Valve Technology Blog

That doesn't jive with DOE predictions:

"Concerns about GHG emissions have little effect on construction of new capacity fueled by natural gas. The natural gas share of generation increases to 21 percent in 2027, before dropping to 20 percent in 2030, about the same as in 2007. Generation from nuclear power increases by 13 percent from 2007 to 2030, as addition of new units and uprates at existing units increase overall capacity and generation. The nuclear share of total generation falls somewhat, however, from 19 percent in 2007 to 18 percent in 2030. Renewable generation, supported by Federal tax incentives and State renewable programs, increases by more than 100 percent from 2007 to 2030, when it accounts for 14 percent of total generation." Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html

What that says is the percentile of electricity generated by nuclear means remains about the same. Read into the web page more and DOE sees a lower growth rate than in previous years for US electrical demands.

Additionally, didn't the current administration put the axe to the Yucca Mountain nuclear fuel repository? To my knowledge, nothing else has been proposed to take its place.

This is directly from Obama's web site:

"The Current Situation

The country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. For too long, politicians in Washington have been beholden to special interests, but no longer. Our new, responsible energy policy recognizes the relationship between energy, the environment, and our economy and leverages American ingenuity to put people back to work, fight global warming, increase our energy independence and keep us safe.

The Solution

Chart a new energy future:

President Obama has a comprehensive plan to chart a new energy future by embracing alternative and renewable energy, ending our addiction to foreign oil, addressing the global climate crisis and creating millions of new jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

Invest in clean, renewable energy:

To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy – solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power.

Fight climate change:

We will invest in energy efficiency and conservation, two sure-fire ways to decrease deadly pollution and drive down demand. And we will hold special interests accountable as we finally work to address climate change and its potentially catastrophic effects."

The source for that is: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/newenergy/index.php

I would love to see that comprehensive plan. However, that is probably nothing more than a second web page of hyperbole. What I take out of "His" plan is that oil, coal, nuclear, and natural gas are to be replaced with dilitium crystals.

Opps, did I say dilitium crystals? I meant delirium crystals.

I'd believe a magazine editor before I'd trust the DOE. Besides, they only differ by a percentage point--19 vs 20 percent.

Another way of looking at is: the total electrical consumption will go up a zillion percent, and nukes will maintain their 20 percent share by adding capacity. Coal and natural gas will continue to provide the bulk of added capacity.

Anybody who thinks renewable energy will account for more than a few percent of the total energy must be thinking somebody will invent dilithium crystals between now and 2030. We sure can't do it with wind and solar.

We need more nukes!

"nother way of looking at is: the total electrical consumption will go up a zillion percent"

How do you know that and which magazine editor cited that? :)

While 100% projected increase in renewable sector is good news, let's not take our eyes off the fact that "Generation from nuclear power increases by 13 percent from 2007 to 2030, as (a result of) addition of new units and uprates at existing units increase overall capacity and generation". Can we expect that 13% to be tapered off to Zero, absolute Zero, in 2030-2050 span? By then, hopefully, renewable modes should be well established as 'the' source of electricity?

Growing population and power needs, constantly kindles and triggers exploitation of practical means to meet demands.

Amid-st vast options science and technology are offering a practical solution needs to be implemented based on complex choice of available resources, cost factor, technology feasibility, climate control policies and practicability of the technological options.

We are still playing with very limited options of thermal and nuclear power as a momentary and immediately applicable solutions because they are established and proven. The option is based on urgency, growing demand, medium & short term based temporary and limitations of choice.

The real challenge for engineers and scientists is making the viability of new concept, greener, low cost and augment able long term solution for the power needs of the planets. Goals and constrains are defined- the puzzle is belling the cat.

STRIVE HARDER AND HARDER.

The rest of the world is building nuke plants - so why not us? Continued burning of fossil fuel is not sustainable. We need more nukes like the CANDU design. If we were smart we would have looked at alternatives long ago. Google NAWAPA and you will see where we could be today.

Edmund

About damn time, but I will believe it when I see a plant actually under construction.

Several foreign nuclear operators have purchased US facilities and are gearing up to start producing the materials for new nuclear plants. They wouldn't be spending billions if they didn't think they were going to make any money. I know a French company has moved into Norfolk, VA and is working with one of the big, idled, ship yards to start producing specialized piping and vessels needed for nuclear plants.

