Dedicated To The Smallest Of Skiffs banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
I Love microskiff.com!
Joined
·
4,544 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
1/ I propose a useful counter to the #GreenNewDeal I call it the #GreenNuclearDeal. I believe it will have 4 major phases and could potentially eliminate the use of fossil fuels for power production in the United States.
2/ Let me give my expertise. I spent 20 years operating nuclear power plants for the United States Navy and after my retirement I continued to work in the commercial sector as an operator for at a 3 loop Westinghouse plant.
3/ Phase 1: Deregulate a lot of the industry. Without giving details I can tell you that access to military installations is easier and has less firepower than commercial power plants. The government requires more security for commercial power plant than they for the Navy plants.
4/ another example of over regulation is The commercial Nuclear is terrified to overflow pure water tanks because they would have to report spilling purified water to the EPA and NRC.
5/ With regulations removed the next pet of Phase 1 would be for the government to intervene and fund recommending construction on VC Summer units 2 and 3. And then to push for the companies with existing licenses to build other new generation 3 PWR and BWRs.
Phase 1 is really about replacing the aging commercial nuclear fleet to support the baseload energy source. California spent $100 Billion on “green energy” that can sustain the state for a whopping 23 minutes. For the same price they could have build between 6-10 new plants.
7/ Phase 2- have the national laboratories that design the Navy’s nuclear power plants create a smaller variable power plant to use during peak hours. Large scale nuclear plants operate at 100% of rated power and don’t function well at varying power level.
8/ The Navy Nuclear power plants are designed to varying power levels. The ships do not operate at top speed all the time and must fluctuate between low and high powers constantly based on the mission.
9/ Smaller scale (1000 MWth or less) could be used to supplement the firs during peak time periods and the plants could go idle or shutdown during low power demand periods.
10/ Phase 3- Place focus on developing generation IV fission power plants. These new designs have unlimited passive safety systems. Meaning that if an incident occurred an all operators suddenly died the plant would go to safe idle or shutdown mode indefinitely.
11/ This is obviously preferred to the current generation 2 and 3 reactors in service that require specific operator action. Even the new generation 3+ AP1000 plants require operation action after 72 hours. Presently after Fukushima a program called BDB Flex was implemented.
12/ It requires diesel driven equipment on site in hardened facilities to combat a Beyond Design Basis incident (e.g. tsunami, hurricane, etc...). Overall the safety of currently operating plants is enhanced because of the procedure but the new gen 4 designs would eliminate this.
13/ Phase 4- #FUSION power plants. To get this technology will require a competitive effort similar to the Manhattan project in the 1940s. To ensure public safety we would need to conduct the large scale test plants in the middle of nowhere.
14/ This has been done in the past during the 50s and 60s when fission was being developed on a large scale. In fact the only nuclear accident in US history that involve fatalities occurred in the middle of nowhere in Idaho. SL-1 was a terrible accident.
15/ The people died but new design requirements were built into new plant design to preclude rod ejection. I would hope any fusion designs would not have any major accidents but we would need to them in middle of nowhere.
16/ Fortunately we have three major national nuclear sites in the middle of nowhere.

1. Idaho National Laboratory
2. Nevada National Security Site
3. Los Alamos National Laboratory
17/ We could pick 3 types of fusion core designs and give the sites $1 Billion each to start design and construction. The two labs that get their project furthest along in a 5 year time period would be awarded and additional $1 Billion for further development.
18/ As the projects progress we could continue to fund them until they produce two different viable large scale fusion plants.
19/ Why two? Think back to the Manhattan project. Two competing designs were being developed one using Uranium and the other Plutonium. The final product, though devastating, resulted in two unique products that were delivered.
20/ Hiroshima was struck by the bomb that utilized Uranium and Nagasaki was struck by the bomb that utilized plutonium. Both of these incidents were tragic but the human performance measures to get the final product are sound.
21/ @ScottAdamsSays @naval @Cernovich @realDonaldTrump @JackPosobiec
I hope you look into my #GreenNuclearDeal
 

·
I Love microskiff.com!
Joined
·
4,544 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
What if I told you that we have at least 10,000 years of power available to us at this very moment and we just aren’t using it. Instead it sits in fields aging away doing nothing.
I am not joking! What we call Nuclear Waste is really a lie. Here is it really is: Fuel or the building block of fuel. The legacy plants used in the US use Uranium 235 at around 3% enrichment as a fuel source. After the Uranium 235 fuel is consumed the rest is considered waste.
What is left of the 97% is 96% Uranium 238 and 1% Plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is really just a form nuclear fuel that was created when Uranium 238 absorbed excess neutrons from the reactor operating.
We can design (these plants have existed in the past and still do today) and build a plant that uses this Plutonium as fuel. It can also use the excess neutrons from fission to generate more plutonium from the leftover Uranium 238.
The average fission yield is 2.88 neutrons per fission of Plutonium 239. A critical reactor will consume 1 of the 2.88 neutrons. The remaining can be used to convert Uranium 238 into Plutonium 239. This is the principle behind a breeder reactor.
Literally breeder reactors generate power at the same time they generate fuel for future use. The power plants can literally consume what is incorrectly referred to Nuclear Waste. It is literally fuel.
If we built a Breeder reactor at 40 year old power plant that is the same size as the existing legacy plant it would take 1300 years to consume the spent Nuclear fuel from the legacy plant.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/subschneider
Mark Schneider‏ @subschneider
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
I spent my 35+ year career at the Idaho National Laboratory. Great post. I could write volumes about energy issues but the left doesn't want facts to get in the way of their agenda.

