PDA

View Full Version : News: Some more US nuclear reactors coming up



PraedSt
2009-Jun-17, 12:28 PM
The WSJ reports that the first batch of Federal money for new nuclear plants is about to be allocated. The total program will eventually be ~$120 bn for 21 new reactors.

Locations: Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland

U.S chooses four utilities to revive industry (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124519618224221033.html) (EDIT: I just remembered that's a subscriber link. My apologies. For those who are interested, I think the full article can be accessed if you go via Google News).

Four power companies are expected to split $18.5 billion in federal financing to build the next generation of nuclear reactors -- the biggest step in three decades to revive the U.S. nuclear industry and one that could vault the utilities ahead of some of the sector's strongest players. UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRG Energy Inc., Scana (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=scg) Corp and Southern (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=so) Co. are expected to share a set of loan guarantees to be awarded by the Energy Department. The guarantees would enable the companies to start building the reactors as early as 2011, with the plants likely to come online by 2015 or 2016.
Problems.
The first round of building would add about seven new reactors to the U.S.'s existing fleet of 104 at a likely cost of more than $40 billion. But the new plants cost so much -- estimates range from $5 billion to $12 billion -- that power companies could have trouble coming up with the equity they must put into the projects, typically 20% to 50% of the total. In addition, technical or regulatory problems could arise, and it isn't certain the plants can be run profitably.Also note that the projects aren't financially closed yet. Federal loan guarantees are only a start.

geonuc
2009-Jun-17, 12:31 PM
Federal loan guarantees are only a start.
The process was started a while ago. Several license applications for new plants are in front of the NRC right now.

PraedSt
2009-Jun-17, 01:04 PM
The process was started a while ago. Several license applications for new plants are in front of the NRC right now.
That's right. According to the article:
Seventeen companies applied for $122 billion of federal loan guarantees for 21 proposed reactors.I also came across Nuclear 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program) a while ago. I'm wondering where that program fits in with all of this.

Hope you benefit from some of this dosh. :)

Demigrog
2009-Jun-17, 02:25 PM
The main implication from this announcement is that the ESBWR and GE-Hitachi ABWR won't be in the first round of new plants. It is very good news for Toshiba.

PraedSt
2009-Jun-17, 03:05 PM
The main implication from this announcement is that the ESBWR and GE-Hitachi ABWR won't be in the first round of new plants. It is very good news for Toshiba.
I get confused with all these acronyms. Plus, everyone's either buying each other out, or forming different joint ventures every other month. Very incestuous. :)

From the article:
The government's selection also determines which nuclear-design companies will win lucrative contracts to build the plants. Scana and Southern want to use a design by Westinghouse Electric Co., now controlled by Japan's Toshiba (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=6502.to) Corp., at sites in South Carolina and Georgia. The Westinghouse design has emerged as the most popular and is one of the few already certified for U.S. use by the NRC.


NRG hopes to build two Toshiba reactors in Texas, using a design first developed by General Electric (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ge) Co. UniStar, which is jointly owned by Constellation Energy Group (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ceg) and EDF SA, plans to use a reactor from France's Areva (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=427583.FR) SA at its site in Maryland.

The reactor makers unlikely to be in the first round include GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a joint venture of the U.S. and Japanese companies, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=7011.to) Ltd.So, I think from all of that the ABWR is out, but the others are in, either through the front door or the back. Yes/no?

Demigrog
2009-Jun-17, 05:17 PM
I get confused with all these acronyms. Plus, everyone's either buying each other out, or forming different joint ventures every other month. Very incestuous. :)

From the article:So, I think from all of that the ABWR is out, but the others are in, either through the front door or the back. Yes/no?

Well, the ABWR is built by two different coalitions: GE-Hitachi and Toshiba. The utilities that got financing for ABWRs in the first round were all Toshiba customers. Part of that is probably due to the fiasco with the ESBWR schedule, which forced Entergy, Dominion, and Excelon to back up and resubmit applications with ABWRs or APWRs. That apparently put them lower in the ratings to get the first government financing.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jun-18, 04:40 AM
So, which reactor design is better?

Jens
2009-Jun-18, 07:45 AM
Based on a very limited understanding, I think it's difficult to quantify which is "best." There are trade-offs with cost of development, eventual efficiency, cleanliness and, very importantly, proliferation concerns.

geonuc
2009-Jun-18, 11:02 AM
Some help with the acronyms:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

I personally favor the AP1000 as I prefer PWR's to BWR's (although, lately, all my work has been with BWR's).

Demigrog
2009-Jun-18, 03:25 PM
Most operators I've met like PWR better, as operation is simpler. From a cost and reliability perspective, BWRs don't have to have steam generators but they do have larger and more complex reactor vessels. Plus, with no secondary loop the steam turbine building is slightly irradiated.

The pros and cons do generally balance out; the choice seems to be largely driven by business alliances, politics, and vendor preferences by the utilities. I think at the Gen III+ level, the ESBWR offers some advantages (higher safety, potentially lower cost). Until the first one is actually operating though, the advantages are theoretical. On the other hand, the first Gen III+ PWRs are under construction. In Finland, the first EPR is massively over budget and behind schedule (not because of the design, however; really poor construction oversight!). In China, the first AP1000 just began pouring concrete.

PraedSt
2009-Jun-18, 03:33 PM
Some help with the acronyms:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

I personally favor the AP1000 as I prefer PWR's to BWR's (although, lately, all my work has been with BWR's).
Thanks. That's very useful. It looks like Westinghouse/Toshiba dominates this field. Aren't they the guys who made that "pocket" reactor? Or was that Mitsubishi?

geonuc
2009-Jun-18, 03:35 PM
Thanks. That's very useful. It looks like Westinghouse/Toshiba dominates this field. Aren't they the guys who made that "pocket" reactor? Or was that Mitsubishi?
Are you referring to the Toshiba 4S?

