A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

 

 

Nuclear power may be about wake up from its decades' long snooze here in the United States.

And like Rip Van Winkle, many of us may be rubbing our eyes in wonder when we see what is coming down the pike.

The large monolithic plants we now have may little ressemble that is coming.

True, the mega-projects are getting off the ground now that the Obama administration has announced $8 billion in loan guarantees to get things rolling on some long-proposed projects. And he is talking about tripling the federal loan pool tp $54 billion.

But an interesting indication of the real future of nuclear was provided by an intriguing front page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled, "Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes."

In case you missed it, here is the lead: "A new type of nuclear reactor - smaller than a railcar and one tenth thecost of a big plant - is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry."

Not that we are clairvoyant, but we saw it coming.

Microsoft R&D guru Nathan Myhrvold wrote about the prospects of revolutionary small nuclear units in the November/December 2008 issue of EnergyBiz - our readers with good memories will recall.

Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures operation has created a TerraPower division for its energy projects. And TerraPower's CEO, John Gilleland, will be speaking about their nuclear work at the rapidly approaching EnergyBiz Leadership Forum in Washington March 1.2. Small indeed may be most beautiful.

Here is what TerraPower has to say about small nuclear on its website:

 

"Extensive computer simulations and engineering studies underway at Intellectual Ventures have produced encouraging evidence that a wave of fission moving slowly through a fuel core could generate a billion watts of electricity continuously for well over 50 to 100 years without refueling.'

Join us at Washington's Mandarin Oriental Hotel in 10 days to learn more about these and other wondrous developments in the world of energy.

member photo An article I read in USA Today yesterday talked about the exorbitant cost of building nuclear energy and how it will increase our utility bills by about 16%. It said that the estimated costs of building nuclear power plants were grossly under actual costs. Not a positive outlook.
# Posted By Jurgen Mantzke | 2/19/10 10:04 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Nathan Myhrvold's vision of a nuclear powered future is the path the US needs to pursue, but there are two major stumbling blocks that will most likely prevent the implementation of "backyard nukes":
[1] Major utilities will not want to participate (small generation, small profit).
[2] Securing the fuel against terroists wanting to make a dirty bomb.

On the upside, "mini-nukes" are the solution to our lack of investment in the transmission infrastructure; if you make the power where it is needed, wheeling power over long distances becomes obsolete.
# Posted By William Norquay | 2/19/10 10:20 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Interesting comments. When nuclear is installed where it should be installed, and constructed in the way that it should be constructed, it is unbeatable. The problem of course is that the decision makers and their advisers have forgotten how to add and subtract, and so where this issue is concerned it is almost impossible for them to arrive at the right conclusions. As for understanding the economics of the nuclear sector, forget about it. I can mention though that this topic may be touched on at a conference that I will attend in a few weeks. I just hope that nobody arrives at the wrong conclusions, because this is one of those topics - along with oil and electric deregulation - that I am not inclined to allow commentators to make mistakes.
# Posted By Ferdinand E. Banks | 2/21/10 5:37 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Actually, if we look at the positives of nuclear energy, we find that it advantages are unique like no carbon emissions, high efficiencies etc. Hence, instead of being afraid from terrorists, and looking at it in long term perspective, nuclear power generation should be encouraged, as is done by current Obama administration.
# Posted By sumedh puradbhat | 2/21/10 8:18 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo There is enough hot air in the Obama Administration's commitment to drive a 100mw generator. Why do I say that? They made these nuclear "commitments" while at the same time killing the waste repository at Yucca Mountain. This is nothing more than crass politics.
# Posted By James Carson | 2/21/10 11:08 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reacto...

If TWR's and/or Thorium Pebble Bed reactors work half as well as planned, we will not need Yucca Mt., or any other repository for that matter; what is now considered waste will become fuel for our long-term energy future.
# Posted By William Norquay | 2/24/10 2:50 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo We think the alternatives like nuclear, which generate significant jobs, taxes and direct as well as secondary spending will strengthen the economies of communities and states. We need significant amount of additional clean and affordable electricity to meet the demand of a growing economy, and nuclear can play a very significant role to acheive this objective.
# Posted By Consumer Energy Alliance CEA | 3/12/10 1:49 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo At least we are doing something in the nuclear energy field. Why not build a couple of these new mini reactors and see how much they really cost? See how long it takes to permit and build? And see if we can find a method of storing or reusing the nuclear waste.
# Posted By Fred Kesinger | 3/15/10 10:25 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo From my experience working to help build some of the previous nuclear reactors in Washington state, my comments are to hold costs in check by coming up with a design for the reactor then build it. What happened during the earlier construction period in the US from 1975 through 1980 was one where the engineering was constantly changing the target. Drawings were revised every few days, it's no wonder that the costs went out of sight. With a project that measures the investiture of hundreds of thousands of man-hours for construction, the construction path needs serious attention and one without deviations and the many "mid course" corrections that happened in the past.
# Posted By Dan Magyar | 7/20/10 10:11 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox
Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments

RSS
Energy Central
Power Network

Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2010 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.