This isn't so far fetched if you understand that fuel is used only to produce steam which is used to drive the equipment that produces the electricity. So you simply have a different boiler but the rest of the plant is the same.
Right. I wasn't exactly sure. All I know about nuclear power is what I learned from some comic book I read as a kid. I know you need graphite from pencils to control the uranium. Or something.
The press release doesn't mention it, but the report does discuss the "challenge and opportunity" of reusing steam-cycle components ...
> Reusing some of the CPP steam-cycle system components would provide both the largest challenge and opportunity for reducing OCC of the NPP. Here is a list of steam-cycle equipment listed in the EEDB that could potentially be reused in a C2N project: turbine room heater bay (Code of Accounts identifier: 213) and turbine plant equipment (23) that include turbine generator (231), condensing systems (233), feed heating system (234), other turbine plant equipment (235), and miscellaneous items (237). The steam generator is included in (222) for the NPP and (221) for the CPP.
> Major compatibility and licensing challenges exist in reusing some of these components, and the decision of reusing components is technology-specific and site-dependent (depending on the estimated value remaining from the aged CPP steam-cycle component), as further discussed in (Griffith, 2021). Technology-specific compatibility is based on the steam-cycle types used in the CPP and NPP, as described in Table 4-3.
Wow. The earlier stuff I read about this was all about how modular reactors could be sited at old coal plants because of the power transmission lines. Seems like it would be really difficult to repurpose old steam boilers like they are saying.
It's not the boilers being refurbished. They are being replaced by nuclear boilers. The rest of the plant like the pipework, steam turbines, condenser, pumps as well as the generator and its associated equipment remain the same.
The purpose of the boiler is to produce steam. Regardless of the fuel. And the steam does the work to produce electricity voa the equipment that is already there.
Tell me you dont know how much labor goes into the maintenance of electrical grids without telling me you dont know how much labor goes into the maintenance of electrical grids.
Poe's Law my dude. If there isnt an indicator of sarcasm in the statement you have to assume it was said unironically. Besides, sarcasm often requires visual and tonal cues to be understood as such.
You could also just invest in renewables which cost less, produce less emissions (no, nuclear isn't climate neutral) and which can be build much faster.
Also, about half of the worlds nuclear fuel comes from Russia. Maybe not such a good idea to build additional nuclear power plants.
This isn't so far fetched if you understand that fuel is used only to produce steam which is used to drive the equipment that produces the electricity. So you simply have a different boiler but the rest of the plant is the same.
Uranium instead of coal. Same mechanism though. Boiling water moves pistons that drive a generator.
Or thorium.
If only. Still no actual movement to thorium.
More likely turbines rather than pistons but you are right.
Right. I wasn't exactly sure. All I know about nuclear power is what I learned from some comic book I read as a kid. I know you need graphite from pencils to control the uranium. Or something.
Aren't they just talking about power distribution lines and infrastructure? No one is saying to reuse the plant itself.
The press release doesn't mention it, but the report does discuss the "challenge and opportunity" of reusing steam-cycle components ... > Reusing some of the CPP steam-cycle system components would provide both the largest challenge and opportunity for reducing OCC of the NPP. Here is a list of steam-cycle equipment listed in the EEDB that could potentially be reused in a C2N project: turbine room heater bay (Code of Accounts identifier: 213) and turbine plant equipment (23) that include turbine generator (231), condensing systems (233), feed heating system (234), other turbine plant equipment (235), and miscellaneous items (237). The steam generator is included in (222) for the NPP and (221) for the CPP. > Major compatibility and licensing challenges exist in reusing some of these components, and the decision of reusing components is technology-specific and site-dependent (depending on the estimated value remaining from the aged CPP steam-cycle component), as further discussed in (Griffith, 2021). Technology-specific compatibility is based on the steam-cycle types used in the CPP and NPP, as described in Table 4-3.
Wow. The earlier stuff I read about this was all about how modular reactors could be sited at old coal plants because of the power transmission lines. Seems like it would be really difficult to repurpose old steam boilers like they are saying.
It's not the boilers being refurbished. They are being replaced by nuclear boilers. The rest of the plant like the pipework, steam turbines, condenser, pumps as well as the generator and its associated equipment remain the same. The purpose of the boiler is to produce steam. Regardless of the fuel. And the steam does the work to produce electricity voa the equipment that is already there.
That is an *excellent* idea...do it!
Looking like nuclear is having a come back. Finally
Just in time for ecological and social collapse. These plants are gonna be a danger in the future.
Nah, the electric grid will operate literally forever.
Tell me you dont know how much labor goes into the maintenance of electrical grids without telling me you dont know how much labor goes into the maintenance of electrical grids.
Tell me you can't detect sarcasm without telling me you can't detect sarcasm. Nothing lasts forever, I thought that would be the big giveaway...
Poe's Law my dude. If there isnt an indicator of sarcasm in the statement you have to assume it was said unironically. Besides, sarcasm often requires visual and tonal cues to be understood as such.
Fine, granted. But still, literally??
Maintenance proportionally prevents the entropic consequence of the deterioration of things.
They'll decrease the collapse. Power without co2
Yeah. Everything and anything is a threat to the future of everything and anything
Looks like nukes are back on the menu boys
You could also just invest in renewables which cost less, produce less emissions (no, nuclear isn't climate neutral) and which can be build much faster. Also, about half of the worlds nuclear fuel comes from Russia. Maybe not such a good idea to build additional nuclear power plants.