• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Small Nuclear reactors.

jdog21 said:
Most steam plants have turbines that are in tandem meaning different pressure sections being on the same shaft attached to a single generator. Another common one is a cross compound turbine, where the low pressure section is separated from the high pressure and intermediate pressure turbine, so there is two shafts and 2 generators.
At these coals plants and on existing nuclear plants there is generally only 1 turbine generator per boiler/reactor. But most these plants will have 2 to 3 boilers/reactors on a site. So 2 to 3 generators.
The limiting factor is going to be steam output being able to match the volume, pressures, and temperatures to match that particular turbine.
Click to expand...
I know it will not be easy, but the benefit of utilizing large amounts of infrastructure that already exists,
is worth looking at!
 
longview said:
I know it will not be easy, but the benefit of utilizing large amounts of infrastructure that already exists,
is worth looking at!
Click to expand...

I agree with the land, rail yards, and transmission electrical lines. Using those would be smart and cost saving.
The transformers, the turbines, and generators however NO
Better to sell them off to other old coal plants still hanging on and could use the cheap used parts.
 
jdog21 said:
I agree with the land, rail yards, and transmission electrical lines. Using those would be smart and cost saving.
The transformers, the turbines, and generators however NO
Better to sell them off to other old coal plants still hanging on and could use the cheap used parts.
Click to expand...
Up to a point! if the small reactors are in the right scale range as the existing turbines, it might save additional monies to keep them.
 
longview said:
No! Burning Coal, provides the heat to make steam to turn the turbines, but that heat could come from small nuclear reactors as well.
The same steam turbines, same generators, same grid ties, just a different heat source.
Click to expand...
Not quite, no. They are different systems. Different heat ranges. Nuclear actually usually requires 2 loops set up, whereas coal is just one loop normally. Nuclear systems are far more clean than coal as well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
That would be a great idea if we had a real solution to the nuclear waste. This is disaster in our future maybe much worse than CO2. I think nuclear is viable source when coal in not already piled up on the ground by the billions of tons creating an environmental problem in the area were it is. I don't think you comprehend the devastation from these culm banks to the rivers, streams, ground water, and the fact that nearly nothing grows in right now. Right now they are cleaning them up by burning the coal for energy which is solving a problem. We need to burn it as efficient as possible and only use it where it exist.

View attachment 67281170

Here is a picture of just one culm bank of thousands in PA.
Click to expand...
Nuclear waste is far less devastating than people think, and would be even less so with just a little more care and expense. The bulk of reactor waste itself, the highest level waste, could be reused, refurbished. Smaller waste is not nearly as big of an issue.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
I am not a nuclear engineer ether, but some of the small designs do not appear to have such issues.
Technology Overview | NuScale Power
As to why so few ships are nuclear, that likely has more to do with regulations than costs.
Click to expand...
No its due to cost/benefit analysis. Nuclear is great and I'm for it (note the name, there's a reason for it), however there needs to be some realism in what you are suggesting.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Not quite, no. They are different systems. Different heat ranges. Nuclear actually usually requires 2 loops set up, whereas coal is just one loop normally. Nuclear systems are far more clean than coal as well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I was thinking the secondary nuclear loop would be used for the coal steam turbines, but some other process may be necessary.
It may well not be possible, just that it is worth looking at, before closing down a plant with all the pieces except a good heat source.
I used to live near a very large coal plant, WA Parish, I was reading up on it to see if I could find the number of generators, which would say
something about the individual turbine sizes, anyway I noticed that one of the 4 units there is now a NG unit.
Whatever went into changing a Coal unit to a NG unit, could have a lot of similarities to doing the same thing for Small Nuclear.
 
longview said:
Up to a point! if the small reactors are in the right scale range as the existing turbines, it might save additional monies to keep them.
Click to expand...
Not with the cleaning and other retrofitting that would need to be done to ensure certain standards are met.

There is a reason the Navy does nuclear power so well without any major nuclear incidents, and has been doing it for about 70+ years, and it isnt reactor design that is responsible.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
I was thinking the secondary nuclear loop would be used for the coal steam turbines, but some other process may be necessary.
It may well not be possible, just that it is worth looking at, before closing down a plant with all the pieces except a good heat source.
I used to live near a very large coal plant, WA Parish, I was reading up on it to see if I could find the number of generators, which would say
something about the individual turbine sizes, anyway I noticed that one of the 4 units there is now a NG unit.
Whatever went into changing a Coal unit to a NG unit, could have a lot of similarities to doing the same thing for Small Nuclear.
Click to expand...
I was a nuke in the Navy. I know how the systems work. There are cleanliness standards and redundancy necessities not mandated in coal plants. The systems work different even if the very base process is the same. You may be able to salvage some system equipment but cleaning costs for most may very well exceed that of simply replacing them with new equipment. Then there is the material standards. It would depend on how much was invested into the coal plants to begin with.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
No its due to cost/benefit analysis. Nuclear is great and I'm for it (note the name, there's a reason for it), however there needs to be some realism in what you are suggesting.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree, a proper cost benefit analysis, needs to be done, I am only saying that with this new generation
of smaller reactors, it would be worth looking at!
 
roguenuke said:
I was a nuke in the Navy. I know how the systems work. There are cleanliness standards and redundancy necessities not mandated in coal plants. The systems work different even if the very base process is the same. You may be able to salvage some system equipment but cleaning costs for most may very well exceed that of simply replacing them with new equipment. Then there is the material standards. It would depend on how much was invested into the coal plants to begin with.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mind you I am not speaking from experience, but I think the steam loop on a coal fired plant would need to be just as clean as any other.
Contaminants in the steam, would be bad for the turbines, no matter how the steam was generated.
I am sure you are correct about the rest of the plant, coal plants are dirty places, they spray water on the coal heaps to keep the dust down,
but you will still see it several miles down wind of a plant.
 
longview said:
Mind you I am not speaking from experience, but I think the steam loop on a coal fired plant would need to be just as clean as any other.
Contaminants in the steam, would be bad for the turbines, no matter how the steam was generated.
I am sure you are correct about the rest of the plant, coal plants are dirty places, they spray water on the coal heaps to keep the dust down,
but you will still see it several miles down wind of a plant.
Click to expand...
Oh no, you learn in nuclear power there are many, many levels of clean.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Oh no, you learn in nuclear power there are many, many levels of clean.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that, I did some work with high vacuum systems, and there are many levels of something being a gas tight seal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom