IF nuclear Power is 1 way to stabilize or reduce CO2 buildup,Y can't we build smallscale nuclear pwr plants?

Question

to power small towns and big shopping malls. We have built them to power submarines and aircraft carriers!

Answer 1

From what I understand, under a certain size it is impossible or impractical to build working nuclear plants.

From the point of view of economics, large nuclear plants can produce larger amounts of electricity at a cheaper price.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Answer 2

The nuclear propulsion plants are sized for the needs of the particular vessel they power.  As a former nuclear power-trained submariner I can tell you that overall efficiency is not a major consideration in these applications.

Nuclear power plants are high maintenance facilities.  The specialties for maintenance people and engineers are not like any in the rest of the electrical power industry, as are the operations personnel.  Having small plants spread out in localities, quite frankly, would dilute the quality of operations and maintenance personnel.  One submarine propulsion plant, if connected to an electrical generator, would produce about 15 megawatts.  This would power about 15,000 average homes, but wouldn't power a refinery.

The need for local plants isn't necessary since electrical transmission allows for hundreds of miles of distances to deliver power to where it is needed.  This would allow for a centralized nuclear facility that could put out 2000 to 3000 megawatts.

Answer 3

Small scale nuclear power plants require highly enriched uranium to power them.  This uranium is also known as "weapons grade".  It would be a bad idea to put so much "weapons grade" uranium in many different facilities.

As other posters have said, the maintenance needs of a nuclear power plant are high.  Remember, all the nuclear reactor does is boil water.  That steam then is processed through a turbine to turn a generator to create electricity.  Putting all that infrastructure at a mall would be incredibly expensive and maintaining it through its 30 year life would be even more costly.

Electric power is best produced by large plants that provide base load power for a large area.  That way the plants stay operational at 100% power all day and all night.  A nuclear power plant cannot stand being turned off and on every day for reasons associated with nuclear physics that I won't go into.  (Lookup Xenon poisoning if you really care.)

From a waste point of view it is no worse than the wastes generated from any other kind of electrical production.  I have heard of a lot of people dying from respiratory problems from burning coal, but I haven't heard of anybody dying from a nuclear power plant in the U.S.  (Chernobyl was a special case and doesn't apply to US reactors.)

Answer 4

Although I'm against nuclear power,America hasn't came about to modern technology.Most small scale plants are breeder reactors.We are the number uno  as to volume but only 20% as to efficiency.France is by far the most modern and up to date model the world has.This is based on populace and square miles.To keep on par with France we will need at least a 170 plants that uses old technology.There are joint investments from Siemens and other corporations that will provide new advancements into sodium cooled fast breed reactors.In a nut shell we are so far behind the modern world it's scary.

EDIT:(1) Now that you mention it, one area I've heard very little about...is infrastructure.Most of America has archaic road, gas,electrical,and water systems.Some areas of the country are more up to date...I think Seattle is one,as well as some European countries.This was probably brought about from necessity rather then a volunteer basis.I'm not a civil engineer, but you do have me wondering why a major world power is lacking fundamental practices.

Answer 5

Idea sounds good, butEven small reactor plants require intensice maintenence, and highly trained people. Having lots of little ones would require a good portion of the country to be Reactor Operators or mechanics, with a certified plant to build material in every county.

Reactors can be very small. The Submarine NR-1 is very tiny, but nuclear powered, but have a full reactor certified crew for the plant. It would be more benificial to build larger reactor plants to serve a wide area. Manning to KW would be a much better ratio. Also having smaller reactors will also result in much more Radioactive waste over a larger area, and in much larger quantities. You can not just shift proportions on the whole infrastructure. For this, the larger the plant, the more overall efficiencey you will have in power to manning. and Power to radioactive waste. Not just the Fuel Rods will be radioactive, but the whole reactor vessel, and many support items, and containers required for the proper upkeep and maintenence of the reactor and power plants.

Answer 6

Hello Heetaltap

Nuclear Power plant is not good for all of us. It makes lot Radiation and it is difficult to Dispose Waste & Resdue.