I hope you are right. However, building nuclear plants is like rolling dice. The moment plans are submitted, third part groups start filling law suit after law suit. This is one of the reasons it takes forever to build such a plant and the main reason why none have been built for so long.

Hi,

there is a new Nuclear Power Plant under construction in Finland now. This seems to develop into a financial big dump.

This is from a joint venture of Siemens and Areva.

They get divorced recently and Siemens now is cooperating with Russia.

This plant and nearly all others that are in planning now seem not to make use of modern achievements:

Burning also separated high radioactivity trans-uranium elements together with Thorium, so that the supply of fissile material will last orders of magnitude longer than talked about by non-informed politicians and many others.

This is reducing the necessary storage time of spent fuel from 200 Kyears to 2 Kyears!

Burning only slightly enriched fuel (1.5%).

Inherent safety by heavy water moderator - if anything breaks with loss of coolant, then reactivity will no longer support the chain-reaction.

No need to stop the reactor at refueling.

Look at AECL for some information.

I am not linked to any commercial interest in this field.

Scientific source of information: ICENES 2007 and 2009 conferences.

(International conference on emerging nuclear energy systems).

RHABE

While it may be true that "The U.S. hasn't built a new plant since 1977", the fact is that most US power plants are expanding their existing capacity by adding on more (nuclear) units within existing power plants and under existing licenses. Hence the news that "Seventeen license applications are pending" is not really conciliatory. I therefore take exception to the use of the term "power plant" without first stating what was a particular plant's capacity (and overall US capacity) in the year 2000 and what is it going to be in 2010, 2020 etc.

The future lies in Wind and solar and that is where we should be looking.

HUH??!! Which plants have added units on existing plants and under existing licenses? None that I know of, and indeed many units have been shut down.

This statement is true of refining capacity in the US but I do not think it is true for nuclear plants. Please elaborate which plants.

SHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! There are seventy-five permits available now...............

Since Anonymous Hero (mail # 1) has conceded that "Generation from nuclear power increases by 13 percent from 2007 to 2030, as addition of new units and uprates at existing units increase overall capacity and generation", quoting specific data may not be necessary. There is increase and that is what matters.

Ok, perphaps I misunderstood your post. Your quote:

"the fact is that most US power plants are expanding their existing capacity by adding on more (nuclear) units within existing power plants and under existing licenses."

So you are saying this is the strategy that plants are taking for the future? Because I don't believe it has been done before.

I am not certain, but I am also pretty sure that it is not possible to add units on an existing license (at least in the US). I believe each unit has to be licensed on its own.

Actually, DOE predicts (note, this is not my prediction nor my concession) a 13% rise in the number of nuclear plants in the US. Right now we have 104 in the US. That means by 2030 we will have about 13 new plants (or additions) added to the grid. That is not a big win to me as far as ramping up nuclear power in the US.

What is disappointing to me is the DOE prediction (note, this is not my prediction nor my concession) that the percentage of total US grid power supplied by nuclear plants will remain just under 20% of the total production (essentially, zero growth when adjusting for total electrical demand) by 2030. Actually, DOE predicts a loss of 1% for nuclear power, but I contend that 1% is lost in the predictive noise, so let's just call it zero growth for the next 21 years when adjusting for total US electrical demand.

So, your point that there is an increase and that is all that matters has a rather large flaw. Putting it another way, how would you react if your boss pulled you into his office and told you that your salary is to remain flat (or even slightly less than it is today) after we adjust for inflation for the next 21 years? After all, there is increase and that is what matters, right?

Mini or Maxi, all nuclear plants pollute. God knows we may need those underground places tomorrow that we are ruining today. All of us may not afford a one way ticket to the moon if and when it is colonized.

Hi,

maybe we need much more nuclear power:

with global warming (natural development one unknown part human-made) there may be much more global clouding and unknown development f winds.

As geothermal energy is still very low in most countries and the big ones are not willing to adopt what the smaller ones achieved (NIH - syndrome) there may be a severe energy gap coming up.

Migratory birds know what to do in these situations.

RHABE