New Nukes!

[Metanis]

The first new nuclear power plant application in 30 years!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... lication_1

Consortium to Seek Nuclear Plant License
Wed Mar 31,11:30 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!


By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Seven companies have agreed to jointly apply for a license to build a new commercial nuclear power plant, the first new reactor application to be filed in three decades, the companies announced Wednesday.

The five energy companies and two reactor vendors emphasized that none of the companies have made a commitment to actually build a new plant, but are taking the move to test the government's streamlined licensing process.


The companies intend to commit $7 million a year to the effort under a cost-sharing program with the Energy Department. The goal is to get license approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2010.


While three utilities previously have submitted applications for early site approval for reactors, this represents the first time the industry has actually said it would seek construction and operating approval for a new nuclear power plant since 1973.


Interest in new reactors faded after the nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. Many projects were canceled after the accident, although 51 reactors in the pipeline were completed.


The consortium includes four of the country's largest electricity generating companies: Chicago-based Exelon Corp., which owns 17 reactors; Entergy Nuclear, a unit of New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., operator of 10 reactors; Baltimore-based Constellation Energy; and Atlanta-based Southern Co.


Also in the group are EDF International North America Inc., a subsidiary of Electricite deFrance, which owns interest in a number of U.S. reactors, and two reactor vendors, General Electric and Westinghouse Electric Co. Westinghouse is a subsidiary of the British nuclear company, BNFL.


Both vendors have designs for next-generation reactors before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


In the announcement, the participants emphasized that the decision to submit a license application is aimed at testing the government's new approach to licensing, which for the first time would have the NRC approve a generic reactor design and consider in one process both a construction permit and operating license.


Such a test is considered a major step in the gradual move toward building new reactors. The consortium gave no indication when or where a plant actually might be built. The announcement said neither the consortium nor its members "are making a commitment to build a new nuclear unit at this time."


Any decision on a future plant would be left to the individual participants in the consortium, the announcement said.


"We must keep the nuclear energy option open for the future," said Chris Crane, president and chief nuclear officer at Exelon.


Michael Wallace, president of Constellation Energy Group, said while his company "has no immediate plans" for building a new reactor "our decision to join this consortium is indicative of our strong desire to see the process by which new plants are sited streamlined to support efficient construction in the future."


The consortium hopes to complete the application process by 2008 and get a decision from the NRC by 2010. After that, any company or combination of participants can use the permit to proceed with a construction plan.

I think we should build like 100 of these new plants and tell the respected middle-eastern towel merchants to choke on that crude oil we quit buying.

[Ashur]

I think we should build like 100 of these new plants and tell the respected middle-eastern towel merchants to choke on that crude oil we quit buying.

Because our cars run on Nuclear Power plants? Not to mention that the US gets more oil from other sources, although OPEC does have considerable influence on the global price of crude oil due to production control over output of participating nations... towel merchants... wtf dude.

[Krurk]

These are rough numbers, but about 1/3 of the oil imported by the U.S. goes towards transportation (planes, trains and automobiles) while another 1/3 goes towards power generation and the final 1/3 goes towards industrial applications (plastic, lubricants, etc).

If the U.S. were to shift it's energy production away from oil (which accounts for about 2/3 of current energy production) then you would see a small drop in the price for oil as demand decreases. However, there is simply too much demand for oil in other applications that it would take far more then a shift in power generation to have a serious impact on oil prices.

Some possible changes would be if the U.S. shifted towards alternative energy production (nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydro and wind) and was able to develop alternatives to internal combustion engines for automobiles, ships, trains and those annoying gas powered scooters you see.

Sadly even with it's current high price, energy production through oil is still the most cost effective method available to us. I think coal is cheaper to use, but the environmental limitations on plants negates this advantage.

[Adex_Xeda]

Have you guys tried to price a fuel cell recently?

I tried to get a "small" one for a robot competition and the damn thing costs 19k for the functionality similar to a $60 car bat.


Have you looked the the processes involved to produce hydrogen for these fuel cells? The two primary methods require more energy to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides when burned.

We're stuck with oil until someone pulls off Fusion.

[kyoukan]

Fuel cell prices are plummetting. Plus when you are buying one you are probably going to be paying in the neighborhood of 500% more than a company like GM would be paying because they would be buying them in lots of at least 10,000-100,000 of them.

I'm guessing that power plants that run off crude and cars that run off of power station generated electricity is one of those reality-bending quirks you have to put up with when you live in Metanis-ville.

[nobody]

i think the more immeadiate concern is not using oil, though it is a concern, but where we get our oil from. OPEC has every right to to raise and lower gas prices as well though should as much it sucks for us. they've got the oil, we want it/need it. it's only in their best interests to make money off of our oil spoiled asses after all. instead of trying to convince OPEC to lower prices why doesn't the US help out our Mexican friends and help them get at the abundance of oil they are too poor to tap into. that would be a more symbiotic relationship and cost effective in the long run as well.

