New Nukes?
New Nukes?
(OP)
What is the latest news on building new nuke plants in the US? Last I heard there were several licences issued mostly for the mid atlantic area.
I was a navy nuke but went into the HV power system testing field and have been considering entering back into the nuke world. I am also considering a move to the mid atlantic area.
I was a navy nuke but went into the HV power system testing field and have been considering entering back into the nuke world. I am also considering a move to the mid atlantic area.





RE: New Nukes?
Almost half the existing plants have been issued license extensions, many of those being on the East coast. If you are looking to get into the commercial nuclear industry, this is a good time to start looking.
RE: New Nukes?
Any ideas what companies will be submitting construction licenses?
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
http://www.nukeworker.com/news/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rust never sleeps
Neither should your protection
http://www.trent-tube.com/contact/Tech_Assist.cfm
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
http
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
This maybe the same as mentioned by qbee.
htt
RE: New Nukes?
Didn't see anything on the NRC site today, but there's often a delay before things become publically available.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
Want to post an image? Look at the FAQ's in forum559: SolidWorks 3D CAD products
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
http://
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
Site Name Location
Bellefonte Nuclear Site Units 3 and 4 TVA's Bellefonte
Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 Lusby, MD
North Anna Unit 3 Existing site
South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 Existing site
William States Lee III Units 1 and 2 Duke's Lee site
It isn't really new, but we just got the order for the condenser tubing for Watts Barr 2, the unit that never went into service. It is supposed to be generating in 2010.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: New Nukes?
www.cbsnuclear.com
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
They also discussed the declining influence of US legislators that promote nuclear power-their no 1 advocate Pete D. is retiring this year due to illness, and the no 2 advocate Larry Craig 's reputation is now "in the toilet".
RE: New Nukes?
htt
Also, davefitz, true nuclear engineers make up a small percentage of the total engineers at a nuclear plant, maybe 5%-10% at ours. Most of our engineers are mechanical, electrical and civil.
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
Along with the tremendous increase in number of jobs, there is also an anticipated loss of a fairly large number of experienced folks within the next five years due to retirement.
All in all, one would think it should be a favorable situation for engineers at nuke plants or people who want to work in nuke plants in engineer or other capacities.
Among people titled as engineers at our plant, I think somewhere around 10% are licensed, maybe 50% have a full engineering degree and perhaps 70% have some kind of 4-year degree. In a lot of the areas it doesn't make much difference - experience and knowledge and the ability to get the job done right are what counts.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
We have already lost several to new construction projects. I expect it won't really pick up until a few sites commit to actually building a plant, which probably won't happen until the first COL's are issued around 2009-2010. I do see a lot of advertisements for Westinghouse and GE engineers and even a few for Areva. They are snatching up a lot of new graduates, I understand. The next couple of years will be a great time to be graduating with an engineering degree if all the proposed new plants actually get built, even if only half are started. The biggest problem is that many of the nuclear plants are sited far from a major metropolitan area and a lot of the younger people (and some older) don't want to live that far from the all-night life.
RE: New Nukes?
The condenser for a 1000-1500 MW Nuc will depend on the cooling water available. Generally they go 3-5 million feet of tubing. Today the most common size would be about 1" od x 0.025" wall.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
I've been wondering where you were. I did a quick calculation without the benefit of records from my former life that are now in storage and from memory (trying to scale up GG Unit 1) came up with about 1000 miles and thoght I'd look like a fool if I had slipped a decimal somewhere so I just decided to wait until you weighed in.
rmw
RE: New Nukes?
The nuke steam cycle might be 28% efficient and an LMTD of 20F might be available at the condenser, so one can estimate the ft2 and linear ft of 7/8" OD tubes .
RE: New Nukes?
The tubes are each 115' long!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: New Nukes?
average plant takes approx 3-4 years to start production of the plant
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
The near 40% cycle efficiency was for the Stone and Webster designed Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, which never operated above 5% power.
For a rankine reheat cycle you are still limited by the heat source and sink temperatures.
Many early nuke plants didn't get the efficency promised by an elaborate feedwater heater train. Infact, the plant I worked at lost cycle efficiency when both stages of the moisture separator reheaters were placed in operation.
