Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
Thu May 26, 2016, 08:52 PM May 2016

Ten New Nuclear Power Reactors Connected to Grid in 2015

Ten new reactors were connected to the grid in 2015, the highest number since 1990, according to the 2016 edition of ‘Nuclear Power Reactors in the World’, published last week. The global statistics recorded in this annual publication on nuclear power reactors show that as of 31 December 2015, the 441 operational reactors had a worldwide net capacity of 382,855 megawatts of electricity. Also within the same period, seven reactors were permanently shut down and 67 nuclear reactors were under construction.

“We hope this reference guide is a useful source of information for those countries interested in assessing the benefits of having nuclear power in their energy mix and for those already using nuclear power,” said Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director-General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy.

This is the 36th edition of Reference Data Series No.2, containing summarized information on power reactors operating, under construction and shut down as well as performance data on reactors operating in the IAEA Member States.

Data on the types of reactors, nuclear electricity production, the categories of new reactors connected to the grid; technical terms used during the decommissioning process of reactors, and the specification and performance history data of operating reactors, are included information.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/ten-new-nuclear-power-reactors-connected-to-grid-in-2015-highest-number-since-1990
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ten New Nuclear Power Reactors Connected to Grid in 2015 (Original Post) FBaggins May 2016 OP
They of course came up with solution to spent fuel, too. Right? NV Whino May 2016 #1
Sure. That happened decades ago. FBaggins May 2016 #2
Recycling I can get behind NV Whino May 2016 #4
"Spent" fuel isn't really used up FBaggins May 2016 #5
Yeah, I've never figured out why the "spent" fuel couldn't be used for other things NV Whino May 2016 #8
There are concerns: notemason May 2016 #3
But there are NO concerns about the seven million people who die each year from air pollution. NNadir May 2016 #6
Not very rational ones FBaggins May 2016 #7

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
4. Recycling I can get behind
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:32 PM
May 2016

Burying it, no.

By the way, I've never heard how they would/could recycle it. Can you give me some info on that?

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
5. "Spent" fuel isn't really used up
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:50 PM
May 2016

The issue is that fission products and their daughter elements grow to a level where the ongoing fission of the core is impacted - but that's still a very low percentage of the total volume of the fuel (less than 5%). The remaining 95% can be reused - leaving a much smaller volume (of an already tiny volume) to be disposed of.

It was a political decision to elect a "once through" fuel cycle - there's no technical reason requiring it. It's also a political decision to hold up long-term storage.

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
8. Yeah, I've never figured out why the "spent" fuel couldn't be used for other things
Thu May 26, 2016, 10:30 PM
May 2016

Used down to the very nub, as it were. Thousand of years of half life and we can't use it?

Solve the disposal problem and I can get behind nuclear energy. Although I would just as soon they don't build the plants on earthquake faults.

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
6. But there are NO concerns about the seven million people who die each year from air pollution.
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:53 PM
May 2016

There is not one person who carries on about Fukushima who ever stops to consider that 19,000 people die each day from air pollution.

As I pointed out elsewhere in connection with this selective attention, a Nobel Laureate did note this much, but of course, none of this compares to the fantasies connected with what could have happened.

What in the wonderful minds of people reporting this would the "worsened" case involve?

Anti-nuke ignorance kills people.

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
7. Not very rational ones
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:54 PM
May 2016

But that's never stopped the anti-nuke fringe.

Yes, a spent fuel fire could be more significant than Fukushima. But spent fuel fires aren't particularly difficult to avoid. Note that they didn't even occur at Fukushima - after a horrific combination of events.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Ten New Nuclear Power Rea...