Economics and politics finally have a nuclear bond.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

In the US it makes more sense to put the reactors far away from populated areas. There wouldn't be enough homes in a radius around the power plant to justify the hot water. Plus water doesn't have to be "used" at a power plant meaning there is no waste. It all just gets continously recycled back through the steam generators. You don't want to remove much of the heat, just enough to condense the steam back into water so it can be pumped again back into the steam generators. The hotter it stays the easier it is to make steam again.

Our plants dump the waste water right into the river,

The power plants in my home town have a population of 100,000+ within a 20 mile radius

There are subdivisions under a mile away

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by JSH

From a Western perspective maybe but not for the reality of China. The vast majority of rural Chinese heat and cook with coal stoves. A new coal plant supplying electricity to a city is far better than a town full of people cooking over a coal stove.
China's coal consumption is actually going down not up even with all the new coal fired electrical plants. It peaked in 2013.

"China is using less coal".
That has not aged well. Simping for commies who can't mine enough coal fast enough. Hahahahahahahhahahahaaaa.
If china says they're using less coal they're either lieing or they're lieing. They're just lieing and say they use less when they use the same or more; or there is a recession and they actually are using less but when you ask china if there is a recession causing them to less coal, no their economy is booming and they are using more solar.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Our plants dump the waste water right into the river,

The power plants in my home town have a population of 100,000+ within a 20 mile radius

There are subdivisions under a mile away

I have a buddy who works at a natural gas fired plant in Wisconsin and their waste heat is used to melt sidewalks in their downtown.

Still there is only one nuclear power plant still operating in Wisconsin (and yet something like 15% of Wisconsin's electricity is nuclear) and that's not really "waste" water they "dump" in the river. Is is river water they use to condense the steam and return to the river. You can have a nuclear power plant in the desert and just use a loop of water through a cooling tower to condense the steam. The water is always the same water, like the water in your car that has a cooling "tower" in the radiator. On the aircraft carrier we used salt water from the ocean to condense the steam and then returned it to the ocean. It's 3 steps removed from any nuclear contamination and is never under a neutron flux so it is just water that is a little warmer than it started out.

I still think there are plenty of remote areas better suited to build nuclear power plants. Keep them away from oceans and rivers. If nothing else you can then safely store spent fuel rods and other waste right on site and there is nothing natural to cause it to be a danger later.

[redpoint5]

I'm sure there's a good answer, but I wonder why it's easier/cheaper to mine trace amounts of U235 and refine it than to take the already concentrated "waste" and refine it again?

[freebeard]

I was hoping that peeps would watch the video I posted at Permalink #66. Looking forward light water reactors cannot be deployed as quicly as modular Thorium reactors.

Originally Posted by myself

The technology consists in a pot in a can, four serially redundant cooling loops and redundant failsafes.

My sister lived in Hood River, OR, across from the outlet of the Hanford Reservation into the mighty Columbia. She passed at 45 from brain cancer. On the way upriver for the service, we passed wakeboarders surfing the waves around the outflow.

It's time to move forward into reactors one can loft into orbit.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

"China is using less coal".
That has not aged well. Simping for commies who can't mine enough coal fast enough. Hahahahahahahhahahahaaaa.
If china says they're using less coal they're either lieing or they're lieing. They're just lieing and say they use less when they use the same or more; or there is a recession and they actually are using less but when you ask china if there is a recession causing them to less coal, no their economy is booming and they are using more solar.

From statista - source BP Statistical Review of World Energy

[oil pan 4]

Looks like the same or more and an upwards trend.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Looks like the same or more and an upwards trend.

Looks to me like massive growth from 2002 to 2011 and then pretty flat for the last decade.

2013 = 82.44
2020 = 82.27

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I was hoping that peeps would watch the video I posted at Permalink #66. Looking forward light water reactors cannot be deployed as quicly as modular Thorium reactors.


My sister lived in Hood River, OR, across from the outlet of the Hanford Reservation into the mighty Columbia. She passed at 45 from brain cancer. On the way upriver for the service, we passed wakeboarders surfing the waves around the outflow.

It's time to move forward into reactors one can loft into orbit.

Sorry about your sister. Hanford is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about not putting waste or a reactor on the banks of a river.

As far as recycling the fuel rods, they can but I think part of it, it is easier to mine and refine new materials as then they have a more known commodity. Think of it maybe like paper. The finest paper comes from new pulp, then the recycled paper is more for newspaper or cardboard.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by JSH

Looks to me like massive growth from 2002 to 2011 and then pretty flat for the last decade.

2013 = 82.44
2020 = 82.27

Then why are there coal shortages and rationing if growth has been flat for 7 years? Seems like flat growth is pretty easy to plan for, not something that causes export bans, rationing and rolling blackouts.