Nuclear Power Plants

[Red Arrow]

the FACT that plants capable of producing 103 gigawatts of electricity have NO CONTROLS whatsoever.

Can I assume you are referring to pollution controls vs process controls.  You are getting as sloppy as Heironymous.. in your statements.

[patric]

Can I assume you are referring to pollution controls vs process controls.  You are getting as sloppy as Heironymous.. in your statements.

It was actually a quote from the link I provided.

[Red Arrow]

It was actually a quote from the link I provided.

Didn't read the link, sorry about that.... but you are perpetuating the misconception.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Didn't read the link, sorry about that.... but you are perpetuating the misconception.

No misconception when taken in context of the discussion.  It is disingenuous to try to say that every entry in the same discussion should include the entire background.  That is NOT what they taught you in English class.  This is a collection of paragraphs and not only is it not required to repeat every previous thought/point in each paragraph; it is bad form to try to do so.  That's why they invented the paragraph!

Has nothing to do with "getting sloppy".  But you know that....


As far as the coal plants -well we all know why there has been so little progress made in removing arsenic and other toxics from the emissions.

[Red Arrow]

It is disingenuous to try to say that every entry in the same discussion should include the entire background.  That is NOT what they taught you in English class. 

Entire background?  No.  I was taught to avoid ambiguity when reasonably possible.  You weren't in my English class.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Entire background?  No.  I was taught to avoid ambiguity when reasonably possible.  You weren't in my English class.

Good thing - I had Mrs. Penfield in Tulsa, and she actually taught English.  Much to my dislike at the time....

Did you look at the link?  The entire context is about pollution and emission controls.  That's why it does not require repetition.  By definition of the English language.


So here is the entire comment to make it more than obvious to the most casual observer;

Other than the notion that 33% of the U.S. coal power-plant inventory is 40 years old (or more) — what shocks about this presentation is the sentence that includes the FACT that plants capable of producing 103 gigawatts of electricity have NO CONTROLS whatsoever.

Honestly, that fact is shocking. How could it be, in the U.S., that we have so much power generated by plants that just spew pollutants, unfiltered and unprocessed, into the air which we all breathe?

I thought it was only the Chinese that did stupid crap like this. The net result of this graphic — for the EleBlog's proprietor — is that I no longer think the Chinese alone are the MOST STUPID energy generators in the world.

No.

Now, I know the Chinese have company . . .

[dbacks fan]

Other than the notion that 33% of the U.S. coal power-plant inventory is 40 years old (or more) — what shocks about this presentation is the sentence that includes the FACT that plants capable of producing 103 gigawatts of electricity have NO CONTROLS whatsoever.

Honestly, that fact is shocking. How could it be, in the U.S., that we have so much power generated by plants that just spew pollutants, unfiltered and unprocessed, into the air which we all breathe?
I thought it was only the Chinese that did stupid crap like this.

http://electricalcontractor.com/?p=3284

So you are quoting someone who hasn't finished reading the material he has, and he is a writer, not and engineer, chemist, powerplant designer/builder/worker, or affiliated with or designed coal fired boiler systems designed for the production of electricity. He is a jouranlist/bloggist including a story on a Tata Automotive car in India that gets 58mpg.
http://electricalcontractor.com/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/joe-salimando/13/37b/6b8

[Red Arrow]

Good thing - I had Mrs. Penfield in Tulsa, and she actually taught English.  

Did you look at the link?  

   
Re: Nuclear Power Plants
« Reply #242 on: October 09, 2011, 07:08:51 pm »

It was actually a quote from the link I provided.

Didn't read the link, sorry about that.... but you are perpetuating the misconception.

What part of "Didn't read the link, sorry about that" are you unable to understand after Mrs. Penfield taught you English?

I read the link, or at least part of it, after the fact.

[heironymouspasparagus]

   
Re: Nuclear Power Plants
« Reply #242 on: October 09, 2011, 07:08:51 pm »

What part of "Didn't read the link, sorry about that" are you unable to understand after Mrs. Penfield taught you English?

I read the link, or at least part of it, after the fact.

I read the link before the fact.  Guess that's where I messed up - thought you would have read what you were commenting on before commenting on "perpetuating the misconception".  My bad.  I do that soooo often - expect the logical action - but then that whole RWRE dogma pops up and messes with everything.  At least as bad, if not worse than the whole LWRE thing that gave us "Fast and Furious" - following dogma rather than what is right.