PraedSt
2009-Jun-18, 03:42 PM
I remember a thread on BAUT about a pocket plant. The size of a building or even room. All I remember was that it was Japanese (and being tickled by the idea). I'll have a look at the 4S and I'll try and find that thread.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jun-19, 05:45 AM
So, do the BWRs have the steam turbine in the same loop as the reactor? The one outside of my window is a PWR and has three loops for increased safety, IIRC: the reactor loop, the steam turbine loop, and the coolant loop. This seems safer to me than fewer loops. (I'm not sure if the cooland loop counts as a loop since it is open to the environment.)

geonuc
2009-Jun-19, 08:16 AM
So, do the BWRs have the steam turbine in the same loop as the reactor? The one outside of my window is a PWR and has three loops for increased safety, IIRC: the reactor loop, the steam turbine loop, and the coolant loop. This seems safer to me than fewer loops. (I'm not sure if the cooland loop counts as a loop since it is open to the environment.)
Yes, BWR turbines operate off reactor steam. PWR's have steam generators in the primary loop which boil secondary water to drive the turbine.

When considering the 'safety' of each basic design, there's obviously a lot to consider. One thing to consider is the operating pressure of the primary system. PWR's operate at about 2000 psi; BWR's at about 1000 psi. Containing a PWR's higher pressure is significantly more challenging.

mugaliens
2009-Jun-19, 09:03 AM
Why so doggone expensive?

I think it's time to exercise the right of eminent domain and build it without lining the fatcats' pockets.

geonuc
2009-Jun-19, 09:19 AM
Why do doggone expensive?

I think it's time to exercise the right of imminent domain and build it without lining the fatcats' pockets.
Eminent domain. And how does the sovereign's right to seize property for the public good play into building nuclear power plants?

If you're referring to government owned and operated plants, we have some here. TVA operates several. I don't think they were particularly cheap to build either.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-19, 10:09 AM
Open source reactor design?

jj_0001
2009-Jun-19, 05:58 PM
Well, the ABWR is built by two different coalitions: GE-Hitachi and Toshiba. The utilities that got financing for ABWRs in the first round were all Toshiba customers. Part of that is probably due to the fiasco with the ESBWR schedule, which forced Entergy, Dominion, and Excelon to back up and resubmit applications with ABWRs or APWRs. That apparently put them lower in the ratings to get the first government financing.

Question:

Does the water in the boiling-water reactor act as necessary moderator, i.e. does the reactor shut down without water?

Ara Pacis
2009-Jun-19, 09:21 PM
Yes, BWR turbines operate off reactor steam. PWR's have steam generators in the primary loop which boil secondary water to drive the turbine.

When considering the 'safety' of each basic design, there's obviously a lot to consider. One thing to consider is the operating pressure of the primary system. PWR's operate at about 2000 psi; BWR's at about 1000 psi. Containing a PWR's higher pressure is significantly more challenging.

Ah, I see. But I seem to recall issues with radioactivity if the turbines are in the primary loop, or am I thinking of hydrogen embrittlement? Do BWRs have a loop between the primary loop and the open cooling system?

Is explosion more of a problem with PWRs due to the higher pressures or with BWRs due to the phase-change inside the reactor loop? I know the containment structure for the PWR near here was critical and I'm told it can withstand an airliner impact (they told us this well before 9/11). This one is even stronger than normal because they had to strengthen it when they discovered, too late, that it was sitting on top of a faultline. But that may not explain where the tritium contamination comes from.

Personally, I don't mind living near one and I'm okay if they wanted to add units. After all, finding all those four-leaf clovers growing around here is lucky, right?

mugaliens
2009-Jun-20, 03:52 AM
And how does the sovereign's right to seize property for the public good play into building nuclear power plants?

If you're referring to government owned and operated plants, we have some here. TVA operates several. I don't think they were particularly cheap to build either.

I'm sure they were subsidized.


Open source reactor design?

Good one! I'm sure Sun's Solaris design team would probably throw behind solar, anyway.


Does the water in the boiling-water reactor act as necessary moderator, i.e. does the reactor shut down without water?

Old designs, no. "New" designs (last 30 years), either yes, or it doesn't matter (design is incapable of reaching temps high enough for meltdown or reactor breach, even if everything goes wrong).

geonuc
2009-Jun-20, 10:14 AM
Question:

Does the water in the boiling-water reactor act as necessary moderator, i.e. does the reactor shut down without water?
Yes.

BWR's vary their power by using that principle in a way different than do PWR's. There are variable speed pumps that circulate the water within the core. More flow means less local boiling and smaller steam voids and thus, more moderation from the higher density water. Reactor power increases to re-establish the optimum void coefficient.

geonuc
2009-Jun-20, 10:30 AM
Ah, I see. But I seem to recall issues with radioactivity if the turbines are in the primary loop, or am I thinking of hydrogen embrittlement? Do BWRs have a loop between the primary loop and the open cooling system?

Is explosion more of a problem with PWRs due to the higher pressures or with BWRs due to the phase-change inside the reactor loop? I know the containment structure for the PWR near here was critical and I'm told it can withstand an airliner impact (they told us this well before 9/11). This one is even stronger than normal because they had to strengthen it when they discovered, too late, that it was sitting on top of a faultline. But that may not explain where the tritium contamination comes from.

Personally, I don't mind living near one and I'm okay if they wanted to add units. After all, finding all those four-leaf clovers growing around here is lucky, right?
Hmmm, bunch of questions here.

Yes, BWR turbines become radioactive, but not greatly so. Contrary to what you might think, absent a fuel cladding breach, primary water is not that radioactive (after very short-lived activation isotopes decay off).

Not sure what you mean by a phase change in a PWR primary loop. The higher pressure means there is a greater need for pipe strength, and thus, a greater mess if a primary coolant leak occurs. PWR's do have a pressurizer, which is heated to saturation and has a steam bubble on top. That is what is used to control pressure. But there is little chance for an explosion now that the lessons of Three Mile Island have been applied (TMI was at high risk for an explosion due to hydrogen accumulating in the top of the vessel).

Containment vessels are an absolutely essential safety feature and they are indeed very strong. Not sure where you live and what design your plant uses, but in the US, containment vessels can withstand a pretty severe inpact, but not a direct hit from a large airliner (probably - everything is overengineered). The containment building at Three Mile Island, for example, performed well and turned what could have been a major environmental disaster into merely a huge financial disaster.

