Progress Of 'Nuclear Renaissance' Slows (Forbes)

[jpak]

http://www.forbes.com/leadership/compensation/2009/01/07/power-nuclear-energy-cx_0108oxford.html

A so-called nuclear renaissance has been underway for some years now. It has taken three broad forms, namely:

--the predominantly state-led and financed continuation of nuclear construction in countries with an existing industry, such as South Korea, China, India and Russia;

--renewed support for nuclear power in countries that have existing industries but that have not seen any new build in decades, the most notable in this regard being the United Kingdom and United States; and

--a host of potential newcomers to the nuclear market, the most substantial groups being emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East.

However, in practice, outside countries where nuclear is state-subsidized and driven by government-set targets, new nuclear is making little progress, despite increasingly supportive policy environments. Moreover, the financial crisis is having various impacts on the industry, the most critical of which is likely to be the increased cost of capital.

Nuclear finance. Increased borrowing costs are likely to more than outweigh the impact of the decline in basic commodity prices. Even if central bank rates have fallen, the cost of project finance has not. For project financiers working in energy, wind, solar or natural gas-fired plants remain much safer investments than nuclear. Smaller-scale projects also suit the current conservatism in project lending.

On the other hand, governments, faced with recession, are committing themselves to a huge range of public spending initiatives, and promotion of so-called "green jobs," which are undermining previous commitments not to engage in forms of state aid. A lack of bank lending is also pushing borrowers toward state banks, export-import banks and multilaterals. Both these trends could benefit nuclear, as governments become more amenable to providing the cheap finance that new nuclear requires. As such, the financial crisis may increase the chances of state support for new nuclear.

<more>

[kristopher]

1. Not

From the OP: "As such, the financial crisis may increase the chances of state support for new nuclear."

[KakistocracyHater]

2. Aside from 3-Mile Island my concern is low-tech

the nuke plants use plain old river/lake water to "cool the reactor"-wtf? It should have been the law a long time ago: the nuke plant MUST build 2 reservoirs filled with whatever chemical(freon?)would quickly cool the plant more sufficiently than mere river water. I say this because France during the heatwave had to shut down some of the n. plants. Ridiculous! 1 pool to use, & 1 to be kept cool via using a fraction of the energy to maintain the coolness of the other pool; they would be lined, so as not to lose any of the coolant. I realize I don't sound very scientific but I do hope that someone would consider this different way.

[happyslug]

3. I do not think you can do better then water, it takes a lot of heat to convert it to steam

Remember when you want to cool something down, the best way is to transfer that excess heat to another medium and then remove that medium. Water is very good at this for it is liquid between 32 and 212 degrees and thus flows. You can develop a simple pumping system to get the water to the heat source and then another pumping system to take the heated water AWAY from the heat source. AS long as the temperatures of the water is above 32 no problem (In the Three mile Island Nuclear incident in the 1970s, a vial stuck open, leaving all the water to escape, the reactor overheated before anyone caught on and turned the water back on).

As to the 32 degree problem, there are ways around that. First most rivers do NOT freeze from top to bottom. The reason for this is ice is lighter then water so it floats on top of the water and when the ice is solid, it acts as an insulation to the rest of the water. Another factor is most areas of the world (Actually all of the world) Ground temperature tends to be the same as the annual temperature. Outside of the extreme North and South that is above 32 degrees, thus if you move the water via pipes below the local freeze line (18-24 inches below the ground surface) the water in the pipe will NEVER freeze, no matter how cold it is above ground. Both of these known facts about water gives water an edge as a coolant even in areas of severe winters.

A further factor is water "will raise to its own level" if in a closed system like a pipe. This is why the water flows to your second floor bathroom, as long as the bathroom is below the intake of whatever is your water source. For most people their immediate water source is your local municipal water tank. Water is pumped into the tank, but then it flows into the municipal water system (Which is more or less sealed, leaks occur but most cases minor). This is true even if the water has to go down a hillside and then back up another to get to your home. As long as the water tank is above your home, the water will flow into your home as long as the pipeline is sealed (And most of the time it is, but when it is not, you quickly find out when you find the water no longer come out of the sink when you turn the handle). This characteristics of water has been known for millennia, even the Romans used it.

My point is simple, it is hard to beat water as a coolant, it takes a huge amount of heat to convert it to steam (and the amount is known and has been known since the early 1700s). It flows readily and thus can cool down most things by sheer volume of water passing over a heat source. If it gets to hot water becomes steam that goes into the air, leaving space in the liquid sections for more water (Which will be much colder then the water already next to the heat source).

In Chernobyl the problem was the safety systems had been turned off, including the one to provide extra water. What water remained in the system boiled into steam, which could NOT cool down the reactor (Steam can NOT cool things down, water can). Worse the design had a fatal flaw, as you powered DOWN the reactor could overheat do to an increase in reactor temperatures since

This steam later contributed to the reactor blowing up (Notice the lack of water at this point in the history of the disaster). The disaster itself took place over a period of Seconds, no way for water or any other method to cool down the reactor. The disaster had more to do with people NOT following safe operating procedures and a basic design that required strict following of procedures. Worse the control rods were made of two materials, the first part was light water so to cool the system down, and then as the rod continued into the core the core then the boron Carbide moderator material entered the reactor. The affect of this was to INCREASE reaction as the rod entered (The water part) then only as the part with the Boron Carbine entered the core would the reaction DROP. While one of the reason for this was to keep the system cool (i.e. the water) by making the rod out of TWO elements it did two things poorly. There was NOT enough water in the Rod to truly cool down the reactor as the rod was first entered into the core AND the Boron Carbide, which would slow down the reaction, was delayed by the water part of the rod as the rod as a whole was pushed into the core.

