WakeandBake
Well-known member
so you want the government to do it for America, as in legislate that we have to use it. I see. And this fits into your view of free market capitalism and small government how?
SS,DD
- Thread starter jhmd2000
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
so you want the government to do it for America, as in legislate that we have to use it. I see. And this fits into your view of free market capitalism and small government how?
WakeandBake
Well-known member
Nuclear is great. But the necessary equipment for new reactors is in back-order all over the world
Done wonders for Japan and the Ukraine. Can we build a reactor in your backyard?
WakeandBake
Well-known member
According to the World Nuclear Association, globally during the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average, and by the year 2015 this rate could increase to one every 5 days.[185]
There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants as only a few companies worldwide have the capacity to forge single-piece reactor pressure vessels,[186] which are necessary in the most common reactor designs. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need for these vessels. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods.[187] Other solutions include using designs that do not require single-piece forged pressure vessels such as Canada's Advanced CANDU Reactors or Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors.
China has 25 reactors under construction, with plans to build more,[188] while in the US the licenses of almost half its reactors have been extended to 60 years,[189] and plans to build another dozen are under serious consideration.[21] China may achieve its long-term plan of having 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity four to five years ahead of schedule.[190] However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.[191]
The U.S. NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy have initiated research into Light water reactor sustainability which is hoped will lead to allowing extensions of reactor licenses beyond 60 years, in increments of 20 years, provided that safety can be maintained, as the loss in non-CO2-emitting generation capacity by retiring reactors "may serve to challenge U.S. energy security, potentially resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to an imbalance between electric supply and demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Debate_on_nuclear_power
There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants as only a few companies worldwide have the capacity to forge single-piece reactor pressure vessels,[186] which are necessary in the most common reactor designs. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need for these vessels. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods.[187] Other solutions include using designs that do not require single-piece forged pressure vessels such as Canada's Advanced CANDU Reactors or Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors.
China has 25 reactors under construction, with plans to build more,[188] while in the US the licenses of almost half its reactors have been extended to 60 years,[189] and plans to build another dozen are under serious consideration.[21] China may achieve its long-term plan of having 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity four to five years ahead of schedule.[190] However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.[191]
The U.S. NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy have initiated research into Light water reactor sustainability which is hoped will lead to allowing extensions of reactor licenses beyond 60 years, in increments of 20 years, provided that safety can be maintained, as the loss in non-CO2-emitting generation capacity by retiring reactors "may serve to challenge U.S. energy security, potentially resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to an imbalance between electric supply and demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Debate_on_nuclear_power
We need to move to thorium energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
WakeandBake
Well-known member
absolutely.
Of course if Obama got up there and talked it up he would be laughed off the lectern by his opponents as unrealistic, and by his own party as dangerous. sigh