I don't know where your tritium might be coming from.

I would much rather live next to a nuke than a fossil fuel plant or a chemical plant, for that matter. Nukes are good neighbors.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jun-20, 05:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by a phase change in a PWR primary loop. Not the PWR but the BWR. I was thinking of a phase change explostion, but after thinking about it, that would be more of a risk with a PWR due to being superheated.


Containment vessels are an absolutely essential safety feature and they are indeed very strong. Not sure where you live and what design your plant uses, but in the US, containment vessels can withstand a pretty severe inpact, but not a direct hit from a large airliner (probably - everything is overengineered). The containment building at Three Mile Island, for example, performed well and turned what could have been a major environmental disaster into merely a huge financial disaster.

Well, this plant had to be reinforced after the discovery of the faultline running between the two units. I know someone who worked on it. They had to go in with jackhammers to remove the fire-retardant on the metal supports, add on more metal structure, then reapply the fire-retardant. He said it was very time-consuming because if they overchiseled through the fire-retardant into the metal, they had to report it, have it examined, and apply a patch, IIRC.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-21, 04:22 AM
I would much rather live next to a nuke than a fossil fuel plant or a chemical plant, for that matter. Nukes are good neighbors.

Heh, how about the thorium and radon from the coal plant? :)

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-21, 05:33 AM
Heh, how about the thorium and radon from the coal plant?

Not at all a significant danger. Worring about radioactivity from coal plant emissions is like worrying that the windscreen wiper fluid in the bus that is about to hit you is toxic. The other stuff is going to kill you first. Living a kilometer from a coal plant might increase your radiation exposure by 5%. That's insignificant compared to the damage being caused to you by ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, particulates and so on.

geonuc
2009-Jun-21, 10:40 AM
Not at all a significant danger. Worring about radioactivity from coal plant emissions is like worrying that the windscreen wiper fluid in the bus that is about to hit you is toxic. The other stuff is going to kill you first. Living a kilometer from a coal plant might increase your radiation exposure by 5%. That's insignificant compared to the damage being caused to you by ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, particulates and so on.
I quite agree, although it is ironic that coal-fired power plants emit more radioactivity than nukes.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-22, 05:42 AM
Not at all a significant danger. Worring about radioactivity from coal plant emissions is like worrying that the windscreen wiper fluid in the bus that is about to hit you is toxic. The other stuff is going to kill you first. Living a kilometer from a coal plant might increase your radiation exposure by 5%. That's insignificant compared to the damage being caused to you by ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, particulates and so on.

Now, now, how does the radiation dose for that compare to the radiation dose from TMI during "teh accident"? :)

jj_0001
2009-Jun-22, 05:42 AM
I quite agree, although it is ironic that coal-fired power plants emit more radioactivity than nukes.

My point exactly.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-22, 07:56 AM
Now, now, how does the radiation dose for that compare to the radiation dose from TMI during "teh accident"?

The average radiation dose received by people living within ten miles of Three Mile Island was about 8 millirem, with some people possibly receiving up to 100 millirem. Eight milirem is about a third of normal background radiation, or about seven times more than 5% of average background radiation.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-22, 05:47 PM
The average radiation dose received by people living within ten miles of Three Mile Island was about 8 millirem, with some people possibly receiving up to 100 millirem. Eight milirem is about a third of normal background radiation, or about seven times more than 5% of average background radiation.

Yes, is that per year, or what, now?

How does it compare to a trans-atlantic plane flight? :)

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-23, 04:31 AM
Yes, is that per year, or what, now?

Per year.


How does it compare to a trans-atlantic plane flight?

A trans-atlantic flight will expose a person to roughly 1% of the background radiation they would receive in a year. Trans-Atlantic flight crews are exposed to a total of about 4.6 milisieverts a year.

geonuc
2009-Jun-23, 11:28 AM
A trans-atlantic flight will expose a person to roughly 1% of the background radiation they would receive in a year. Trans-Atlantic flight crews are exposed to a total of about 4.6 milisieverts a year.
Which, for those who don't want to do the conversion, is 460 millirem.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-26, 05:48 PM
Which, for those who don't want to do the conversion, is 460 millirem.


Thanks.

The various units are something I suppose I knew 30 years ago :)

My intention with the "thorium" comment was to point out that there are lots of sources of radiation that have nothing to do with nuke plants.

Personally, if you were wondering, I think we ought to be building quite a few more of them, and drop the ban on recycling fuel, but rather than use heavy-duty refining techniques, use the simpler ones that will not create weapons-grade anything, but create stuff that is just fine fuel for a power reactor.


I personally find it beyond insane that we throw away between 95% and 97% of the energy in our fuel, while at the same time creating a really long-term hazard, rather than a short-term hazard and MORE FUEL.

In my opinion, that's just nuts.

geonuc
2009-Jun-26, 05:55 PM
I personally find it beyond insane that we throw away between 95% and 97% of the energy in our fuel, while at the same time creating a really long-term hazard, rather than a short-term hazard and MORE FUEL.

In my opinion, that's just nuts.
If it makes you feel any better, we don't actually throw it away. Spent fuel is stored at the individual reator sites now and when (or if) Yucca Mountain opens, it will be stored there. In both instances, it is easily retrievable should we decide to reprocess fuel again.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-26, 06:07 PM
Contrary to what you might think, absent a fuel cladding breach, primary water is not that radioactive (after very short-lived activation isotopes decay off).

That would seem reasonable. I would guess the longest-lived isotope was tritium. As I recall (am I wrong?) there are no long-lived isotopes of Oxygen to even consider.

And unless I forget lots, deuterium isn't exactly the biggest neutron cross-sectional going.

What I wonder is if they use Technetium (?carbonate?) as a corrosion inhibitor. Reportedly it's a remarkable corrosion inhibitor according to my CRC. :)

jj_0001
2009-Jun-26, 06:08 PM
If it makes you feel any better, we don't actually throw it away. Spent fuel is stored at the individual reator sites now and when (or if) Yucca Mountain opens, it will be stored there. In both instances, it is easily retrievable should we decide to reprocess fuel again.


