Quote from gangof4:
look at the way the earthquake damage to freeways was handled in the LA earthquake a few years back vs the way it's been handled in teh bay area quake of 1989 (hint: the bay bridge is just now getting built- 19 years, billions over budget, and after about 1,000,000 environmental impact studies). comparing the 2 is a great case study in how not to do things vs how to get things done. [/B]
You are right. Something needs to fundamentally change in the way we deal with things. It doesn't need to take 19 years to finish a project - it is just revelatory of the degree of priority it is.
Take a look at this:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3915
Not very different from my ideas,
and this.
We have yet to design the Model T of nuclear power plants.
Bill Hannahan
Each new technology has a life cycle. It starts with an idea, then a prototype. If the technology involves high energy and/or hazardous materials, the prototype is often the most dangerous example, but there is only one prototype, so its risk to society is low. Risk to the public is greatest when the immature technology is first deployed in large numbers.
We have frozen nuclear power technology at its most dangerous stage of evolution for 30 years, yet it safely generates about 20% of our electricity in the U.S., 80% in France. Next generation plants will have fewer parts and passive safety systems, including the ability to contain a full meltdown.
General Electric ESBWR
Nuclear News on the ESBWR (.pdf)
Westinghouse AP1000
Areva EPR (.pdf)
Today we should be designing fourth generation nuclear plants, building third generation plants, living off the energy of second generation plants and converting our first generation plants into museums. In fact, no two nuclear power plants are exactly alike. We have yet to build the Model T of nuclear power plants.
Imagine that Boeing built airplanes in a swamp, outdoors, far away from any attractive place to live, using minimal tooling and equipment. Workers and equipment would be exposed to rain snow dust heat and insects. Very high salaries would be required to attract workers away from their families to work in harsh conditions. Productivity and quality would be low. The airplanes would be more expensive, less clean, less safe and less reliable than modern factory built planes. That is the way our first generation nuclear plants were built.
We should build facilities to mass produce floating nuclear power plants. They would consist of a canal 600 feet wide and a mile long, enclosed inside a building equipped with high quality lighting, heat, air conditioning, fire protection, communication systems, cranes and tooling, that provide a comfortable safe efficient work environment.
The process begins with a dry dock where a massive steel reinforced concrete barge is constructed. It is floated down the canal for installation of modular equipment. Employees will have safe, permanent, high paying jobs in an attractive coastal location. The application of assembly line techniques will dramatically reduce man-hours, construction time and cost, while improving safety and quality. The completed plants will be towed to coastal or offshore sites, prepared in parallel with plant construction.
The biggest single element in the cost of conventional nuclear plants is the interest on the loan to build the plant, about 1/3 of the total cost, due to the long construction time. Floating plants will be produced initially at the rate of two per year ramping up to about six per year, eliminating most of the interest expense.
A facility to mass produce floating nuclear power plants was actually built, for details see here.
We can make clean safe inexpensive energy available all over the world, have the high paying jobs and control the technology. We can design the plants to be highly resistant to acts of terror and the diversion of nuclear material, insist that plants be subject to international inspection as a condition of sale or lease and sell or lease these plants at a cost that is much lower than traditional construction methods, eliminating the fig leaf of energy production to hide a nuclear weapons program.
Cost
Reducing U.S. emissions now is of minor importance. If we eliminate all of our greenhouse emissions tomorrow, the developing world would gobble up the savings in a relatively short period of time.
The most important goal for the U.S. should be to accelerate the use of our technical capacity to develop energy technology that is less expensive than fossil fuel and can be implemented quickly all over the world. People will make the switch quickly and voluntarily, not kicking and screaming.
This is why the U.S. should increase R&D spending for non-fossil energy sources from $3.00 per person per year to $300.00 per person per year, $90 billion per year.
The money could be raised simply by adding 2.25 cents to the cost of each kWh.
We should be pushing every technology as hard as possible and building demo plants of each as it becomes possible.
What are the odds that a submarine reactor on steroids is the best way to produce massive amounts of commercial nuclear power? There are dozens of ways to split uranium and thorium atoms, here are a few examples.
2.25 cents per kWh would raise $18 billion each year from our existing nuclear power plants, more than enough to build at least one demonstration facility to mass produce floating nuclear power plants and several prototype reactors using advanced technology. That leaves $72 billion per year for non nuclear energy R&D.
Mandating the widespread use of expensive energy systems has resulted in the highest electricity prices in the world, Denmark, 41 cents per kWh, Germany, 30 cents per kWh (Electricity prices for EU households and industrial (.pdf)) yet they still get most of their electricity from fossil fuel.
We pay 9.5 cents per kWh in the U.S... A yearâs supply of electricity costs the average American $1,260. Mandating expensive energy systems could easily double that figure. Technology mandates are far more expensive than the cost of developing better technology.
Letting a bunch of gray haired law school graduates in Washington DC try to cherry pick energy technology is a formula for disaster.
France is 80% nuclear, most of the rest is hydro, and they pay 19 cents per kWh. France runs its nuclear power industry like the U.S. runs the post office, and they are building windmills now to show more renewable energy, so their cost will likely rise in coming years.
Our nuclear power plants have been paid off for a long time and they help keep prices down. The operation and maintenance cost for U.S. nuclear plants in 2006 was 2.0 cents per kWh (link) including the fuel assembly cost of 0.5 cents per kWh, of which the uranium cost was 0.19 cents per kWh.
Expensive energy systems will not solve the worldâs energy problem because most people cannot afford them.
If we spend 2.25 cents per kWh on R&D for a decade or so we can solve the energy problem and save over $1,000 per person per year for centuries. Accelerating the development of low cost, clean, safe energy systems is the greatest and cheapest gift we can provide to future generations.
For more details go to: Bill Hannahan's essay on energy.
Download the PDF and spreadsheet (mid page).
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3795
