Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Perhaps it has been addressed, but I have a related question: How many reactors COULD we have by 2030? Building a reactor is a specialized task, you can't just ask Joe Bloggs, the builder from down the road, to knock one up for you. Assuming that all objections are removed and everyone agrees to plough full stream ahead with nuclear fission, what limits are there to the rate at which reactors can be added? Adding an average of 280 per year (or 500 per year, assuming a 10 year lead time) does not sound practical in any reality I understand.
by det on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 at 02:11:50 PM EST
That is a very good question, that I have not seen adressed.

Just to be clear, I wanted to include as wide a spectra for answers as possible, to avoid having to put in more answers later on.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 at 03:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is actually the way I understood and answered the poll: 500, just as today, because we'll have a hard time replacing the ageing units, even if all governments try as hard as they can to get their nukes (which most already do, and others will make up their mind pretty soon).

Of course, newer reactors will be like the EPR: over 1.5 GW, versus 500-800 for many old units in the US for instance. So the total capacity will increase. Uranium consumption will not increase that much, because newer reactors have better yields, better breeding ratios, they're all designed to run on MOX, etc...

It is also because of all these reasons that I don't believe seriously that any U shortage will happen this century. I also believe nukes won't help much those who don't already have them running today (like France).

Pierre

by Pierre on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 04:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series