Well, "throw it away" is relative, since I think we both realize that you can't actually get RID of it without tossing it offplanet :)

And it does remain concentrated (and good thing too).

But I had understood that vitrified material was somewhat hard to crack?

danscope
2009-Jun-26, 07:01 PM
There is the long term problem......the financial long term problem......
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ of
burying the damned thing. WHO PAYS FOR THAT ???????????
Remember the bank bailout? Who pays for that? Didn't expect that eh?
That's the problem with Nukes. You make power, you make money. and then get us to pay for burial. These are not good things.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-26, 09:18 PM
There is the long term problem......the financial long term problem......
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ of
burying the damned thing. WHO PAYS FOR THAT ???????????
Remember the bank bailout? Who pays for that? Didn't expect that eh?
That's the problem with Nukes. You make power, you make money. and then get us to pay for burial. These are not good things.

I take it you haven't been reading the part about reprocessing?

geonuc
2009-Jun-26, 10:06 PM
There is the long term problem......the financial long term problem......
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ of
burying the damned thing. WHO PAYS FOR THAT ???????????
Remember the bank bailout? Who pays for that? Didn't expect that eh?
That's the problem with Nukes. You make power, you make money. and then get us to pay for burial. These are not good things.
All US nuclear licensees (the utilities) have paid into a fund for many years to finance a long-term disposal solution. That solution is Yucca Mountain.

Through electricity rates, you have already been paying for disposal. It's no different than any other product on the market: the consumer pays for all of it.

If the public weren't so irrationally afraid of radiation, the construction, operation and retirement of nuclear power plants wouldn't be nearly as expensive.

danscope
2009-Jun-27, 02:11 AM
I take it you haven't been reading the part about reprocessing?

I take it you "Believe " everything that industry tells you. There are powerfull interests at work there, and they never sleep.
Sometimes it is wise to keep your own counsel. Just my opinion,Sir.
Best regards,
Dan

mugaliens
2009-Jun-27, 07:03 AM
Which, for those who don't want to do the conversion, is 460 millirem.

Which is 4.6 times greater than these folks: "The average radiation dose received by people living within ten miles of Three Mile Island was about 8 millirem, with some people possibly receiving up to 100 millirem."

So - Are aircrew are glowing even during dusk?

No: "A dose of under 100 rems is subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes." 100 rems is 100,000 millirem, which is 1,000 times greater than the average radiation dose received by people living within ten miles of Three Mile Island.

geonuc
2009-Jun-27, 09:55 AM
No: "A dose of under 100 rems is subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes." 100 rems is 100,000 millirem, which is 1,000 times greater than the average radiation dose received by people living within ten miles of Three Mile Island.
No, 100 mR was the high end of the local dose at TMI - 8 mR was the average.

geonuc
2009-Jun-27, 09:58 AM
I take it you "Believe " everything that industry tells you. There are powerfull interests at work there, and they never sleep.
Sounds ominous and scary. These powerful interests you speak of are the people I've been working for these past 25 years. I guess that makes me one of the scary industry interests! :D

mugaliens
2009-Jun-27, 11:05 AM
Ok, so the 100 rem "subclinical" dose is 1,000 times greatr than the peak TMI dose.

Hmmm... The Table of Exposure Levels and Symptoms begins at 5 REM, which is 5,000 millirem, which is 50 times greater than the peak TMI exposure, and 625 times greater than the mean TMI exposure. Symptoms? None. Disputed adverse effect, but there's actually a possible beneficial effect!

danscope
2009-Jun-27, 04:44 PM
Sounds ominous and scary. These powerful interests you speak of are the people I've been working for these past 25 years. I guess that makes me one of the scary industry interests! :D

Hi, When someone pays your bills, your objectivity is compromised. It doesn't make you a bad person.
No mention of alpha particles in that discussion....just millirems. Hmmmm...

geonuc
2009-Jun-27, 07:05 PM
Hi, When someone pays your bills, your objectivity is compromised. It doesn't make you a bad person.
No mention of alpha particles in that discussion....just millirems. Hmmmm...
That's me - compromised. :)

Alpha particles are a type of ionizing radiation; millirem is a measure of ionizing radiation, which might be due to alpha, beta or gamma. What's your point?

danscope
2009-Jun-28, 03:30 AM
It calls into question what you understand about atomic energy and why
certain aspects of it is that dangerous. Compromising the watershed and arrable land for many centuries is important to some. This is all I am going to say about nukes. It becomes a difficult subject for moderators and should be avoided on this forum.
Lets remain good friends, as I enjoy your posts as well as everyone elses.
Best regards to you and each person on this board.
Dan

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-28, 04:32 AM
No mention of alpha particles in that discussion....just millirems. Hmmmm...


It calls into question what you understand about atomic energy and why
certain aspects of it is that dangerous.


Why does your mention of alpha particles call geonuc's understanding of atomic energy into question?

If I mention neutrons, does that call your understanding of atomic energy into question?



This is all I am going to say about nukes.


It would be nice if you'd explain your assertion first.

jj_0001
2009-Jun-28, 04:51 AM
It calls into question what you understand about atomic energy and why
certain aspects of it is that dangerous.

Well, I understand you believe that. Could you offer some support for your belief, then?

cjameshuff
2009-Jun-28, 09:23 AM
danscope: it is you who very clearly know very little about atomic energy. Please, do some study before pretending to be an authority on it and accusing others of a lack of knowledge.

Reprocessing...somehow doesn't work? Alpha particles? Please take your conspiracy theories (which would require coverups and faked data on the scale of the Apollo hoax) to the appropriate forum...and make sure to support them properly when you get there.

galacsi
2009-Jun-28, 10:04 AM
Well, I understand you believe that. Could you offer some support for your belief, then?

Because Alpha radiations are helium nucleus He++ with a very big cross section and thus can very easily be blocked by a very small amount of matter. it is the reason they dont contribute a lot to the millirem count. But they are very powerful and extremely dangerous in close vicinity. That why radon gaz , radium , uranium particles are so dangerous when they are inhaled.

When evaluating the danger of a nuke plant one has to take in count the complete cycle of the industry.

