About Social Media Today
Dear Jesse, One of the reasons why I would like a dialogue with you is to increase awareness of the creative thinking among nuclear supporter. There is actually a sort of peer review process among nuclear supporters. Newly proposed ideas usually are subjected to critical discussion on the Energy from Thorium Discussion forum. Many disquisition participants are engineers and scientists, who are nuclear literate, and are both intelligent and competent. Bad ideas get ferreted out. These discussions are making important contributions to the process of charting our future energy design, and deserve attention from anyone who wishes to be known as an energy expert.
One of the more original ideas to have emerged from the community of nuclear supporters is Jim Holm's idea of recycling coal fired power plants to sites for the installation of small generation IV reactors. I thought that Jim Holm's idea of recycling coal fired power plants by converting them into nuclear power plants was crazy the first time I encountered it. I now think it is a terrific idea.
First they offer grid access. In a massive deployment of nuclear power in the United States, Grid hook up will definitely be a problem. By accessing the grid from existing power sites, grid access costs can be kept to a minimum. Several small reactors, whose combined generation capacity generation capacity could be closely matched to the output of the previous coal fired station.
A second advantage would be the access to water and a cooling system. Since reactors are going to be located on rivers and require both cooling towers and water use permits, the reuse of these facilities would save a considerable amount of money. The reactor core would, of course be factory produced and could be transported to the power plant site by train. truck or barge. Several small reactors could be clustered and matched to the old coal plants rasted output. This would facilitate using the existing frid hook up.
The land for the facility might come at no cost. Or if ownership of the land were transferred, it could be with minimal problem's.
Some existing plant structures might be reusable. A recycled turbine hall, now used for closed cycle gas turbines, could offer some more construction savings. Parking lots can be reused. Coal yards offer security and radiation protection perimeters. Reactors could be located either in existing buildings, with added containment features, in separate containment structures, or in underground chambers. Under ground siting might lower Generation IV reactor sit costs, while actually enhancing safety and security.
If the reuse of 100 coal fired power plants produced an average of $50 million in construction savings, the total savings would amount to $5 billion. This would be a savings from efficient reuse of resources.
The sites of natural gas turbine generators could also be reused as small reactor sites, with at least some of the same advantages that would be provided by the reuse of coal sites. Considering the large number of coal fired generation facilities world wide, the reuse of coal fired plants for nuclear deployment might well be a standard feature of any large scale plan.
Quite a while ago I wrote this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/12/111653/122
It's
a proposal on how the state of Missouri could phase out coal by going
nuclear and explains, similarly to Charles answer, about the robust use
of "Balance of Plant" equipment which includes extensive site
preparation, size, grid access, river-rail-road access for components,
cooling facilities and access, etc. The savings, *even* for Generation III reactors would be immense.
David's post is well worth reading. David is an experienced power plant operator, with broad experience with a variety of electrical plants. Thus he provides the insights of a hands on professional, into the practicality of the Colal to nuclear conversion.