Russia face leakage problem thro Nuclear. I forget the name of Nuclear Power Plant. When all the World feel bad and all are against Nuclear Power. Still there child birth is comming with disable condition. So NO MORE NUCLEAR POWER.

We all avoid Power thro Nuclear Power. We can make Power thro Coal based Power House/Hydro Power/Windmill power.

The following points to be followed all of the Country.

1.We all in this world reduce the Usage of Power in everyday life

2. Reduce the Population. If population is less usage of power also less.

3. Try to live/Adjust with Nature is best for our Health. So we have utilise/Minimise the Power.

4.Save Electricity is best policy.

Answer 7

Lmurray, you sir, are an idiot. first of all you can't spell.   but beyond that, your arguement does not make ANY sense!!

by you saying that we have caused the deserts to grow which cause dust storms, isn't completely wrong. HOWEVER, you said that it causes hurricanes. IDIOT! where did you hear this? DUST STORMS BREAK UP THE UPPER LEVEL WINDS THAT CAUSE HURRICANES! it does just the OPPOSITE of what you said!!!

the biggest reason for no more nuclear power is the same reason we can't drill off the florida coast or ANWAR.  bleeding heart LIBERAL democrats trying to save the planet at the cost of our nation!!

look i'm a history major and all of this hype reminds me of all the hype that hitler gave to the german people in the 1930's.. this is what we call "happy fascism"  get used to that term as you are going to hear it more often.

i could go on and on about this til i'm blue in the face... for every arguement that you have for global warming by man, i can show you two that say otherwise.. from sources like NASA, NOAA, U of COLORADO just for starters.

here's a link to global warming site that has OVER 250 OTHER links on this topic.  PLEASE do your own research on this and don't fall prey to all the liberal media hype and al gore's lies

Answer 8

Overall solar thermal is better and can be built where needed and used. Nuks have many problems, but we need them. They could be use to help make ethanol. It takes 1.5 gallons of gas or equivalent to make 1 gallon of ethanol. Not very good for people that clam to be smart. Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight. The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small one all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

Answer 9

we can build small ones to answer your question.

check this out, its actually pretty cool.

this is what you're looking for right

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1191...

Answer 10

You probably could build smaller nuclear reactors, but why?

Maybe what we need is bigger, more efficient power stations with better distribution systems.

Answer 11

good answer murray but ultimately  the bottom line is that even nuclear energy cant compete economically with irrationally cheap fossil fuels like coal etc even on a relatively large scale and this is exaggerated further at the small scale, eg the cost of maintenance for example waste 'disposal' -is intensified further at the small scale and not offset enough by resource generation- the military is a black hole for money,simply because they use them for their war machines does not mean its a good economical practice- especially for state local govt budgets and private industry....who use cost benefit and risk assessment analysis as the norm- and the cost/risk outweighs the benefit at the present time.

And lets face it waste disposal is horrendous for nuclear materials, 'accidents' can be catastrophic, do we want lots of these little nuke plants all over, in our malls? Solar with more research i believe could be made to deliver adequate power base loads.... nuclear has the capacity to deliver baseloads but the risk is too great at this stage especially when it involves massive infrastructure development - and countries like mine (Australia) have such a cheap access to coal....its also politically impalatable to voters

Answer 12

The answer basically boils down to money and security. It is cheaper and safer to run one 1000MW power station than running 10 100MW stations.

Here are some reasons why:

First of all, people in general do not want you to build a nuclear power plant in their back yard. The legal battles to get permission to build a power plant and then get permission to operate that plant (historically two different legal battles) can take years costing the utility millions (before any power is produced). There have been many cases where it has taken longer to license the plant than it took to build the plant. Now imagine trying to get 10 times as many licenses.

Also as a general rule the bigger the power plant the more efficient it will be. As a general rule power plants have an efficiency of ~33%. This means if you want to produce 1000 MW of electriacl power you have to produce 3000 MW of thermal power (heat). If you can increase you efficenticy by 1% that means a 3000 MW thermal plant in producing 30 extra MW of electrical power which would increase profit by millions.

The risk of losing some nuclear fuel is a lot greater if you have a bunch of tiny nuclear plants instead of a few large ones. Its simply easier to guard and moniter a small number of plants.