Military Review

In the United States studied the possibility of placing nuclear reactors at old coal-fired power plants

49
In the United States studied the possibility of placing nuclear reactors at old coal-fired power plants

US coal-fired power plants, if necessary, can be upgraded to nuclear. This conclusion was made on the basis of a study by the US Department of Energy. The department's specialists checked 80% of operating and decommissioned thermal power plants. As it turned out, they can accommodate nuclear reactors.


The study team identified 157 decommissioned power plants and 237 operating power plants that could host nuclear reactors. Thus, these old power plants are potential candidates for transition from coal fuel to nuclear energy resources.

According to the report, the modernization of coal-fired power plants will contribute to a number of positive changes, both climate and economic. For example, air quality will improve in areas where power plants are located. In addition, economic activity will increase, additional groups of workers of various profiles and qualifications will be employed. After all, the reconstruction of power plants will require the involvement of significant labor resources - builders, power engineers, transport workers who will be involved in the modernization of facilities.

Against the background of the global economic and political situation, the modernization of coal-fired power plants is also interesting to Washington because it reduces the country's dependence on energy resources, which are becoming increasingly scarce. However, the plans of the Ministry of Energy do not yet mean that the country's leadership will decide in practice to move to the modernization of the power plant system. First, it is a huge cost. Secondly, where to get thousands of additional specialists in the field of nuclear energy...



Such events will require the involvement of not only the relevant department, but also the country's leadership, including the presidential administration and Congress. There is no doubt that in Congress there will be active opposition to such plans of the Ministry of Energy by opposition-minded congressmen who will see additional costs in the reorganization of power plants in difficult financial times.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia/Fletcher6
49 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. EXPrompt
    EXPrompt 14 September 2022 08: 51
    +8
    Do they already have Newscale reactors in metal?
    Well, at least one ... for test operation.
    Vaughn Musk said yesterday that the era of internal combustion engines has ended .... damn storytellers
    1. Kim
      Kim 14 September 2022 10: 12
      +2
      Musk and Twitter bought
      and Mars colonizes
  2. Kim
    Kim 14 September 2022 08: 51
    +5
    he will eat, but who will give him?
    and where are they going to take uranium?
    1. 2112vda
      2112vda 14 September 2022 09: 05
      +4
      They will find uranium. How will they enrich him?
      1. Kim
        Kim 14 September 2022 10: 11
        +1
        sorry, did not specify what exactly enriched
        and the usual one is not so sold in every stall, and the price tag is growing
  3. alexey sidykin
    alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 08: 53
    -2
    Wow ... are they there, have they gone crazy or are they just tired of living?
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 14 September 2022 09: 13
      +7
      In fact, if there is a turbine hall with turbine units, then the turbines are absolutely purple from where the steam comes from a boiler unit or from a nuclear reactor.
      But there is a closed / closing state district power station, we put reactors on its site and that's it!
      A turbine hall with turbines, cooling towers, ventilation pipes, outdoor switchgear, power lines, here they are ready!
      You can even leave a couple of boilers for your own needs, on fuel oil or gas.
      It's a great idea in my opinion!
      If anything, then I'm an energy engineer, so I can think of something.
      1. alexey sidykin
        alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 09: 32
        +1
        Do they have the same security requirements?
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 14 September 2022 09: 35
          0
          Quote: Alexey Sedykin
          Do they have the same security requirements?
          Security of what?
          Reactors?
          So make the fence higher and the guard standing.
          There is no talk about nuclear safety at all. Everything worked out.
          1. alexey sidykin
            alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 10: 05
            +1
            Well, well ... yes, we have worked it out. What about them?
            1. Victor_B
              Victor_B 14 September 2022 10: 08
              0
              Quote: Alexey Sedykin
              What about them?
              And they have many times more blocks, so they have a lot of experience.
              1. alexey sidykin
                alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 12: 26
                +2
                I'm talking about reliability and not about the number of blocks ... especially since most of the blocks are similar to those in Fukushima and from 79 to 12 nuclear power plants not in Yusakh were not built ...
      2. Kim
        Kim 14 September 2022 10: 13
        +3
        great
        a) who will build?
        b) where will they get the fuel?
        c) and specialists?
      3. Hitriy Zhuk
        Hitriy Zhuk 15 September 2022 12: 32
        0
        1) protection (no one cares whether the armed LGBT people will seize the thermal power plant, and the protection is appropriate, but the nuclear power plant ...)
        2) we will get a brand new reactor, and ushatannye (if not outdated) CHP units.
        3) often redo someone else's work - a double crap (after all, you need to cleverly link existing jambs and mistakes with your own (current and future))
  4. Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
    Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov 14 September 2022 09: 00
    +3
    ***
    - “If you want to live, you won’t get so upset!” ...