Mining , preprocessing enrichment , processing , operating the plant , dealing with used fuel rods and at last dismantling the old plant , a very messy process with a lot of dust and "low" radioactivy metals to deal with. And all these steps are manned , and these people got irradiated even if it is supposed to be controlled. And operating the plant is probably the safer part. (Of course when everything go smoothly . . . ).

danscope
2009-Jun-28, 03:29 PM
Hi, I am glad 'someone' understands the whole picture. Our infatuation with technology at the expense of people is well explained in that reply.
People need to see past the profits of the next quarter.
And yes.... it's when you ingest an alpha particle, you have a real problem, a deadly problem.
Dan

geonuc
2009-Jun-28, 05:40 PM
Hi, I am glad 'someone' understands the whole picture. Our infatuation with technology at the expense of people is well explained in that reply.
People need to see past the profits of the next quarter.
And yes.... it's when you ingest an alpha particle, you have a real problem, a deadly problem.
Dan
There are several of us here that understand 'the whole picture', Dan. And several who have a pretty good grasp of the principles of ionizing radiation. I'd personally appreciate it if you'd knock off the ad homs.

danscope
2009-Jun-28, 06:02 PM
Hi, I simply pointed out that those who advocate nuclear power have a compromised value structure if they work in that industry.
They will defend such a dangerous business to the death.
It's nothing personal. It's just business. Yes, we all understand that.
The real dangers of the business go by the boards.
You will never see it that way. I understand.
But don't defend nuclear power by stating that it is the only way.
It is not.
In defense of our country, it has served us in a fashion like no other.
But there are those who think that nuclear energy is the stairway to the stars. That is a delusion. But they will cling to it however they can .
It is what it is.
I shall not be in this thread and leave you alone. The subject is well understood.
Again, best regards all,
Dan

cjameshuff
2009-Jun-28, 06:20 PM
Hi, I am glad 'someone' understands the whole picture. Our infatuation with technology at the expense of people is well explained in that reply.
People need to see past the profits of the next quarter.
And yes.... it's when you ingest an alpha particle, you have a real problem, a deadly problem.

You agree so vigorously, and yet are incapable of using the same terminology properly...makes me wonder if you actually understood anything galacsi wrote. "When you ingest an alpha particle"...:doh:

At least try practicing what you preach. Wind is a low density and unreliable power source. Wind power equaling one reactor requires a *lot* of wind turbines, and they will need regular maintenance and replacement. That takes a lot of chemical and metal industry, which relies heavily on coal. That coal and the ores for those metals must be mined and the coal burned, which also releases alpha emitters. Yes, wind power also leads to the release of alpha emitters into the environment.

And back to the original point, that burning the nuclear fuel more completely leads to less waste and shorter lived waste...it also leads to less mining and transportation of nuclear fuel, and less release of those evil alpha emitters you vaguely and clumsily ranted about to before resorting to unsubstantiated claims of ignorance and bias. And now...you claim that by working in that industry, a person is morally and ethically compromised? Seriously?

galacsi
2009-Jun-28, 06:52 PM
"When you ingest an alpha particle" is funny when taken literally but IMO you are nitpicking CJH.

Now I have a question : What do you mean by burning the nuclear fuel more completely ? I think , if my memory is good , Candu reactors are more efficient than regular reactors. You don't mean breeders ?

cjameshuff
2009-Jun-28, 07:11 PM
Now I have a question : What do you mean by burning the nuclear fuel more completely ? I think , if my memory is good , Candu reactors are more efficient than regular reactors. You don't mean breeders ?

I do mean breeders, and non-breeder reactors that get more out of the fuel. (And CANDU can apparently operate as a breeder with thorium fuel...)

jj_0001
2009-Jun-29, 04:31 AM
Hi, I simply pointed out that those who advocate nuclear power have a compromised value structure if they work in that industry.

Really? So those who work in the audio industry have a "compromised value structure" if they speak on technical subjects related to audio?

How about doctors? Lawyers?

Your comment seems, frankly, absurd, you are suggesting that those who actually understand the reality of it all have "compromised value structure".

Who would you rather trust, a nuclear engineer who knows his or her stuff, or a PIRG activist who is reciting from a pamphlet?

jj_0001
2009-Jun-29, 04:33 AM
"When you ingest an alpha particle" is funny when taken literally but IMO you are nitpicking CJH.

Now I have a question : What do you mean by burning the nuclear fuel more completely ? I think , if my memory is good , Candu reactors are more efficient than regular reactors. You don't mean breeders ?

The kind of reactor used at TMI and generally in theUSA uses between 3 and 5% of the total energy in the fuel before it must be removed and decomissioned.

Even "nuclear waste" from regular reactors has gigantic fuel value, in a reactor that can actually use it properly.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jun-29, 05:03 AM
BTW, does anyone know what is danscope's occupation? I just ask so I know for future reference what things he is compromised about.

As for me, I'm happily unemployed, which makes me an expert on everything. :D

HenrikOlsen
2009-Jun-29, 11:25 AM
The kind of reactor used at TMI and generally in theUSA uses between 3 and 5% of the total energy in the fuel before it must be removed and decomissioned.
Well, it isn't actually decomissioned so much as sent back through the system to extract more useful isotopes.

geonuc
2009-Jun-29, 11:31 AM
Well, it isn't actually decomissioned so much as sent back through the system to extract more useful isotopes.
In the US, the spent fuel is simply stored intact, first in a pool of borated water until it cools off a bit, then in dry cask storage. Nobody is currently extracting anything from it.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Jun-29, 02:10 PM
OK, but it's stored so it's available for later extraction rather than placed out of reach, right?

geonuc
2009-Jun-29, 02:59 PM
OK, but it's stored so it's available for later extraction rather than placed out of reach, right?
Yes, indeed. Even when/if it gets placed in Yucca Mountain, it will still be accessible for reprocessing (or monitoring, for that matter).

jj_0001
2009-Jun-29, 04:24 PM
Well, it isn't actually decomissioned so much as sent back through the system to extract more useful isotopes.


