njcommuter on February 6, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Just curious. What are the reasons that naval type fuel cannot be legally used in civilian plants and why are they no longer valid? Also exactly what is the makeup of naval reactor fuel and what makes it a breeder? I’d also be curious as to your take on the civilian fuel cycle. Do they use U-235, Pu-239, Pu-240 or Pu-241 for power production? If naval reactors are breeders, as you state, then how would you classify civilian reactors? Do civilian reactors produce plutonium in any significant amount? If so what happens to it?

They were months from finishing the plant, and upon double checking they caught the valve and reversed it, a valve that was a minor to the operation…for weeks the headlines were about this valve and the potential damage it could have caused, if it was in another location.

right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Yes – reminds me of the potential damage I could have caused, if I’d filled my car’s radiator with fuel and my gas tank with water.

“Europe has apparently had a change of heart on nuclear power.”

Why do you say that?

Maybe, because, like, they’ve had a change of heart?

Europe generates plenty of power through nuclear energy. France leads the world.

Yeah, but Europe also includes:

Germany (nuclear phase-out in progress, anti-nuke protests in the 80′s, climate of fear surrounding nuclear power – and events such as the accident in Chernobyl didn’t help)

Belgium (nuclear phase-out in progress, has old plants that supply half their power but that’s old news)

Austria (nuclear-free zone – even built an entire nuclear plant from scratch then wouldn’t turn it on / all but dismantled it)

Italy (nuclear-free zone)
Denmark (nuclear-free zone)
Ireland (nuclear-free zone)
Sweden (frozen – restrictions preventing new development)
UK (frozen – hemming and hawing, at least until recently, about whether even one new plant can be built)
…

So, a change of heart truly means a change of heart. Because to turn this disaster in Europe around, it would take a change of heart. Or do you disagree?

Remember, the fact that France, Belgium or Sweden has X% of nuclear power NOW doesn’t mean that they’ll have it in 10 years’ time, if that change of heart doesn’t happen and happen soon. Because as you may have heard, nuclear plants have FINITE LIFETIMES and must be shut down or rebuilt. How would you expect this to happen in, say, Belgium, given their recent emotional (and legal) state?

Lastly: Whoever the —- you are, also be aware that many of us recognize the excellent work done by Areva, ABB and the rest of the European nuclear establishment.

Hardly a ‘change of heart’ in Europe.

lexhamfox on February 5, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Yes, and Peace In Our Time as well, no doubt.

Sweden has a large and growing discontented Muslim pop. Malmo is arguably Europe’s largest Muslim city. Hate to have them so near to nuclear technology.

JiangxiDad on February 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM
No it doesn’t. The highest estimates of Muslims in Sweden are around 250k and that is out of a population over 9M. Malmo does not even come close to other cities. Spare us your alarmist BS.

Once again you are clueless. The Muslim population of Malmo – whatever its size – has already begun to control the city. That does not take an absolute majority to accomplish. Especially wherever Muslims meet meek, dhimmified, modern western Europeans. So your quotation of numeric figures does nothing to refute his point.

And unlike Muslims in France, who are housed in zones that ring the urban areas, the Muslims of Malmo live deep in the city center. In so doing they are well on their way to expelling the native Swedes. Thus the suggestion that Malmo might qualify as the largest Muslim CITY in Europe.

Civilian plants cannot, by law, use fuel of that type, for good reason. Typically the enrichment of civilian fuel is less than 5% U-235.

The reasons were thought to be good, and perhaps they were. They are no longer.

Here’s the story: a naval reactor is also a breeder, though it breeds far more slowly than a reactor designed as one. The plutonium intentionally created extends the lifetime of the fuel load.

The reason we decided not to do breeders was the fear that separating the plutonium out would make it possible for someone to steal it. We were thinking of other governments then; our model was that the USA would be providing nuclear fuel for the world and keeping the technology to ourselves. Considerations of technology are no longer reasonable constraints; most of the basic secrets are out. Not that we WANT reprocessing plants all over the place; the fuel can be diverted to bombs and a less-than-scrupulous operator can easily create an environmental disaster.

But in the newest breeder designs the plutonium is never actually separated from the other radioactive fuel metals; they together are separated from the ‘ash’ elements that result. (Most of the fuel elements are actinides, which are all chemically very similar.)

Here are links on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Fuel_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Ever since Al descended from the mountain to explain to us common folk about CO 2, I have been telling greenies that if they don’t want CO 2 they will have to accept nuclear power. They always exhibited total disgust at the suggestion.

Here’s a question. I believe I heard that the nuclear power plant ,the A4W ,on the Nimitz class super-carrier like the Reagan, can supply enough electricity to power a city of over a 100,000. Why do we not use this model to run some of our power grids? I don’t know much about nuclear energy, but it wouldn’t seem that hard to take that capability and a apply it to a land based version.

