Russians Bidding to Build Reactors in Indonesia, China & Egypt. 5 More in Iran

[Bronco_Beerslug]

They can build and keep their nuclear waste dump in Russia, why we would even consider that is beyond me.

-----------------------------------------------------
Russia to create a nuclear Gazprom
Julian Evans in Moscow

The Russian Parliament has approved a new Bill to consolidate all of Russia’s nuclear fuel production and export companies into a single state-owned holding company, called Atomprom.

Sergei Kiriyenko, the former Prime Minister who heads Rusatom, the Russian nuclear industry agency, said: “There is a renaissance of atomic energy in the world, and our task is to break into it.”

He said that the consolidation would enable Russia to compete with leading international nuclear players, such as Toshiba and Siemens, in the growing market to export nuclear fuel and power plant to emerging markets.

Russia offers nuclear power stations at half the price of its main Western competitors. It has already sold two to India and President Putin is expected to sign a deal to provide four new facilities to India during a visit to Delhi this week. Russian firms are also bidding to build reactors in Indonesia, China and Egypt.

Atomprom might improve monitoring of Russia’s nuclear materials, but the company is likely to clash with the United States as it increases its nuclear exports to rising economic powers, such as Iran. Russia is set to provide the first nuclear fuel to the Bushehr reactor in Iran in March. The Kremlin is also discussing building a further five reactors in Iran.

Russia and the US are competing to host giant rubbish dumps, where spent fuel from emerging market countries can be safely stored. Rusatom estimates that such a dump could bring $4 billion (£2.03 billion) in profit a year to Russia.

[TheDave]

I can understand Russia doing owning a Nuclear Waste Facility... Hell what else is Siberia good for. Why the hell we want this I'll never know. By the way Slug where is the US nuclear dump?

[bendog]

lovely.

[bendog]

We "want" it prolly cause we think it gives us control over matl for bombs, and I think the repository is still in Nev.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by TheDave

I can understand Russia doing owning a Nuclear Waste Facility... Hell what else is Siberia good for. Why the hell we want this I'll never know. By the way Slug where is the US nuclear dump?

We really don't have a U.S. site. There are sites in WA, Utah, and a couple other states but most storage is still onsite at most plants I believe. Nevada's governor told the U.S. to **** off after he found out the safety reports for Yucca Mountain were fabricated.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by bendog

We "want" it prolly cause we think it gives us control over matl for bombs, and I think the repository is still in Nev.

It will eventually end up in Nevada. Nuclear power, is coming back folks, get used to it. I will say, it's much safer than it used to be...dman

[Garcia Bronco]

We need more nuclear power....it's better than coal and oil

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

It will eventually end up in Nevada. Nuclear power, is coming back folks, get used to it. I will say, it's much safer than it used to be...dman

It's NEVER safe, only contained by humans. The waste NEVER goes away and as long as we can store it next door to your retiremnet home I have no problem with keeping it here.

Zero emissions coal plants will be here within one generation, there is no need for nuclear plants that no one wants near them.

And Yucca Mountain is far from being a U.S. disposal site after the government's attempt at end running the safety of disposal there.

Cost of a 800 megawatt nuclear plant....about 2 billion.
Cost of a 800 megawatt coal plant..... about 900 million.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's NEVER safe, only contained by humans. The waste NEVER goes away and as long as we can store it next door to your retiremnet home I have no problem with keeping it here.

Zero emissions coal plants will be here within one generation, there is no need for nuclear plants that no one wants near them.

And Yucca Mountain is far from being a U.S. disposal site after the government's attempt at end running the safety of disposal there.

Cost of a 800 megawatt nuclear plant....about 2 billion.
Cost of a 800 megawatt coal plant..... about 900 million.

What exactly will be done with the CO2 that coal plants emit?

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

What exactly will be done with the CO2 that coal plants emit?

CO2 Scrubbers/burners take care of part of it, but not all of it. It is an issue to be addressed and it never goes away...dman

*they are making progress on the coal fired plants, however they aren't perfect, just like nuke plants. Beerslug is right though, cost about twice for a nuke than a coal plant. If you look at cost/KW hr, nuke is a bit more expensive to be honest, however no emissions to the enviroment. Nuclear waste however, must be stored. Simple case of picking which you want to go with, both have adv/dis's

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

What exactly will be done with the CO2 that coal plants emit?

Capture and recycling. You can get some idea of some of the technology being developed here.... http://www.zeca.org/overview.html and here...http://www.zero-emissionplatform.eu/website/

The U.S. government has an overview also but I don't have a link handy right now.


Here's article about a plant in Texas...

------------------------------------------------
Texas vies for zero-emissions coal plant

By Steve Quinn (The Associated Press)

DALLAS - Texas and Illinois will compete for the world's first near-zero-emissions coal power plant, a $1 billion project headed by the U.S. Department of Energy and a consortium of 10 energy companies from the United States, China and Australia.