    ***
  5. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 14 September 2022 09: 03
    +6
    I love reading such nonsense. How much is the United States producing reactors a day, a week a year? This is from the opera Trussovaya: We will issue 100 licenses for oil production in the North Sea and live tomorrow?! , today it is and tomorrow it is not.
    1. Cananecat
      Cananecat 14 September 2022 09: 31
      +4
      Quote: tralflot1832
      Reactors per day, per week per year, how much does the United States produce?

      The main loot for this is to get laughing
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 14 September 2022 09: 38
        +2
        And conclude a contract with Rosatom, through an intermediary.
      2. Hitriy Zhuk
        Hitriy Zhuk 15 September 2022 12: 34
        0
        Issue shares, treasuries, and reactor coins!
        The Nemammoths will pay for everything.
  6. Graz
    Graz 14 September 2022 09: 07
    +3
    perverts in general, what's in the body, what's in business wassat
  7. Pravodel
    Pravodel 14 September 2022 09: 18
    +5
    Interesting, it turns out the picture, I'll tell you, gentlemen. It looks like pin ... wasps are preparing us for a big nuclear catastrophe, yes, and more than one. How they got together to transfer the thermal power plant - the TS to nuclear fuel - is a huge question. In theory, of course, this can be done, because. The TS also has a thermal circuit, but, unlike a nuclear power plant, it has completely different protection, technological tolerances, parameters, etc. NUCLEAR POWER STATION. It’s easier to demolish a thermal station and build a nuclear power plant in its place ... But will the United States find $ for this - green candy wrappers - it won’t be possible to print, that’s the main question ...
    1. Kim
      Kim 14 September 2022 10: 14
      +1
      not to us, but to you :))))))))))
  8. Maks1995
    Maks1995 14 September 2022 09: 22
    0
    First, it's logical. stick a small YAR in place of the firebox)))
    Secondly - you still need to cheat on an empty place ...
    ", these are huge costs" "where to get thousands of additional specialists .."
    you might think they will rush to build hundreds of I stations at the same time ...
    1. alexey sidykin
      alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 09: 37
      +2
      Logically, it's logical ... on paper. But in practice, what the games with nuclear power plants lead to was well shown by Chernobyl. Yes, and Three Mile Island with Fukushima too.
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 14 September 2022 14: 24
        -2
        It is generally dangerous to live ... in our bus they announce the number of dead ... either on the roads, or in fires, or fell out of the window ... And at bus stops, announcements of the missing ....
    2. your1970
      your1970 15 September 2022 11: 38
      0
      Quote: Max1995
      rush to build hundreds of I stations at the same time ...

      They are even for a couple of stations - obviously there are no extra ones.
      Well, they themselves have not produced enriched uranium for a long time
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 15 September 2022 14: 18
        -2
        Yeah, no. Of course, they don’t write in detail here, but someone examined under 400 thermal power plants, issued verdicts, which means that there are definitely builders already.
        while they build trial ones, while they look - by the time the launch of a series of specialists will be prepared ....

        And uranium ... part of their Canyon is studded with signs, do not walk, radiation, dangerous ...
        will gain.
        "They don't produce" - they do, only our oligarchs sold them everything "super cheap", why should they strain? The stock is there for a long time...
        1. your1970
          your1970 15 September 2022 22: 50
          0
          Quote: Max1995
          builders are already there.
          while they build trial ones, while they look - by the time the launch of a series of specialists will be prepared ....

          It's not a year or two or five
          Quote: Max1995
          "They don't produce" - they do, only our oligarchs sold them everything "super cheap", why should they strain? The stock is there for a long time...