Technology has greatly improved in the design of the new MSR. Mostly due to greater computing power to analyze two phase heat transfer. MSR replacement have been included in several power up-rates of the older nuke plants.
RE: New Nukes?
http
RE: New Nukes?
4 applications for total of 7 units in 2007.
Expect 15 applications for total of 22 units in 2008.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
Senator McCain (sp?) wants to have 30 new nukes operating in US by 2030. Since the first will come on-line around 2015, that would be about 3 per year.
Seems pretty agressive considering the constraints as mentioned. But I guess that back in the day when the first round of nukes was coming on-line in the US , it was aT A similar rate. Was it something like 100 nukes in 25 years?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
45 new nukes in 15 years -> 3 per year.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
McCain seems to have a bigger vision for the nuclear industry than Obama does. While Obama is not anti-nuclear, his language is not nearly as strong for the building of new nuclear plants.
RE: New Nukes?
rmw
RE: New Nukes?
The landscape certainly has changed with all of the wind turbines. He said that he was afraid that the landscape will be "polluted" with abandoned wind turbines once the government subsidy runs out and it is no longer economical to produce electricity.
I hope ALGORE has addressed "decommissioning costs" and who is responsible for taking down the wind turbines on leased land when the GENCO has gone bankrupt!
mh
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
That is tough luck for the French.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
But I don't think what either candidate thinks on this particular issue will make a big difference in what happens. For one thing, they are not in a position to do anything on their own. To change laws or budget they need congress. And most of the factors that affect the next round of reactors have very little to do with executive government... more to do wtih finanacing, availablility of parts and people, navigating through all the wickets, etc etc. Neither one is going to change that.
So I think in general we shouldn't put so much importance on the specific views of a candidate because those rarely translate into reality. If you were hiring someone to make important decisions and provide leadership, you would look at which one seems more intelligent, competent, deliberate etc.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
During the democratic debates Obama said he is against Yucca Mountain and doesn't want it to open. Obama did acknowledge that you need nuclear power and that there are several plants in his home state.
Conclusion about Obama's position:
Without Yucca Mountain the nuclear industry will come to a grinding halt - no one will want to store 40 years of fuel on site in their neighborhood. Obama only wants nuclear during the transition to solar, wind, or other "free" energy.
As for McCain, he wants to re-process nuclear fuel like the French. I believe President Carter, an ex-Navy nuke, signed the law to prohibit commercial reprocessing of fuel and the building breeder reactors. Can anyone confirm this law?
RE: New Nukes?
At the risk of this descending to a political debate (and that usually means people who have already made up their minds espousing their opinions, with no hope of changing anyone else's opinion):
Although I cannot speak for the federal agency for which I work, it is highly unlikely that that unnamed federal agency would complete licensing of even four-to-five nuclear power plants within the first four years of either candidate's presidency. Especially if there was an across-the-board freeze on government programs, as espoused by one candidate.
I recognize that the same candidate actually repeated, several times, that he was looking to build "forty-five" plants which would create "millions of jobs" (and, wow, those plants are going to have to have HUGE staffs) but I will be kind and assume that was hyperbole.
Additionally, even with a pro-nuclear president, if there is an anti-nuclear congress, the nuclear option will go nowhere. (I hope everyone realizes that Pete Domenici of New Mexico is not running for re-election; he's been a major pro-nuclear Senator; even though I've not always agreed with him.)
As someone who lived (and worked for a short time) through the previous nuclear boom and bust, I feel that the economy will have a far greater impact on nuclear's future than either candidate.
And as an end-note, Illinois has the most nuclear plants of any state, but the Senator from Illinois had nothing to do with their being built. He wasn't even in the State government at the time they were built. Actually, umm, some of them were licensed when he was a little kid and even the "newest" plant is over 20 years old.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: New Nukes?
You make some good points, but even an anti-nuclear congress will want to reduce CO2 emissions, especially, since both candidates want CO2 limits.
Any legislation on pollutants such as CO2 will drive up the per kW cost. Previously, nuclear power could never compete with "dirt burners", but given the cost of CO2 scrubbers, the nuke industry actually has a good chance for revival. You simply can't base load the grid with wind and solar power.