The Energy Department and the consortium announced Tuesday that two sites from each state will vie for the project known as FutureGen, a plant designed to turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas to produce electricity for about 275,000 single-family homes.

The project dates to 2003 when President Bush announced the need for FutureGen to address global warming and touted technologies that would capture carbon dioxide for other uses. Those include fertilizers or liquefying the gas to inject it into old oil wells and push remaining oil or natural gas to the surface.

The process would not release into the atmosphere pollutants usually associated with coal-burning plants, such as carbon dioxide. Scientists have blamed the burning of fossil fuels as one of the main causes of global warming.

Sites in Mattoon and Tuscola in Illinois, and Jewett and Odessa in Texas, beat out eight other candidates. The winner will be announced in September 2007 and will be operating a facility deemed the "ultimate power plant" almost five years later.

"This project makes coal, one of the most abundant fossil energies in the world, available in the future in the face of growing concern over greenhouse gas emissions and climate change," said Jeff Jarrett, the Energy Department's assistant secretary of fossil energy.

The selection committee, known as FutureGen Alliance, declined to discuss specific criteria that produced a final four until they had talked to those who did not make the cut. But Mike Mudd, chief executive officer for FutureGen, identified strengths of each.

Jewett's site in Central Texas is 400 acres, more than twice the minimum, and sits near existing industry transmission lines.

Odessa's offering features 600 acres, transmission lines within two miles and thick sandstone that ensures long-term carbon dioxide storage.
Continued...

[bendog]

Originally Posted by defenseman

CO2 Scrubbers/burners take care of part of it, but not all of it. It is an issue to be addressed and it never goes away...dman

*they are making progress on the coal fired plants, however they aren't perfect, just like nuke plants. Beerslug is right though, cost about twice for a nuke than a coal plant. If you look at cost/KW hr, nuke is a bit more expensive to be honest, however no emissions to the enviroment. Nuclear waste however, must be stored. Simple case of picking which you want to go with, both have adv/dis's

Yeah, but folks seem to be accepting the pre-bushii reality that eventually we will have to regulate co2 just as we regulate growth and water pollution. By making it a cost factor. Clean water being the example: total polution into a river is set at X, and eventually use and the resulting "stuff" going into the water drives the amt of polution to X. If someone wants to start a new biz causing polution, they have to buy some of the X amount. That works in a capitalistic market because only the most efficient/profitable uses can continue. So the coal/nuke cost analysis today is probably not accurate for 20-40 years from now, when the plants will still be online.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by bendog

Yeah, but folks seem to be accepting the pre-bushii reality that eventually we will have to regulate co2 just as we regulate growth and water pollution. By making it a cost factor. Clean water being the example: total polution into a river is set at X, and eventually use and the resulting "stuff" going into the water drives the amt of polution to X. If someone wants to start a new biz causing polution, they have to buy some of the X amount. That works in a capitalistic market because only the most efficient/profitable uses can continue. So the coal/nuke cost analysis today is probably not accurate for 20-40 years from now, when the plants will still be online.

Yep......however, cost will rise, I'm sure...dman

*Interesting what people accept as fact these days.

[bendog]

Costs will rise, esp. costs of nuke construction because there's an increasing demand for those with the know-how. The energy companies are in a tough situation: coal will cost more as co2 emissions are curtailed by "costing them", but nuke construction costs will go out of sight very shortly. Whichever way they jump, if they jump in what turns out to be the costliest, their profitablity and even survivablility will be in jeopardy.

Entergy's Grand Gulf reactor nearly bankrupted them. They had to borrow short term, very expensive, loans from the Dutch, as I recall. Amusingly, our power is cheap (in relation to other providers) now, and there's still an abandoned nuke shell for what would have been the second reactor .... oh, if only we'd gotten that too.

[alkemical]

AP: Iran gets army gear in Pentagon sale

WASHINGTON - Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jan 16, 2:16 PM ET



Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.

In one case, federal investigators said, contraband purchased in Defense Department surplus auctions was delivered to Iran, a country President Bush has branded part of an "axis of evil."

In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say those parts did make it to Iran.

Sensitive military surplus items are supposed to be demilitarized or "de-milled" — rendered useless for military purposes — or, if auctioned, sold only to buyers who promise to obey U.S. arms embargoes, export controls and other laws.

Yet the surplus sales can operate like a supermarket for arms dealers.

"Right Item, Right Time, Right Place, Right Price, Every Time. Best Value Solutions for America's Warfighters," the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service says on its Web site, calling itself "the place to obtain original U.S. Government surplus property."

Federal investigators are increasingly anxious that Iran is within easy reach of a top priority on its shopping list: parts for the precious fleet of F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets the United States let Iran buy in the 1970s when it was an ally.