[Adex_Xeda]

Don't get me wrong Kyo, I dream of a day when crude oil is only used for tires and plastics.


The main problem with electric cars is loss. A fuel like gas has a certain amount of energy trapped in it. A combustion engine like a jet or car motor release that energy very close to the object that the energy is to do work on.

The trick is to store energy, transport it with minimal loss, and release it close to whatever you need it for.

If I turn my power generator extra hard at the power plant to source the extra energy needed for my new electric car, that energy must be transmitted through energy sapping power lines before it reaches the plug in your garage wall.

Burning the fuel at the power plant, and then electrically transmitting that energy to your electric car incurs more loss than if you burned the fuel right next to the wheels via a combustion engire.

This means that if everyone went with electrical cars we'd burn more fossil fuels than with the current system.

Fossil fuels are energy dense. This allows tranport of that stored energy to be more efficient that other alternatives right now.


The only thing I can see that would throw fossil fuels off the top rung of the ladder would be a non lossy way to transmit electricity long distances (room temperature superconductors), and fusion power.

We've done both, but not in a manner that's implementable.

Hell give it 20 years, and I bet you we'll have both.

[Adex_Xeda]

I forgot to mention we need some big jumps in battery technology as well.

The input to output ratio on batteries suck right now.

[Animale]

As a chemist, the main thing that scares me about burning petroleum is that the starting point for nearly every single molecule made today has at its beginning, petroleum as the carbon source. That means not only is your plastic, fabric, cleaners, and other obvious products based on petroleum, but your medicine, food additives, scents, most dyes, etc. Basically, most chemical process that are industrially relevant today rely upon petroleum. In my mind its almost criminal to extensively burn all of that usefulless. Of course, I'm somewhat biased on the matter because I don't want my starting materials to be burned away.

I know the energy has to come from somewhere, and hopefully there will soon be other ways to generate energy that are more cost effective than petroleum. Unfortunately, our infrastructure investment into petroleum is so high that it will probably take governmental intervention to ensure the economic viability of alternative energy sources. In short, burning petroleum isn't only environmentally unsound, its also an unwise use of the riches contained within petroleum. Although I know folks who are working hard on using other carbon feedstocks (Ethanol, methanol, carbon dioxide) that is still many years away... if ever.

Animale

[Arborealus]

I know the energy has to come from somewhere, and hopefully there will soon be other ways to generate energy that are more cost effective than petroleum. Unfortunately, our infrastructure investment into petroleum is so high that it will probably take governmental intervention to ensure the economic viability of alternative energy sources. In short, burning petroleum isn't only environmentally unsound, its also an unwise use of the riches contained within petroleum. Although I know folks who are working hard on using other carbon feedstocks (Ethanol, methanol, carbon dioxide) that is still many years away... if ever.

Animale

Exactly...energy is less of a concern imo than all of the other things we use petroleum for...

I really think the main concern is probably that we are reproducing and building societal structures based upon a clearly ephemeral resource...

Think about how much our current agricultural systems rely on petroleum...Not only do we rely largely on the delivery of agricultural products to urban centers...but the productivity per acre of arable land relies heavily on petroleum...fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation etc...Think about how much the viability of current population levels relies on petroleum...

Ethanol/Methanol as the basis for material production or energy is kind of a pipe dream when you are relying on so much petroleum to produce it that is a negative energy net sum...

Essentially we as a race are looking at population levels which are insupportable without petroleum used in all of the ways it is currently used...And while we may be able to develop energy sources to ameliorate the loss of petroleum based energy sources...I don't see us developing replacements for the myriad other uses of petroleum at anything approaching a reasonable rate...

http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

The use of oil has changed world economies, social and political structures, and lifestyles beyond the effect of any other substance in such a short time. But oil supplies are limited. The peak of world oil production and the beginning of the irreversible decline of oil availability is clearly in sight. This paper examines the role of oil in two contexts: Its importance in countries almost entirely dependent on oil income, and the role of oil in world agricultural productivity. Possible alternatives to oil and its close associate, natural gas, are also examined. Countries almost solely dependent on oil income are chiefly those of the Persian Gulf region. The prosperity which oil has brought to these nations has resulted in a rapidly growing population which is not sustainable without oil revenues. World agriculture is now highly dependent on oil and natural gas for fertilizers and pesticides. Without these, agricultural productivity would markedly decline. As a base for the production of these materials, oil and natural gas are irreplaceable. Lifestyles and affluence in the post-petroleum paradigm will be quite different from today. World population will have to be reduced if it is to exist at any reasonable standard of living. At that time concern will be much more centered on obtaining basic resources, especially agricultural, by which to survive.

Fairly interesting points here although dieoff.org seems to be a bit dubious in and of itself...

[Ashur]

I want a Mr. Fusion for my car...