[Red Arrow]

I read the link before the fact.  Guess that's where I messed up - thought you would have read what you were commenting on before commenting on "perpetuating the misconception".  My bad.  I do that soooo often - expect the logical action - but then that whole RWRE dogma pops up and messes with everything.  At least as bad, if not worse than the whole LWRE thing that gave us "Fast and Furious" - following dogma rather than what is right.

I read a post to determine if I want spend time reading a link.  I have wasted too much time reading links with nothing but drivel.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I read a post to determine if I want spend time reading a link.  I have wasted too much time reading links with nothing but drivel.

Gotta admit, you hit that spot on, 100%.

[Townsend]

First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/nuclear_reactors/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first authorized in over 30 years.

The reactors are being built in Georgia by a consortium of utilities led by Southern Co. (SO, Fortune 500) They will be sited at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, about 170 miles east of Atlanta. The plant already houses two older reactors.

Although new nuclear reactors have come online in the United States within the last couple of decades -- the last one started operation in 1996 -- the NRC hasn't issued a license to build a new reactor since 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Reactors that have opened in the last decades received their initial licences before 1978.

The combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the high costs of nuclear power turned many utilities away from the technology.

The utilities building the new Vogtle reactors submitted their application seven years ago. Prep-work at the site has been under way for some time, but construction on actual reactors couldn't begin until the final license was issued.

The new reactors are a Westinghouse design called the AP 1000. Together they are expected to cost $14 billion and provide 2200 megawatts of power, according to a spokesman for Southern Co. That's enough to power 1 million homes.

The plants are being built with the help of a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan guarantee is part of DOE's broader loan program that has been criticized for backing companies like Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar panels.

The Southern spokesman said the loan guarantee, combined with other regulatory measures, enable the project to receive cheaper financing that will ultimately save ratepayers $1 billion.

The first reactor is expected to come online in 2016 and the second one in 2017, according to Southern Co.

The AP 1000 is the newest NRC-approved nuclear reactor. This would be the first one built in the United States, although four are already under construction in China, said Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman.

Critics have said the containment walls of the AP 1000 aren't strong enough to withstand a terrorist attack, but Shaw says they were redesigned after September 11, 2001 and have held up during simulations.

He also said the design's passive cooling system makes it much safer than older designs. The AP 1000 uses gravity and condensation -- not electricity -- to cool the fuel rods.

It was the loss of electric power that led to the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactors following the tsunami in 2011.

Still, a coalition of nine mostly regional anti-nuclear groups say the current design is not safe. They plan on challenging Thursday's decision in federal court.

In addition to fears of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant, critics also point out that the nation still has no long term plan for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The waste, which is highly radioactive, is currently stored at the plants themselves while the federal government continues its decades-long search for a permanent disposal facility.

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country. Half are over 30 years old.

Nuclear power provides the country with about 18% of its electricity. Coal is the nation's largest source for electricity, providing 43% of our energy, while natural gas makes up another 25%, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Renewables make up the remaining 14%, with hydroelectric dams accounting for more than half of that. Wind accounts for about 3% and biomass (think paper mills or agricultural plants) another 2%. Solar and geothermal make up under 1% of American electricity production, according to EIA.

In addition to the Vogtle plant, 16 other plants across the country have applications with the the NRC to build 25 more reactors.

Most of those reactors would be built at existing nuclear power plants but there are two applications submitted for brand new nuclear plants -- one in Levy County, Fla., and another outside Gaffney, S.C.

Environmentalists are split when it comes to nuclear power. Many are weary of it, citing the safety and waste disposal concerns. Others favor it on the grounds that it can provide massive amounts of power that's basically greenhouse gas-free. 

[Conan71]

I can't believe TTC hasn't already wall-papered TNF with this. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Everything you always wanted to know...


http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/


Some interesting simulations there.  Interesting how we have gone from required triple redundancy in past to only double on this reactor.  That must mean they re much safer now.

[Townsend]

Some interesting simulations there.  Interesting how we have gone from required triple redundancy in past to only double on this reactor.  That must mean they re much safer now.

Jack Lemmon approved