MDWNJ on February 5, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Producing power is one thing, producing affordable power is something else. If you got your electricity from a navy plant your electric bill would be significantly higher. I’m not sure what Nimitz’s plant are rated but it would be in the hundreds of megawatt thermal range, the plants from my era were less than 200 MwTh. A typical civilian nuke with an output of around 1000 megawatts electrical will have a thermal output of about 3200 megawatts. A lot bigger power plant, requiring a more delicate hand at the controls. a large portion of civilian nuclear operators are ex navy nukes. One of the first lessons is how much bigger everything is. Another hurdle is the fuel used for naval reactors. Civilian plants cannot, by law, use fuel of that type, for good reason. Typically the enrichment of civilian fuel is less than 5% U-235. comparing navy nukes to civilian plants is like comparing a Ferarri to a greyhound bus. They’re designed to do different things best to leave it that way. Let the navy plants bore holes in the water let the civilian plants light up your life.

“Europe has apparently had a change of heart on nuclear power.”

Why do you say that? Europe generates plenty of power through nuclear energy. France leads the world. Hardly a ‘change of heart’ in Europe.

Sweden has a large and growing discontented Muslim pop. Malmo is arguably Europe’s largest Muslim city. Hate to have them so near to nuclear technology.

JiangxiDad on February 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM

No it doesn’t. The highest estimates of Muslims in Sweden are around 250k and that is out of a population over 9M. Malmo does not even come close to other cities. Spare us your alarmist BS.

Sweden opens for nuclear-power business

Now can we up the ante and discover easy-to-reach oil shale in the Rockies? It’d be interesting to see how many of those resort towns battle environmentalism over pure revenue.

The waste will drop to near background emission in only a few hundred years.

njcommuter on February 5, 2009 at 6:33 PM

That’s what I understood, the new technology is so much more sophisticated and efficient.

Here’s a question. I believe I heard that the nuclear power plant ,the A4W ,on the Nimitz class super-carrier like the Reagan, can supply enough electricity to power a city of over a 100,000. Why do we not use this model to run some of our power grids? I don’t know much about nuclear energy, but it wouldn’t seem that hard to take that capability and a apply it to a land based version.

MDWNJ on February 5, 2009 at 4:46 PM

McCain brought that up, here we have a movevable nuclear plant, one that can’t have nearly the safe guards, and we virtually have not problems.
I am not sure we have ever had any major, or even minor problem…but I am sure if you went to a anti-nuclear website they would have found one foolish very minor incident.
Here is an example: When they were building San Onofre in Ca. a valve was put int backwards, that is the flow was going the wrong way.
They were months from finishing the plant, and upon double checking they caught the valve and reversed it, a valve that was a minor to the operation…for weeks the headlines were about this valve and the potential damage it could have caused, if it was in another location.

What we should hope is that Sweden is looking at breeders (just as the USA should be). If we get the fuel cycle right, we’ll get something over 20 times as much energy from each pound of uranium we mine, we’ll reduce the lifetime nuclear waste for one person to a mass the size of a teacup, and the waste will lose radioactivity much faster because the high-energy species that can produce strong radiation for millenia will all have been consumed. The waste will drop to near background emission in only a few hundred years.

Waiting around for “alternatives” will eventually leave us in the dark and far behind our global competition.

I wish that all we were doing was waiting around for alternatives instead of wasting gazillions of taxpayer dollars pursuing a utopian pipe dream.

We should invest in nuclear-power infrastructure now in order to ensure the stable electrical generation that allows us to enjoy an unparalleled standard of living.

A battery powered car in every garage and a nuclear power plant in every county.

My grandkids will have electricity 4 days a week, that’s how it was when I visited in Brasil and it works great.

hanzblinx on February 5, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Yeah, but the government employees, government retirees, and the elite will have all they want. That’s socialism taken to it’s logical end.

Not really…mining, milling, and concentration of uranium ore is very basic and straight forward in the mineral processing world. Everybody needs to realize that absolutely everything they touch, consume, utilize in their day to day existence has to be mined, milled, drilled, extracted, refined, processed, or otherwise ripped from mother earth in some fashion.

Wyznowski on February 5, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Compared to coal mining , it’s a bit trickier.

But maybe you’ll regain that difference in reduced transport volume.

Wanderlust on February 5, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Here’s a question. I believe I heard that the nuclear power plant ,the A4W ,on the Nimitz class super-carrier like the Reagan, can supply enough electricity to power a city of over a 100,000. Why do we not use this model to run some of our power grids? I don’t know much about nuclear energy, but it wouldn’t seem that hard to take that capability and a apply it to a land based version.