Group items tagged

Six page article from 2003 provides an in depth discussion on existing and Future Nuclear Systems:  "In Response to the difficulties in achieving sustainability, a sufficiently high degree of safety and a competitive economic basis for nuclear power, the U.S. Department of Energy initiated the Generation IV program in 1999. Generation IV refers to the broad division of nuclear designs into four categories: early prototype reactors (Generation I), the large central station nuclear power plants of today (Generation II), the advanced lightwater reactors and other systems with inherent safety features that have been designed in recent years (Generation III), and the next-generation systems to be designed and built two decades from now (Generation IV) [see box on opposite page]. By 2000 international interest in the Generation IV project had resulted in a nine-country coalition that includes Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, the U.K. and the U.S. Participating states are mapping out and collaborating on the research and development of future nuclear energy systems."

Manufacturers of refrigerator-sized nuclear reactors will seek approval from U.S. authorities within a year to help supply the world's growing electricity demand. John Deal, chief executive officer of Hyperion Power Generation Inc., intends to apply for a license "within a year" for plants that would power a small factory or town too remote for traditional utility grid connections. The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based company and Japan's Toshiba Corp. are vying for a head start over reactor makers General Electric Co. and Areva SA in downsizing nuclear technology and aim to submit license applications in the next year to U.S. regulators. They're seeking to tap a market that has generated about $135 billion in pending orders for large nuclear plants.

According to a study from Clarion University, Pennsylvania, USA each step in the current US process of building and running a nuclear plant, from mining the uranium ores to disposing of the wastes, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the article states that for nuclear power to be a feasible alternative energy source the entire process would need to be more efficient. This study gives a view on nuclear power which includes long standing ideals. The paper seems to offer an intermediate review on issues around the subject of nuclear, in the wider energy debate.

Very interesting presentation at the TED Conference.  Not quite a nuclear battery, but a really good redesign of nuclear power systems. excerpt: "Instead of finding a new way to boil water, Wilson's compact, molten salt reactor found a way to heat up gas. That is, really heat it up. Wilson's fission reactor operates at 600 to 700 degrees Celsius. And because the laws of thermodynamics say that high temperatures lead to high efficiencies, this reactor is 45 to 50 percent efficient. Traditional steam turbine systems are only 30 to 35 percent efficient because their reactors run at low temperatures of about 200 to 300 degrees Celsius. And Wilson's reactor isn't just hot, it's also powerful. Despite its small size, the reactor generates between 50 and 100 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 homes, according to Wilson. Another innovative component of Wilson's take on nuclear fission is its source of fuel. The molten salt reactor runs off of "down-blended weapons pits." In other words, all the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium collecting dust since the Cold War could be put to use for peaceful purposes. And unlike traditional nuclear power plants, Wilson's miniature power plants would be buried below ground, making them a boon for security advocates. According to Wilson, his reactor only needs to be refueled every 30 years, compared to the 18-month fuel cycle of most power plants. This means they can be sealed up underground for a long time, decreasing the risk of proliferation. Wilson's reactor is also less prone to proliferation because it doesn't operate at high pressure like today's pressurized-water reactors or use ceramic control rods, which release hydrogen when heated and lead to explosions during nuclear power plant accidents, like the one at Fukushima in 2011. In the event of an accident in one of Wilson's reactors, the fuel from the core would drain into a "sub-critical" setting- or tank-

Calling climate change one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the human race, some former opponents of nuclear power have recently become its advocates, if cautious advocates. Our purpose here is not to debate climate change, but rather "Is nuclear power essential to addressing climate change and energy independence?"

A full 43 percent said nuclear energy provides a way to achieve a low-carbon future. The same percentage said they believed other renewable energy sources alone cannot fully replace fossil fuels. While 29 percent of those responding to the survey said they were more supportive of nuclear energy today than they were three years ago, 19 percent said they were less so.

"The weaknesses of federal regulatory agencies have been exposed by recent high-profile accidents. Guest columnist Tom Carpenter fears the Department of Energy will reduce its oversight of cleanup at the nation's nuclear waste sites. By Tom Carpenter Special to The Times PREV of NEXT Related Millions of gallons of oil gush continue to rush unabated from BP's mile-deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, and 11 workers are dead from the massive explosion that caused the biggest oil spill in decades. Weeks before this event, the news was dominated by the preventable explosion that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners. In both cases, the not-so surprising news was that the mine and the oil rig had abysmal records of safety violations before the explosions yet were still allowed to operate by the captive regulatory agencies. Where is the government accountability? It is the government's job to assure that ultra-hazardous industries operate safely and responsibly. Is nuclear next? The Department of Energy sits on the nation's biggest nuclear nightmare. Its inventories of highly radioactive and toxic wastes defy comprehension. Washingtonians are familiar with the DOE's No. 1 accomplishment, the Hanford nuclear site, which holds the lion's share of the nation's radioactive detritus. Suffice it to say that the escape of even a small fraction of such material into the environment would constitute a Chernobyl-sized catastrophe."

This is a guest article by Dr. David Fleming. Fleming is the Founder Director of the Lean Economy Connection, and an independent writer in the fields of energy, environment, economics, society and culture. The article is based on Fleming's recent 56-page booklet, The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which expands and references the arguments presented. The booklet is available to download here: The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy

"The U.S. Departments of Energy and the Interior have picked a former nuclear site in Nevada to be transformed into a zone for testing "cutting-edge" solar energy technologies. The research will take place on 25 square miles of land owned by the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, an area larger than the size of Manhattan, the Energy Department said today in a statement. The area lies in the southwest corner of the Nevada Test Site, about 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) northwest of Las Vegas, where the U.S. military used to detonate atomic weapons. The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration will oversee the project, according to the statement. "

Many see nuclear power as an optimal fossil to renewable transition energy.

As the grave and unpredictable nuclear crisis in Japan continues, energy experts both internationally and domestically are questioning the viability of nuclear to deliver safe and reliable energy

Two strong potential candidates for the Next Big Thing in cleantech venture capital are nuclear and carbon capture and storage. I've spoken with numerous VCs recently who are looking for innovative ways to play in nuclear power. Bets have already been made by VCs in small-scale nukes, hot fusion, and technologies related to big-scale nukes. The hope is to find a low-cost solution that is practically zero carbon emissions and also provides reliable "base load" power. So in other words, the hope is for a lower-carbon replacement for coal power. The challenges are also significant, however, not least of which being time to market for any new innovations, as this interesting article illustrates. With the recent news that the DOE will be putting $2.4B into carbon capture and storage, and its inclusion in emerging climate legislation, it's also clear that CCS will be leaned upon as a hoped-for way of making our existing coal-fired generation infrastructure less impactful on the atmosphere, while still preserving its value as low-cost baseload power. So in other words, the hope is for a lower-carbon "fix" for coal power.

NRG Energy, Inc. and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company filed the first application for a Combined Construction and Operating License with the NRC in nearly 30 years. NRG proposes to build and operate two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project nuclear power station site. The total rated capacity of the new units will exceed 2,700 MW.