The Nuclear Power Thread

russ_watters

Welcome to PF!

I didn't say "300 square miles", I said "300 miles square". As in - a square 300 miles on a side or 90,000 square miles. The reason I worded it that way is that most people can wrap their arms around the size better if you describe the dimensions, not the area.

MadderDoc

IIRC, the world record for a single commercial wind turbine is a capacity factor of 44 % over a (so far) 9 year operation time. Danish offshore wind farms operate overall well above 35 %. Horns Rev II (a 209 MW farm) has performed best, with a capacity factor of about 47 %. The second best measured by capacity factor is Rødsand II (207 MW), at 42 %.

Astronuc

Scotland and Denmark seem to be in really good spots for wind energy. Many coastal areas are.

US
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atla...ap2/2-06m.html

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/w...ity.asp?&print
Canada
http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php

Europe
http://www.windatlas.dk/europe/index.htm
http://www.windatlas.dk/europe/landmap.html

World
http://www.windatlas.dk/World/Index.htm
http://www.windatlas.dk/World/Atlases.html

This is not exactly nuclear power though.

MadderDoc

No that's true, nuclear power tends to become irrelevant such places, unless nuclear load-following power can be produced economically. I don't know if new types of nuclear promise that. As soon as wind power is being viably produced in a region, the need will be for viable absorbers of the variability that is then inherently produced too, rather than for what nuclear traditionally has to offer.

Astronuc

Nuclear energy is generally produced in base load, but the French do a lot of load following and frequency control with their nuclear units.

With wind at 50% availability one would twice the installed capacity on a kW basis to achieve the same kWh as compared to a unit that runs constantly at full power. Many nuclear units achieve 90+% capacity factor. Of course, there are some units that have poor performance.

If wind is only available at 35% or 20%, then the number of wind units greatly increases, as does the transmission infrastructure. If one looks at the various atlases, there are some areas that have great wind capability, but many larger areas that do not. In the US, the majority of population live in areas of relatively low wind availability.

mheslep

That's true if US offshore wind potential is omitted. At the moment offshore wind is not economic nor technically practical on the US east coast due to hurricanes, but that may change w/ stronger wind tower designs.

MadderDoc

OK, yes, With the very high penetration of nuclear power in France there would be little other choice than to sacrifice on the capacity factor, such as to make the production fit the variable consumption, or alternatively export periodically against little demand from other countries. Perhaps France seen in isolation can be said to be oversupplied with nuclear power. By the same token, France might not be in a good position to start exploiting its available wind resources. (Newly added wind power would act in the system as additional consumption variation, only then from 'negative consumers')

I am not sure what you mean by availability of wind in this context, but you do seem to indicate it to be a measure comparable to the capacity factor of nuclear. The best wind sites over here may well have wind turbines operating at capacity factor about 50%, and in a mathematical sense that means that a same sized wind turbine or another system running at 100 % could replace two of such units. Or, could one say, one of the 50% capacity factor turbines replaces two turbines running at a capacity factor of 25 %. However, I am not sure what the superposition elucidates. Whether you look at a nuclear plant targeting a 90% capacity factor, or a wind turbine at a given site targeting a 50% capacity factor, in either case that target is an effect of economic optimisation.

Well, of course you can have too small and/or too distant wind resources left worth exploiting, and maybe that is the case in USA. Certainly the magnitude and quality of the wind resource at a given site strongly influence the economical viability of a wind power project, and the incorporation of such a project in the existing grid must of course make economic sense. However, I can see no problem with wind turbines operating at capacity factors of 35% or 20% if that now happens to be the economic optimum for the sites. About 30 GW of on average less capacity factor is operating onshore in Germany currently, I never thought that to be a problem. While the push has become for adding offshore wind power from the North Sea there will indeed be a need for another investment in the transmission infrastructure, but so what, I can't remember when there wasn't :-)

zapperzero

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions – nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit – in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The NRC action was sought in a June 18, 2012 petition filed by 24 groups urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or 'used', reactor fuel storage and disposal.

Astronuc

First licence for Canadian new build
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...d-2008127.html

The nuclear site preparation [Darlington] licence issued to Onatrio Power Generation (OPG) will be valid for ten years, from 17 August 2012 to 17 August 2022.


Meanwhile, back in Washington DC - NRC suspends final licensing decisions
08 August 2012
and how many $billion wasted?

Astronuc

Opportunities at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in UK.

http://www.culhamphd.org.uk/
http://www.culhamphd.org.uk/typicalPhDtopics.html

http://www.york.ac.uk/physics/postgraduate/fusion-dtn/

Also - Science and Technology Facilities Council
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/Our%20Research/14397.aspx

Astronuc

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_...n_1411121.html
This an example of a poor energy and economic policy on the part of the German government, and it is harming the economy.

etudiant

German energy policy is constrained by anti nuclear sentiment on the one hand (fuelled by media support of a small cadre of activists plus public distrust sustained by unrelenting publicity focused on the nuclear industry's failures) along with the recognition that gas supply from Russia is unreliable (it was turned off just a couple of winters ago).
The fix is more coal fired power, because the 'green' alternatives are falling well short of requirements for reliability and quantity.

Astronuc

mPower empowered by SMR funds
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...s_121112a.html

Meanwhile

Alstom unveils world's longest turbine blade (for large low pressure (LP) steam turbines)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-...e-2011128.html

Also, note that Europe uses 50 Hz, to large turbines are usually 1500 RPM (although some are designed for 3000 rpm) rather than 1800 rpm used in 60 Hz systems.

In 3000 rpm turbines, the last stage blade length is on the order of 1.35 m
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob...power/blob.pdf

CFDFEAGURU

I have done work on the ALSTOM HP and LP coolers used in the GT-24 and GT-26 gas turbines. Lots of ASME code calcs .....

Astronuc

Bethlehem-based Lehigh Heavy Forge Corp. teaming with N.C. company to make nuclear reactors
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/beth...eaming_wi.html

Astronuc

Argonne nuclear pioneers: Chicago Pile 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tKf7R2XncM

Astronuc

Some background on Nuclear Reactor Materials and Fuels.

http://cryptocomb.org/Nuclear%20Reac...nd%20Fuels.pdf

It's mostly correct, but a bit off in places.

Also, for material properties - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...024/cr7024.pdf