what matters to the 55-year-old kidney specialist, who is on a personal crusade against generating plants that burn coal. Among the 170,000 residential and commercial customers of Orlando's. electric utility, Stonerock is the only one who both buys and supplies voltage. He describes the $50,000 he put into solar power as an investment in the environment. "We're putting too much garbage into the air," said Stonerock, who opened his home Wednesday to tours by neighbors and environmental activists. "We refuse to take into account how much harm we do to the planet." "I'm putting my money where my mouth is." Just how much power plants, including OUC's generator in east Orange County, hurt the planet has been debated for years. Yet even the administration of President George Bush, regarded by many as unfriendly to the environment, recently acknowledged that global warming is caused in part by pollution from coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels.

The average global temperature this year is on track to be the second hottest on record behind the mark set in 1998. One solution, say activists such as Greenpeace's Karl Riber of Orlando, is to embrace the clean and plentiful energy of the sun. "Florida is going to be more severely affected than any other state by global warming," said Riber, referring to fears that rising temperatures will lead to rising sea levels.

Yet capturing the sun's rays for home use remains all but unknown in the state. "The average consumer doesn't want to be bothered," said David Block, director of the Florida Solar Energy Center in Cocoa.

Others say the relatively cheaper electricity provided by utilities doesn't take into account all environmental costs and health care expenses for illnesses triggered by air pollution. "It's really not fair," said Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Tennessee. Nearly a dozen homes in New Smyrna Beach have been equipped with solar systems as part of an incentive program set up by the local utility. But among homeowners in Florida and perhaps much of the Southeast, Stonerock has established himself as king of the sun, Block said. His system, connected to the city utility six months ago, dwarfs what other homes have installed. The southern face of his roof glitters with 72 panels, each roughly the size of a bath towel. On a sunny or lightly cloudy day, each of those solar collectors generates enough current to light a 60-watt bulb. That's enough power to meet the needs of most homes. But Stonerock's electric demand is large -- he has three air conditioning units, several refrigerators and lights for his nearly 7,000 square feet of living space. Though he calls himself an environmentalist, Stonerock invested well, retired early and doesn't believe he must live in a tiny home and do without luxury. His goal is to enjoy life but cause as little pollution as possible. As a result, he bristles when asked how long his solar equipment will take to pay for itself The answer is 60 years. For last month's electric bill, Stonerock was charged $232. But he managed to sell $59 worth of power back to OUC, reducing his cost to $173.

"I could have put that money into a Lexus," he said. "But the payback period for a Lexus is zero. There isn't one." Source: The Orlando Sentinel via Energy Central Direct 10/18/2002.

 

[piasabird]

I am open to power production not using coal and oil, but where does the waste product end up at?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I am open to power production not using coal and oil, but where does the waste product end up at?

Hopefully at the recycling plant.

Doesn't current solar tech primarily use silicon along with a few metals?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I am open to power production not using coal and oil, but where does the waste product end up at?

Very little power production is done with oil and coal should not be written off. The techology exists for it to be quite the clean fuel. Once it is gasified it burns as clean as natural gas.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Good to see the US get back into nuclear power. Maybe the pain of relying on foreign oil will overpower the environmentalists and chicken littles that have thwarted nuclear power for so long?

Chicken,
You haven't been doing your reading lately. Even the Sierra Club has come out in the last year or two in favor of restarting our civilian nuclear programs, saying that despite the risks for catasrophic accidents, and the problem of waste disposal, in their viewpoint nuclear was STILL long-term better for the environment. No greenhouse gases, no ozone damange, no particulate emmissions - all were cited by the Sierra Club as reason enough to back nuclear power, especially if reactor safety took advantage of the last 20 years of technological saftey improvements.

These light water boiling reactors are kind of cool - they use a steam bubble at the top of the reactor to self-regulate the nuclear reaction, making it very hard to get a runaway core like a certain Russian city experienced. The other very promising design is the pebble reactor, which utilizes uranium pellets loosely distributed rather than in a dense-pack configuration which can go critical. Pebble reactors, with proper design, can be made to be always sub-critical, by spacing out the pellets sufficiently. Again, passive safety, rather than relying upon a technicial or computer to slam down graphite control rods when things go wrong...

Future Shock

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Good to see the US get back into nuclear power. Maybe the pain of relying on foreign oil will overpower the environmentalists and chicken littles that have thwarted nuclear power for so long?

Chicken,
You haven't been doing your reading lately. Even the Sierra Club has come out in the last year or two in favor of restarting our civilian nuclear programs, saying that despite the risks for catasrophic accidents, and the problem of waste disposal, in their viewpoint nuclear was STILL long-term better for the environment. No greenhouse gases, no ozone damange, no particulate emmissions - all were cited by the Sierra Club as reason enough to back nuclear power, especially if reactor safety took advantage of the last 20 years of technological saftey improvements.

These light water boiling reactors are kind of cool - they use a steam bubble at the top of the reactor to self-regulate the nuclear reaction, making it very hard to get a runaway core like a certain Russian city experienced. The other very promising design is the pebble reactor, which utilizes uranium pellets loosely distributed rather than in a dense-pack configuration which can go critical. Pebble reactors, with proper design, can be made to be always sub-critical, by spacing out the pellets sufficiently. Again, passive safety, rather than relying upon a technicial or computer to slam down graphite control rods when things go wrong...

Future Shock

Unfortunately, the Sierria Club does not comprise the entirety of environmentalists. I laud their change in stance, but you can be sure there will still be resistance, particularly in regards to nuclear wate disposal. There's still that bit of ugliness, even with the new reactor designs.

I like the pebble bed reactors, personally. I think that's the design that China is going with. As long as the pellets are manufactured properly there shouldn't be any problems with it.