Just out of curosity, do you know if dry cask storage is included in any of the new license applications?
RE: New Nukes?
Dry cask storage is a Part 72 license and needs to be applied for separately from a Part 50 or Part 52 license (which means "no").
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: New Nukes?
I'll be surprised if more than just a few Nucs get built.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: New Nukes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw
The questioner stated that there is no no independent review required for plant life extension and that most extension requests are approved.
Obama stated "I would reverse that position"
Obama further stated "The NRC has become a morebund agency that needs to be revamped, and has become captive of the industry that it regulates"
"NRC similar to FCC, EPA, FDA.... federal agencies that over the last 7 years have been filled with cronies and lost their sense of mission."
He supports a central location for fuel storage, but no Yucca mountain since it is "built on a fault line".
He describes himself as an agnostic on nuclear power. It is not off the table, because there is no perfect energy source. It should be in the mix IF safe, know how to store it, not vulnerable to terrorist attack.
"I don't think there is anyone that dislikes nuclear power, we just dislike the fact that it may blow up and radiate and kill us" (??)
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
It seems self-evident to me that these are policitcally-motivated comments, not comments based on first-hand observation or reliable sources.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
As with any federal agency, the political mood has a large impact on how the agency does business. For the last 8 years, there has been a decided pro-industry focus that might very well shift, dependent upon the election results. That would not necessarily be bad.
I started to write further providing my opinion of some of the demands for "independent" reviews as well as the "rubberstamping" accusation, but decided this thread has already veered well off anything nuclear work-related. So I will refrain.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: New Nukes?
just plain ignorant
RE: New Nukes?
Most of the time when I hear about the possibility of a Nuclear Plant exploding they show a picture of Chernobyl. Not quite the same.
RE: New Nukes?
Chernobyl is what happens without healthy checks and balances.
RE: New Nukes?
All of the new nuke plants use water (light water) as the moderator.
I am concerned because McCain wants to re-process fuel.
I'm not sure how the French do it, but eventually the commercial industry will want to use breeder reactors. Why re-process? When you can make fuel as you go!
Unfortunately, breeder reators use fast fuels which can not be moderated or controlled with water.
These reactors can blow up and are illegal in the US!
RE: New Nukes?
Breeders require reprocessing,
The manufactured fuel (Plutonium or Thorium), is from the edge of the core and require the removal of the fission products from the atoms that fission-ed instead of absorbing the neutrons. The fission products poison the core just like the do in all other reactors and requires new fuel on a regular basis from the reprocessing plant.
If we reprocessed fuel, like the rest of the world, all the long lived stuff (trans-Uranium elements) are sent back to the reactors for use as fuel, all the short lived stuff have half lives less than 30 years, turn that into glass and in 300 years you have got a interesting piece of glass. Why do we need 10,000 year storage then? All spent fuel can be reprocessed; heavy water, light water, graphite moderated, gas cooled, sodium cooled breeders, even submarine and aircraft carrier cores.
No reactor can blow up like an atom bomb, bombs are made from 99.9% +/- fission grade material, typical reactors use up to 5% fission grade material, breeders use up to 20% fission grade material in the central core. that is still a far cry from 99
As for blowing up; accident scenarios are from pressure, steam and chemical reactions with the complications of radiological contamination, not from short order prompt supercriticality events which is what atom-bombs do.
I will step down from my soapbox now
Hydrae
RE: New Nukes?
However, reactor design has come a long way since the 1960's, and if one were to be built in the US today, it would need to meet the NRC's requirements (which, despite being a moribound agency, does not do rubber-stamping, no matter what anti-nuclear activists claim).
I would like to point out to Mauner, that reprocessing was not always "illegal" in the US and, just a one President decided to not permit it, another President could allow it.
However, is any of this really work-related?
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: New Nukes?
Hydrae
RE: New Nukes?
h
Shippingsport PA had the first "light water breeder reactor". I assume if it was not one of the fast water breeder reactors, then it must have been a slow (thermal neutron) reactor.
http://www
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
RE: New Nukes?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: New Nukes?
complete with a list of sites, operating capacity, and periods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
Hydrae
RE: New Nukes?
http://ne