Well best of luck to you on your quest to convince people that nuclear isn't dead. Hopefully you guys can keep pumping out enough GE reactors to third world countries to keep the industry alive for a while, like Altria does with smoking.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Well best of luck to you on your quest to convince people that nuclear isn't dead. Hopefully you guys can keep pumping out enough GE reactors to third world countries to keep the industry alive for a while, like Altria does with smoking.
Quote from dcraig:
"Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 nuclear power reactors by 2030 which could costs more than $100 billion."
Yes,but how much more? The cost of building a reactor is going up fast, so it might be 200 or 400 or even 800 billion. Considering their oil production is topping, it might not be so easy to grab that kind of money, even for the oil sheiks.
Anyways, where would they use all that electricity. Total electricity consumption in SA has gone up nearly 50% in the last 8 years being 165 Twh. Thats a lot especially when a country has just 27 million people and industrial production nearly nonexistent.
Country has two million square kilometers of the best possible land to harness the suns free energy and it decides to change oil for uranium.
It might be that OB has his hands on this??
Quote from futuman:
The cost of building a reactor is going up fast, so it might be 200 or 400 or even 800 billion. Considering their oil production is topping, it might not be so easy to grab that kind of money, even for the oil sheiks.
It might even be the entire GDP of the planet - or not. This is ludicrous nonsense. The nearest comparison is the neighboring UAE where the contracted (mostly fixed price) cost with the Sth Koreans is about $3.8 billion per GWh. This is highly competitive with with all other forms of low emissions electricity generation and much cheaper than solar.
And why will they need all that electricity and energy? Try thinking desalination for a start.
Quote from dcraig:
It might even be the entire GDP of the planet - or not. This is ludicrous nonsense. The nearest comparison is the neighboring UAE where the contracted (mostly fixed price) cost with the Sth Koreans is about $3.8 billion per GWh. This is highly competitive with with all other forms of low emissions electricity generation and much cheaper than solar.
And why will they need all that electricity and energy? Try thinking desalination for a start.
Like the French say; Korean reactors are like a poor mans car which has no ABS or safety belts.
What comes to desalination, wouldn't it be cheaper and cleaner utilizing evaporation?
Quote from futuman:
Like the French say; Korean reactors are like a poor mans car which has no ABS or safety belts.
Well, Areva would say that wouldn't they? The UAE reactors are Generation III+ APR-1400 units - an evolutionary modern design. Sth Korea has an excellent record of nuclear power operation with capacity factor exceeding that of (the very good) US nuclear power industry. Standardized design and operating procedures are a big part of that success.
What comes to desalination, wouldn't it be cheaper and cleaner utilizing evaporation?
Some information on desalination:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html
The (British) government has pushed ahead with plans for atomic power, confirming the eight locations it has deemed suitable for new plants by 2025 in its first policy statement on the issue since the nuclear crisis in Japan.
The sites â all adjacent to existing nuclear plants â are: Bradwell in Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Hinkley Point, Somerset; Oldbury, Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey.
Charles Hendry, energy minister, said that with about a quarter of the UKâs generating capacity due to close by the end of this decade, âwe need to replace this with secure, low-carbon, affordable energy.
âThis will require over £100bn worth of investment in electricity generation alone. This means twice as much investment in energy infrastructure in this decade as was achieved in the last decade.â
Mr Hendry said industry needed as much certainty as possible in order to make such big investments. âThese plans set out our energy needs to help guide the planning process, so that if acceptable proposals come forward in appropriate places, they will not face unnecessary hold-ups.â
The plans for new nuclear plants are part of a series of national policy statements on energy that were published on Thursday, following a public consultation. They will be debated and voted on in parliament.
The government has given its backing to new reactors as a way of helping meet the countryâs energy demands and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The UK remains committed to new plants despite the nuclear crisis that engulfed the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March.
Environmental groups reacted with dismay to the confirmation of the eight sites.
âItâs illogical, and possibly illegal, for the government to keep pushing for a fleet of new nuclear reactors before weâve even learnt the lessons from the Fukushima meltdown,â said Louise Hutchins, climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace.
âCountries around the world are dropping their nuclear programmes as costs soar. And a growing number of our European competitors have turned their backs on nuclear power after calculating that itâs just not worth the risk.â
However, the CBI employersâ group backed the plans.
âThese statements make clear the scale of the challenge. To provide investor confidence, what we now need is parliamentâs approval before the summer recess, so the energy sector can get on with what needs doing,â said Rhian Kelly, CBI director for business environment.
Chris Huhne, energy minister, has insisted the new plants will not get any public subsidy. However, there are concerns that proposed reforms of the electricity market could favour companies building the new reactors.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c380df0e-9d99-11e0-9a70-00144feabdc0.html
The sites â all adjacent to existing nuclear plants â are: Bradwell in Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Hinkley Point, Somerset; Oldbury, Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey.
Charles Hendry, energy minister, said that with about a quarter of the UKâs generating capacity due to close by the end of this decade, âwe need to replace this with secure, low-carbon, affordable energy.
âThis will require over £100bn worth of investment in electricity generation alone. This means twice as much investment in energy infrastructure in this decade as was achieved in the last decade.â
Mr Hendry said industry needed as much certainty as possible in order to make such big investments. âThese plans set out our energy needs to help guide the planning process, so that if acceptable proposals come forward in appropriate places, they will not face unnecessary hold-ups.â
The plans for new nuclear plants are part of a series of national policy statements on energy that were published on Thursday, following a public consultation. They will be debated and voted on in parliament.
The government has given its backing to new reactors as a way of helping meet the countryâs energy demands and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The UK remains committed to new plants despite the nuclear crisis that engulfed the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March.
Environmental groups reacted with dismay to the confirmation of the eight sites.
âItâs illogical, and possibly illegal, for the government to keep pushing for a fleet of new nuclear reactors before weâve even learnt the lessons from the Fukushima meltdown,â said Louise Hutchins, climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace.
âCountries around the world are dropping their nuclear programmes as costs soar. And a growing number of our European competitors have turned their backs on nuclear power after calculating that itâs just not worth the risk.â
However, the CBI employersâ group backed the plans.
âThese statements make clear the scale of the challenge. To provide investor confidence, what we now need is parliamentâs approval before the summer recess, so the energy sector can get on with what needs doing,â said Rhian Kelly, CBI director for business environment.
Chris Huhne, energy minister, has insisted the new plants will not get any public subsidy. However, there are concerns that proposed reforms of the electricity market could favour companies building the new reactors.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c380df0e-9d99-11e0-9a70-00144feabdc0.html
75% of USA Nuclear Plants Radioactive Tritium Has Leaked From them
BRACEVILLE, Ill. -- Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.
The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.
Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard â sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.
While most leaks have been found within plant boundaries, some have migrated offsite. But none is known to have reached public water supplies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/radioactive-tritium-leaks-us-nuclear-plants_n_881090.html
BRACEVILLE, Ill. -- Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.
The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.
Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard â sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.
While most leaks have been found within plant boundaries, some have migrated offsite. But none is known to have reached public water supplies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/radioactive-tritium-leaks-us-nuclear-plants_n_881090.html