As geonuc points out, this kind of reprocessing is banned in the USA. Yes, this seems, well, silly. :(

The problem is not technology.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 12:38 AM
As geonuc points out, this kind of reprocessing is banned in the USA. Yes, this seems, well, silly.

The problem is not technology.

It does not appear to be cost effective.

neilzero
2009-Jun-30, 01:18 AM
Nuclear power plants are rather far down my list of specialties. Apparently there are about 100 significantly different designs, each of which their promoters consider vastly superior to the other 99. Can some one provide details on one or more designs? Will the new ones to be built be minor or major departures from the 104 USA reactors in present operation?
Am I correct Thorium is good? Breeder is good, but has a bad record of safety? Neil

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 01:36 AM
There are lots of different kinds of best. Factors such as economics, safety, reliability, output, running costs, etc. to be considered. From my point of view Thorium is not good at the moment. The cost of fuel is only 7% the cost of nuclear power, so there is no real benefit in spending a large amount of money to try to develop thorium reactors. It's a similar situation for breeder reactors, the extra cost doesn't seem to be worth the savings in fuel.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 01:37 AM
It appears that Canada is dropping plans to build a couple of new reactors for cost reasons:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/onatario-nuclear.html

jj_0001
2009-Jun-30, 02:37 AM
It does not appear to be cost effective.

Cost effectivity is not the issue. It is illegal at present.

geonuc
2009-Jun-30, 09:24 AM
Nuclear power plants are rather far down my list of specialties. Apparently there are about 100 significantly different designs, each of which their promoters consider vastly superior to the other 99. Can some one provide details on one or more designs? Will the new ones to be built be minor or major departures from the 104 USA reactors in present operation?
The new US plants will be of a different design than any currently operating.

This site has a good run down of the new designs:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

And this NRC page has links to what licenses have been applied for, are anticipated, etc.:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html

Right now, the AP1000 and the EPR designs are leading the pack, it seems.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 11:25 PM
Cost effectivity is not the issue. It is illegal at present.

1) What is the issue?

2) Isn't it illegal because it's not cost effective?

jj_0001
2009-Jun-30, 11:34 PM
1) What is the issue?


Ask Jimmy Carter.




2) Isn't it illegal because it's not cost effective?

Straw man.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 11:55 PM
jj 0001, what is the issue that is being discussed, and why is reprocessing illegal?

PraedSt
2009-Jul-01, 12:17 AM
A follow up to the OP (http://www.bautforum.com/1510811-post1.html).

NRG Energy was one of the four companies to make the cut in the first round of Government financing. Another company, Exelon, a big power producer, did not. Two things about Exelon that I found today. One, it's trying to takeover NRG Energy. Two, it's delaying plans to build a reactor in Texas (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exelon-delays-plan-for-Texas-apf-2027456272.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=). The problem, of course, is money.
Power generator Exelon Corp. said Tuesday it has called off plans for now to build a new nuclear plant in Texas because of worries over the economy and the limited availability of federal loan guarantees.

The Chicago-based company, the largest nuclear power generator in the U.S., is the second company in the past two months to postpone work for a new nuclear plant. St. Louis-based AmerenUE said in April that it was suspending work on a reactor in Missouri.

...the projects are so expensive, running an estimated $6 billion to $8 billion per unit, that they are proving difficult to finance.

AmerenUE pulled its project when legislators balked on changing a state law that blocks utilities from charging customers for certain costs of a new power plant before it starts producing electricity.

Making it harder on Exelon was that it did not make the initial cut for federal loan guarantees for the project.
Exelon
distributes electricity to 5.4 million customers in the Chicago and Philadelphia areas and natural gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area.

PraedSt
2009-Jul-01, 12:25 AM
In fact money and pricing problems have been in the news lately. Apart from the two reactors mentioned above (Exelon in Texas and AmerenUE in Missouri), the Canadians shut down plans for building two (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gO7iT89JUEy3UhNRGXtK5cmxp70Q).
Ontario, Canada's economic hub, announced Monday the suspension of its plan to build two new nuclear reactors, citing concerns about vendor Atomic Energy Canada Limited's viability, and pricing.
...none of the proposals presented "suitable" longterm energy costs for the province, Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman said.

As well, "uncertainty regarding the company's future prevented Ontario from continuing with the procurement at this time," he said.

Ontario currently generates half of its electricity from 16 nuclear reactors that were built by AECL between 1970 and 1990.

In 2007, it announced plans to spend 26.5 billion dollars to replace aging units and renew its entire fleet over the coming years.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-01, 01:06 AM
jj 0001, what is the issue that is being discussed, and why is reprocessing illegal?

You tell me. I stated a fact "reprocessing is illegal". You have demanded to know why. I did not make the decision, somebody else did. You can try to find out their basis.

You have proposed a reason, a reason that I have no cause to credit or support. Hence, you are asking me to read the minds of a third party to this discussion, which is unreasonable and disputatious.

Why don't you research the issue, if you are so interested, and come back with testable, verifiable, cited results for why the ban exists.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-01, 01:07 AM
In fact money and pricing problems have been in the news lately. Apart from the two reactors mentioned above (Exelon in Texas and AmerenUE in Missouri), the Canadians shut down plans for building two (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gO7iT89JUEy3UhNRGXtK5cmxp70Q).

It's hardly surprising in this economic climate that lots of things are being delayed. It's a shame in some ways, they will cost a lot more later.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jul-01, 01:15 AM
You tell me. I stated a fact "reprocessing is illegal". You have demanded to know why. I did not make the decision, somebody else did. You can try to find out their basis.

You have proposed a reason, a reason that I have no cause to credit or support. Hence, you are asking me to read the minds of a third party to this discussion, which is unreasonable and disputatious.

Why don't you research the issue, if you are so interested, and come back with testable, verifiable, cited results for why the ban exists.

Such as asking someone a question on a topic they brought up on a discussion board?

PraedSt
2009-Jul-01, 01:29 AM
jj 0001, what is the issue that is being discussed, and why is reprocessing illegal?
I think it's banned in the US due to proliferation concerns. Apparently it's easier to make bombs if you recycle the fuel. But this is a guess, don't quote me on this.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-01, 03:09 AM
Such as asking someone a question on a topic they brought up on a discussion board?