          They have no production at all. The United States generally has a lot of problems with nuclear power. All production has been closed, and for a long time, after several accidents.
          Our uranium - sold to them by EBN - is running out.
          Westinghouse worked on our uranium and our specialist assemblers.
          In general, there is a theory - that the uranium we sold to him in the 1990s played the role of a trap that ruined the US nuclear industry.
          1. Maks1995
            Maks1995 15 September 2022 23: 53
            -2
            1) So they will build nge in three months ...
            2) A search for "enriched uranium production in the USA" gives a completely different result.
            I'm afraid it's just a media stamp...
            1. your1970
              your1970 16 September 2022 06: 14
              0
              Russia + Kazakhstan + the Canadian subsidiary of Rosatom control about 35% of the market.
              "Regular deliveries of high-quality and cheaper than locally enriched uranium have led to the fact that the domestic production of enriched uranium in the United States began to decline.
              The history of USEC is indicative. It was established as a state enterprise in 1992. It was transferred to state enrichment facilities. But in July 1998, the company went public with an IPO, the state completely sold its stake, raising about $ 3 billion.
              In May 2001, the company ceased production at the gaseous diffusion plant in Piketon, leaving only Paducah. In Piketon, USEC planned to build a cascade of gas centrifuges and launch them in 2009. But the Energy Department failed to provide a $2 billion guarantee, and the company was forced to halt the project.
              In May 2013, production in Paducah also stopped. And already in December of the same year, USEC announced that it had agreed with the majority of creditors and filed for voluntary bankruptcy. "
              The problem is for the USA that we clean on centrifuges - and the USA by gas diffusion, which is about 50 times higher in terms of energy consumption
              Quote: Max1995
              I'm afraid it's just a media stamp...

              "In March 2022, US President Joseph Biden announced a ban on the supply of energy resources from Russia, but this ban did not affect the supply of uranium. According to Reuters, American energy companies Duke Energy and Exelon, as well as the Institute of Atomic U.S. Energy Industry: According to Bloomberg, in 2020, 23% of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power plants came from Russia.

              "The US Department of Energy in the report "Restoring America's Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage" admitted that the country is dependent on foreign uranium enrichment capacities. The Department proposed to reduce market access for Russian (and at the same time Chinese) fuel and develop our own development of new fuels and reactors."
              1. Maks1995
                Maks1995 16 September 2022 07: 25
                -3
                Themselves and answered
                "Russia + Kazakhstan + the Canadian subsidiary of Rosatom control about 35% of the market."
                the other 65%?
                For details, look...

                And so, yes - Rosatom - because it's cheap ...

                Similar with others .. up to additional tariffs for the supply of metals (BEFORE the 14th and 24th), because it is too cheap ...

                "and develop our own developments" - so not only for uranium.
                There are whole lists. dependence on Taiwan, Holland, Germany, etc.
                The neo-colonial economy is called ... like ours, only on the other hand ...
                1. your1970
                  your1970 16 September 2022 09: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Max1995
                  And so, yes - Rosatom - because it's cheap ...

                  Not only..
                  You look for waste storage facilities. Since the 1960s, they have been collecting money for construction for a few cents from each kilowatt of energy produced ...
                  Still not built belay request belay lol
                  So NOT just because it's cheap
                  1. Maks1995
                    Maks1995 16 September 2022 13: 04
                    -2
                    It is necessary to search, deepen, delve into ...
                    Yesterday I was looking for a quick one - it’s just that competitors are selling Ob.Uranium cheaper, the State Department has long distanced itself from the problem (and why fuss, if it’s cheap), so they kept some necessary minimum of production, a stock of dofiga, and fuel, and weapons, and depleted shells ... ...

                    And now that's all, the money went from the age of 21, they promised to soon recoup the first new plant ....

                    I didn’t look for waste - I remember - they declared a victory - Russia is lucky to itself from everywhere ... cheap!
                    1. your1970
                      your1970 16 September 2022 20: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Max1995
                      I didn’t look for waste - I remember - they declared a victory - Russia is lucky to itself from everywhere ... cheap!

                      You don't know- ALL suppliers - take out waste to themselves. Not side effects and not liquid / low-active - but conditionally fuel rod tablets.
                      This is how it is supposed to be according to the IAEA standards - to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This is the most valuable raw material.
                      And yes, the buyer usually pays the return cost separately. And yes, this is by no means NOT cheap.