My point the water did its job of cooling the reactor in Chernobyl, the problem was the sudden increase in power caused by the type of rod used at Chernobyl. Nothing could have cooled down that reactor in the 3-5 seconds it took to over heat, an overheating caused by a sudden increase in nuclear reaction do to the design of the reactor.

My point is simple, water is generally the best coolant, it flows, boils away if overheated (And has a way to escaped, another problem of the Chernobyl disaster, the steam could NOT escape and be replaced by water) and is plentiful and cheap (in most of the world). It works at most temperatures people live in (And in those areas that water is frozen all or most of the year, you can still work around its problems but it is much more difficult thus it is rare to have nuclear plants in the Arctic Regions). Furthermore water flows, and thus can be directed to a source of heat quickly and be replaced by even more water if more is needed (and flow away from the hear source with the excess heat, thus taking the heat with it).


For more on Three Mile Island:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

For more on Chernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[KakistocracyHater]

4. No, wait a moment-drought

if you have a drought, or a heatwave(like in France) where the water temperature went higher & COULD NOT BE USED, the water was 90-something degrees.

What about frozen helium? As for getting rid of the coolant, that's why I said 2 tanks. The 1st goes in as the used 1 goes back into an empty pool to be cooled & cycled through, something like an aquarium.

I am interested in something that can bring temperatures down much faster than water, that is manufactured & thus (hopefully) can be relied upon. The specter of drought is too compelling a threat for me.

[happyslug]

5. Helium is a little easier to keep then Hydrogen, but not by much.

In fact the main source of Helium is in certain wells in the Mid-west, it is virtually unknown elsewhere, it was first detected on the Sun by scientist and then found in certain natural gas wells as a by-product of drilling the well to get the natural gas. The energy needed to freeze it is high (It is a Noble gas and thus the only way to freeze it is to compress it, which takes up a good bit of energy.

AS to heat waves, we may have to do what people have done in droughts in the pass, live with it and close the plant down. Furthermore how did the water in FRANCE reach 90 degree? Water being from the ground, generally is the same temperature as the ground (i.e. whatever is the yearly average temperature for that area). The only time water gets to a higher temperature is if it is sitting in a Shadow pool, where it can absorb the heat of the sun. Sounds like a badly design holding pond, Shadow instead of deep and used for other things, like a wading pool instead of as a holding tank for water. Anyway even at 90 Degree that water can cool things down that are hotter, and if you are using the water as it pass by the reactor it may even hold onto more heat.

The problem with any AIR based coolant is they are all less efficient then liquid based systems, do to water's greater density compared to even its our air state, steam. The only substance with more density, which is what you need to cool something, is SOLID items, like ice. Ice can be made by compression but cheaper then Helium (The main reason is the compression can be used to produce a huge lost of heat, and then that col substance can then be used to cool the water down to its solid form i.e, ice (This is how your refrigerator works, the compression compressions the freon in the refrigerator from its air state to its liquid state, producing a lot of heat in the process, you can feel this in the rear bottom of your refrigerator, where most compressors are. The liquid Freon then travels inside the refrigerator and is permitted to expand. This requires the Freon to absorb whatever hear is around at that point, making the freezer section of your refrigerator very cold and the rest kind of cold. The now air form of Freon then flows back ot the compression where the cycle starts all over again. Notice in making ice, the water is NOT compressed, Freon is (Or some other substance), thus this is cheaper then the compression of Helium, which has to be compressed itself. A good way to look at the cost of Compression is to look at the Compression of Natural Gas from its Gas form to a Liquid form. As a Complex compound (i.e. made up of several atoms) it is why easier then a Noble gas like Helium, but even Natural gas takes almost 1/3 of the energy that exists in the natural gas being compressed to do the compressing (Thus natural gas send by ship is always 1/3 more expensive then Natural gas shipped by pipeline). To anywhere near the coolness needed you have to compress tremendous amount of Helium.

Furthermore you can NOT keep this Helium for long. The reason is the same reason we can NOT store hydrogen to long, In the gaseous state the atom is more compact then in the Gas state, this means it can more easily fit between the gaps of other atoms that make up a container, and leak out no matter how sealed is the container. Furthermore since the Helium is held under pressure it wants to escape, thus it naturally flows right through most containers. Now this can take a few months, but it is a lot quicker then when Natural Gas in compress (Natural Gas is a Compound, and as a compound is larger then the gap between the Atoms in most containers, thus can effectively be kept in a container almost forever. That is NOT true of hydrogen or helium.

For more on Helium:
http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/helium.html

here is a cite selling Helium storage tanks, the real killer is the daily Boiling rate which is set at 1% per day. In other words it will have leak all of the Helium within 4 months or 100 days.

http://www.janis.com/p-aae3.html

The only substance worse is Hydrogen (Which is even smaller, having only 1 proton as compared to Helium's two). No we are stuck with water, a compound of two atoms, Oxygen and Hydrogen which is larger then both AND helium.