Well, you insinuate that there is a LEGAL ban because something is not economically feasable. (this strikes me as an odd claim, but so be it)

I only claim that reprocessing is legal, which you appear to have stipulated.

So, any proof of your claim?

galacsi
2009-Jul-01, 10:31 AM
I think it's banned in the US due to proliferation concerns. Apparently it's easier to make bombs if you recycle the fuel. But this is a guess, don't quote me on this.

Sure , because recycling the fuel mean retrieving the Uranium and plutonium inside the used rods . And the plutonium belong to the operator of the plant , so it is a big concern.

geonuc
2009-Jul-01, 11:07 AM
I spent a little time trying to find any law that prohibits reprocessing spent fuel in the US. Some hints that it was included in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Some other hints that it was an executive order issued by President Carter. Carter did issue an order but so did Reagan, in opposition. Note that a US president cannot declare something illegal by executive order without statutory basis. I could not find any statutory law in the US Code or the CFR. It may be there and I have to keep digging.

But I'm starting to suspect that the situation really is that the US federal government is prohibited from engaging in reprocessing activities and from funding or in in any way supporting such activities. I'm not sure it's illegal for a private company to do so. Of course, they'd have to get the apprpriate permits from the NRC as, by law, the NRC has primary regulatory authority over all 'special material'.

Demigrog
2009-Jul-01, 03:05 PM
I spent a little time trying to find any law that prohibits reprocessing spent fuel in the US. Some hints that it was included in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Some other hints that it was an executive order issued by President Carter. Carter did issue an order but so did Reagan, in opposition. Note that a US president cannot declare something illegal by executive order without statutory basis. I could not find any statutory law in the US Code or the CFR. It may be there and I have to keep digging.

But I'm starting to suspect that the situation really is that the US federal government is prohibited from engaging in reprocessing activities and from funding or in in any way supporting such activities. I'm not sure it's illegal for a private company to do so. Of course, they'd have to get the apprpriate permits from the NRC as, by law, the NRC has primary regulatory authority over all 'special material'.

Technically it wasn't a ban; Carter simply vetoed the bill that would have authorized federal funding for a reprocessing facility, and established policy that the NRC not work on licensing for reprocessing facilities. It actually began earlier than Carter; President Ford made the initial policy shift in 1976. Regan sort-of reversed the policy, but neither his nor subsequent administrations really pushed for reprocessing, IMO because non-reprocessed fuel is too abundant to waste political capital on it yet. Really, the current Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is the first time in 30 years anyone has seriously looked at reprocessing in the US.

geonuc
2009-Jul-01, 03:15 PM
Technically it wasn't a ban.
I don't believe I used the term 'ban'.

Thanks - that about sums up what I found as well. Although Clinton also re-iterated that the US would not engage in reprossessing.

Ara Pacis
2009-Jul-01, 03:56 PM
Perhaps some of the dislike for reprocessing is related to the partial meltdown of the Fermi 1 Fast Breeder Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_1) in 1966.

geonuc
2009-Jul-01, 04:47 PM
Perhaps some of the dislike for reprocessing is related to the partial meltdown of the Fermi 1 Fast Breeder Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_1) in 1966.
Perhaps, although I've never heard the Fermi accident mentioned in that context.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-01, 05:05 PM
Sure , because recycling the fuel mean retrieving the Uranium and plutonium inside the used rods . And the plutonium belong to the operator of the plant , so it is a big concern.

Actually, for fuel purposes, removing some of the light, fast decaying isotopes is enough, you don't have to purify things very much at all. This leaves you with something clean enough to "burn" in a reactor, but not something that would make a useful bomb.

And you wind up with the real "waste" which is the light stuff. Nasty, unpleasant, but short-lived.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-01, 05:06 PM
I don't believe I used the term 'ban'.

Thanks - that about sums up what I found as well. Although Clinton also re-iterated that the US would not engage in reprossessing.


The fact that the government policy said that it would never be licensed is a de-facto ban, though.

PraedSt
2009-Jul-02, 02:49 PM
NRG Energy was one of the four companies to make the cut in the first round of Government financing. Another company, Exelon, a big power producer, did not. Two things about Exelon that I found today. One, it's trying to takeover NRG Energy.
More on this.

Exelon raises NRG Energy bid (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exelon-raises-hostile-bid-for-rb-2761488684.html?x=0&.v=2)
Exelon Corp (NYSE:EXC (http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=At.6iJrgEnF4CS.nr97daSn9ba9_?s=exc) - News (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h;_ylt=ArCfiN5Kx7wj7D.v9FikmSf9ba9_?s=exc)) raised its hostile takeover bid for independent power producer NRG Energy Inc (NYSE:NRG (http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=AlU_Rng.LhZMeLBYOGbPJ0X9ba9_?s=nrg) - News (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h;_ylt=AuzWttpIYySiRw4C_lkZaNH9ba9_?s=nrg)) by more than 12 percent to $7.45 billion on Thursday to sway investors ahead of NRG's annual meeting.

The new offer comes more than eight months after Exelon first announced its intention to buy NRG and create the nation's biggest electricity generator with the largest fleet of nuclear power plants.


A combined Exelon and NRG would own about 48,000 megawatts of power generating capacity, enough to supply electricity to nearly 40 million homes, and put the company in a strong position to adapt to proposed legislation capping carbon dioxide emissions, Exelon said.

Ronald Brak
2009-Jul-09, 12:58 AM
Here is a large PDF on nuclear fuel reprocessing in France:

http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr04.pdf

To sum the economics up, fuel reprocessing does not pay for itself and is impossible when electricity supply is market based. If France hadn't tried reprocessing they would have saved themselves about $33 billion.

Interestingly plutonium has a negative value, with the Netherlands paying the French not to return Dutch plutonium.

The pdf also says how in 1974 French planners officially forcast France's electricity consumption in 2000 at 1,000 TWh, 2.3 times more than their actual consumption. This probably explains a lot.

mugaliens
2009-Jul-09, 06:04 AM
The pdf also says how in 1974 French planners officially forcast France's electricity consumption in 2000 at 1,000 TWh, 2.3 times more than their actual consumption. This probably explains a lot.