                      There is a theory - I can't answer for authenticity - but there is one. That the sale of highly enriched uranium to the US was a special operation to undermine the US nuclear industry.
                      And it really worked - just dig deeper. And they tried to build factories several times already, but it doesn’t work out. Competencies, specialists and technologies are lost.
                      1. Maks1995
                        Maks1995 17 September 2022 22: 40
                        -3
                        !) Yes, I judge by the media. And there they wrote - that not only Rosatom and daughters take out waste, but they also took it from others, for example, from the French. And amers.
                        And if the French gave it away .... it means it’s cheaper with us ....

                        2) Theories of such dofiga .... about HPP, Serdyukov, Rocket engines, railway wheels, Titanium and aluminum for Boeing, fish for Amer's schools, Russian fuel oil and solarium for amers, solarium, titanium, aluminum for Ukraine ... etc. .P.
                        But in real life - everything is simple. Capitalism in the yard. Deshego.
                        They wrote that at one time the P180 was sold to amers below cost.
                        Americans UP TO 14 were fenced off by duties from the super-cheap offshore Russian coin.
                        And in RUSAL, the Americans forced to transfer part of the shares of the state-owned VTB, right at the time of the raid on Deripaska .... Because offshore tin was there and, according to their concepts, impossible ...
                      2. your1970
                        your1970 18 September 2022 06: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Max1995
                        but he also took from others, for example, from the French. And amers.
                        And if the French gave it away .... it means it’s cheaper with us ....

                        "Westinghouse" works on our uranium - naturally ours take the uranium back. The same with the French.
                        The IAEA monitors this very strictly - whoever the uranium manufacturer takes back.

                        There are many theories - but in fact there is no nuclear industry in the United States. There were several attempts to revive it - they could not.
  9. KCA
    KCA 14 September 2022 09: 26
    +5
    While there are some Wishlists in Germany, in Russia the BN-800 was fully loaded with MOX fuel, another step towards waste-free nuclear energy
  10. Charik
    Charik 14 September 2022 09: 27
    +2
    this is headed by the Ministry of Energy Yusa
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 14 September 2022 09: 41
      +3
      I must warn! I'm in the locker, for the divine tincture! drinks
    2. alexey sidykin
      alexey sidykin 14 September 2022 09: 44
      +2
      But tolerant wassat What kind of minister is this and energy fellow
    3. Kim
      Kim 14 September 2022 10: 14
      +3
      as long as the person was good :))))))))))))))))
    4. Plate
      Plate 14 September 2022 10: 17
      +3
      He's got boobs. These are the photos that motivate you to go to the gym: so that you already have more.
      1. Hitriy Zhuk
        Hitriy Zhuk 15 September 2022 12: 36
        0
        In my opinion, such photos can only motivate to vomit. belay
  11. Plate
    Plate 14 September 2022 10: 16
    +3
    Placement of nuclear reactors at TPPs not intended for this? Yes, there are not enough censorship words! I hope they don't get to that level of insanity. A nuclear reactor requires a much higher level of safety than a thermal one. The solution could be a complete restructuring of the TPP building, but in this case, the very meaning of the undertaking is lost.
  12. bk0010
    bk0010 14 September 2022 11: 09
    +1
    Brad what! idiots...
  13. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 14 September 2022 13: 24
    +3
    As I understand it, we are talking about the medium and long term and safe compact reactors like the one promoted by B. Gates. At the same time, the operation of a mini-nuclear power plant is doubtful from the point of view of rationality, because the costs of safety and re-equipment for the needs of trouble-free operation will be significant, and productivity will still be within the productivity limits of the old thermal power plant.
    The larger the thermal (of any type) power plant, the greater its efficiency, which is also important.
  14. mark1
    mark1 15 September 2022 12: 15
    0
    In the late 70s and early 80s, something similar was worked out in the USSR and was even included in the development plan for specific thermal power plants and state district power plants
  15. Hitriy Zhuk
    Hitriy Zhuk 15 September 2022 12: 44
    0
    Tellingly, they tried to make a "nuclear battery".
    And it even somehow worked.
    But it didn't go into the "dangerous" series.

    There was also a howl about RITEGs (they say they are lying around there, and I don’t care that until their idiots saw them into non-ferrous metal, in general, it’s not dangerous).

    Hike, if a lot of money you can smuggle anything, up to the assembly of uranium rods from open atmosphere in the furnace of a thermal power plant. And declare it awesome "green".
  16. igorra
    igorra 15 September 2022 14: 32
    0
    Why is it so small, to remake the coal station. You give a reactor to every house. Damn storytellers.