As for nuclear power, the anti's say we don't have a way to deal with the waste. That is simply not true. There is on the order of 7 times the underground burial capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facility in NM to handle far beyond the transuranic waste its designated for. Not to mention Yucca Mountain. I was heavily involved in the waste management issue.

But then Senator Harry Reid got the Yucca Mtn project canceled because he didn't like it. So he got then President Obama to defund the project. In its place Obama established what was known as the "Blue Ribbon Panel." He gave them 18 months to come up with a plan for waste disposal. Their charter was to be technically sound and to put political factors aside. So far so good,

Except Obama gave them one caveat. Yuccan Mountain is off the table and can not be considered. So much for "technical."
 

·
I Love microskiff.com!
Joined
·
4,544 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I spent my 35+ year career at the Idaho National Laboratory. Great post. I could write volumes about energy issues but the left doesn't want facts to get in the way of their agenda.

As for nuclear power, the anti's say we don't have a way to deal with the waste. That is simply not true. There is on the order of 7 times the underground burial capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facility in NM to handle far beyond the transuranic waste its designated for. Not to mention Yucca Mountain. I was heavily involved in the waste management issue.

But then Senator Harry Reid got the Yucca Mtn project canceled because he didn't like it. So he got then President Obama to defund the project. In its place Obama established what was known as the "Blue Ribbon Panel." He gave them 18 months to come up with a plan for waste disposal. Their charter was to be technically sound and to put political factors aside. So far so good,

Except Obama gave them one caveat. Yuccan Mountain is off the table and can not be considered. So much for "technical."
The part about converting waste into fuel piqued my interest. We will see if anything comes of it. I think he will go elsewhere with this idea if the powers that be shut him down. Japan for instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
I spent my 35+ year career at the Idaho National Laboratory. Great post. I could write volumes about energy issues but the left doesn't want facts to get in the way of their agenda.

As for nuclear power, the anti's say we don't have a way to deal with the waste. That is simply not true. There is on the order of 7 times the underground burial capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facility in NM to handle far beyond the transuranic waste its designated for. Not to mention Yucca Mountain. I was heavily involved in the waste management issue.

But then Senator Harry Reid got the Yucca Mtn project canceled because he didn't like it. So he got then President Obama to defund the project. In its place Obama established what was known as the "Blue Ribbon Panel." He gave them 18 months to come up with a plan for waste disposal. Their charter was to be technically sound and to put political factors aside. So far so good,

Except Obama gave them one caveat. Yuccan Mountain is off the table and can not be considered. So much for "technical."

The left's fault........really?
Our current president has vowed to bring coal back bigger than ever. Ya think he's gonna institute a policy that is the final nail in coal's coffin?

Good times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
I for one support this. I wouldn’t be so quick to blame the “left”, place the blame where it belongs , on the highly profitable, highly polluting conventional fuel industry. Nuclear power has to be part of any responsible future power plan. If half the money that has been spent on developing fracking technology, solar and wind was spent on advancing nuclear technology as you suggested we would already be there. Much smarter people than I have been saying for years nuclear has to be part of the solution! I believe even bill gates said it recently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
You can blame whomever you want for the lack of nuclear power. Here's a few facts.

1. Nuclear fuel reprocessing was stopped in 1994 under direction from the Department of Energy. The president at the time was Bill Clinton.
2. Yucca Mountain funding was stopped in 2011. The president at the time was Barack Obama.
The GAO reported that the decision was for political not technical reasons.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all

3. The Blue Ribbon Commission, under Barack Obama, issued its final report in January 2012. The good news - they came up with 7 recommendations, and they weren't "bad." The bad news - every one of their recommendations was to have MORE freaking studies.

4. Under the current administration they have stopped funding non Yucca mountain research and have started funding the Yucca Mountain Repository licensing.

As to other forms of power there are good and bad for all of them. I was specifically talking about nuclear energy.

However, as a energy manager I 'd be happy to talk about other energy forms too. But the nuclear program was my specific area of expertise.
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
You can blame whomever you want for the lack of nuclear power. Here's a few facts.

1. Nuclear fuel reprocessing was stopped in 1994 under direction from the Department of Energy. The president at the time was Bill Clinton.
2. Yucca Mountain funding was stopped in 2011. The president at the time was Barack Obama.
The GAO reported that the decision was for political not technical reasons.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all

3. The Blue Ribbon Commission, under Barack Obama, issued its final report in January 2012. The good news - they came up with 7 recommendations, and they weren't "bad." The bad news - every one of their recommendations was to have MORE freaking studies.

4. Under the current administration they have stopped funding non Yucca mountain research and have started funding the Yucca Mountain Repository licensing.

As to other forms of power there are good and bad for all of them. I was specifically talking about nuclear energy.

However, as a energy manager I 'd be happy to talk about other energy forms too. But the nuclear program was my specific area of expertise.
I really miss nuclear money!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top