At least they were proactive, not reactive...

Ronald Brak
2009-Jul-09, 08:45 AM
At least they were proactive, not reactive...

I think with electricity you want to be mostly reactive. But it's not active at all that causes the real problems. That was done (not done?) in Western Australia. When it didn't turn out so well businesses were banned from using air conditioning or escalators in summer to reduce power use.

Demigrog
2009-Jul-09, 01:35 PM
Here is a large PDF on nuclear fuel reprocessing in France:

http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr04.pdf

To sum the economics up, fuel reprocessing does not pay for itself and is impossible when electricity supply is market based. If France hadn't tried reprocessing they would have saved themselves about $33 billion.

Interestingly plutonium has a negative value, with the Netherlands paying the French not to return Dutch plutonium.

The pdf also says how in 1974 French planners officially forcast France's electricity consumption in 2000 at 1,000 TWh, 2.3 times more than their actual consumption. This probably explains a lot.

I think it boils down to supply and demand; the real push for reprocessing was back when nuclear power was expected to continue growing at a fast clip, and before we had a bunch of weapons grade material to dispose of. We've simply got too much cheap fuel at the moment. It's no different than the price of oil determining the feasibility of different extraction techniques.

If we do start building a lot of new reactors, plenty of companies are preparing for reprocessing (ie GE's PRISM reactor), so they have a product ready if the market supports it.

mugaliens
2009-Jul-11, 09:24 AM
I think with electricity you want to be mostly reactive. But it's not active at all that causes the real problems. That was done (not done?) in Western Australia. When it didn't turn out so well businesses were banned from using air conditioning or escalators in summer to reduce power use.

Agreed.

My original about being "reactive" was a pun on the use of fissionables for power production...

Ronald Brak
2009-Jul-16, 06:35 AM
Some news on the failed bids for new Canadian reactors:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

The only bid that met requirements was $26 billion for two reactors. That's $10,800 per kilowatt.

Demigrog
2009-Jul-16, 05:36 PM
Some news on the failed bids for new Canadian reactors:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

The only bid that met requirements was $26 billion for two reactors. That's $10,800 per kilowatt.

I get the feeling that the "requirements" were designed such that only the Candu would be eligible, but I can't back that up with facts. :) The costs are also including a lot of extra financing to cover risks like schedule delays and insurance. The actual costs, if everything went to plan, would be lower. I doubt it would go to plan though; too many government agencies are involved--Canada certainly not being any better at bureaucracy than the rest of the world.

At this point, with the economy the way it is, nobody in the west is going to build new nuclear at any cost. This could actually be a good thing in the long run--it gives some of the Gen III+ designs more time to mature, so we don't prematurely build Gen III designs.

Meanwhile, my electric bill is about to go up 19%--and cap and trade hasn't even passed yet. $10k per kW may not seem so expensive in a decade or two.

Glom
2009-Jul-16, 06:17 PM
We're finally making progress here too. The paperwork is underway for Wylfa, Hinkley Point and Bradwell. There is also the possibility of two new sites in Cumbria. It's such a shame it has taken so long though.

On the earlier point about alpha particles, lol. Dropping in a random scientific term, which is not relevant to the particular discussion at hand, does not an expert make.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-16, 10:16 PM
We're finally making progress here too. The paperwork is underway for Wylfa, Hinkley Point and Bradwell. There is also the possibility of two new sites in Cumbria. It's such a shame it has taken so long though.

On the earlier point about alpha particles, lol. Dropping in a random scientific term, which is not relevant to the particular discussion at hand, does not an expert make.

East of Shetland? You in a boat? :) Or an oil platform? Bressay? Mousa? Noss? Unst? Yell? Fetlar??? :)

Ronald Brak
2009-Jul-16, 11:16 PM
I get the feeling that the "requirements" were designed such that only the Candu would be eligible, but I can't back that up with facts.

No, AREVA bid too and they don't do Candus. AREVA's bid came in at $23.6 billion, but was rejected because they included a clause that if costs went up Canada would have to pay extra. Looking at past cost over runs in the nuclear industry it's clear why this was rejected.


Meanwhile, my electric bill is about to go up 19%--and cap and trade hasn't even passed yet.

That sounds very unfortunate. Around the world electricity generators now face lower costs due to the economic situation. However they are selling less. Maybe you are being made to swallow an electricity retailers losses?


$10k per kW may not seem so expensive in a decade or two.

Well the article says that anything higher than $3,600 a kilowatt for nuclear would be uneconomical compared to the alternatives.

Glom
2009-Jul-17, 10:24 AM
No, AREVA bid too and they don't do Candus. AREVA's bid came in at $23.6 billion, but was rejected because they included a clause that if costs went up Canada would have to pay extra. Looking at past cost over runs in the nuclear industry it's clear why this was rejected.

Damn straight too. In my little corner of the energy industry, we have this problem with delays and cost overruns due to vendors' own problems. We always have to foot the bill. As an example, say we were doing some wireline logging on a well. We'd be hiring the logging company's equipment and personnel on a day rate. If a problem with the tools caused us to overrun by a couple of days, that an extra couple of days worth of equipment hire and personnel we have to pay for.

Why do we put up with that? Why don't we ask for a quote for the job and if they screw up, that's their problem? It's because if the vendors were to accept that, they'd also demand that we operate according to their demands. Else, they'd say that not following their desires resulted in the delay. It would be the tail wagging the dog. That and we're obviously ball-less.


East of Shetland? You in a boat? Or an oil platform? Bressay? Mousa? Noss? Unst? Yell? Fetlar???

Think further North.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-17, 11:15 AM
Think further North.

Orkneys?

Glom
2009-Jul-17, 11:56 AM
Orkneys?

Orkney is to the South of Shetland. I'm on Magnus. The most Northerly platform in the UK Continental Shelf.

jj_0001
2009-Jul-17, 11:57 PM
Orkney is to the South of Shetland. I'm on Magnus. The most Northerly platform in the UK Continental Shelf.

Ah, I don't know where oil platforms are. :)