The IAEA list has detailed information on construction times.
In general if they completed roughly on time then they would be roughly on budget.
Do you understand the original article? Apparently you do not.
The point I was making is
1. there is details on the thermal energy and electrical energy and how that will translate into generated oil
2. It shows detailed cost assumptions. It also shows sensitivity analysis where if there were delays or problems or changes in prices how that would effect the project. So if you have some other assumptions you can run the numbers yourself. Fire up an excel spreadsheet. You do know how to use a spreadsheet.
3. You want to find numbers on delays and overruns. Look it up and Google it yourself.
4. I have answered your questions. Sometimes the answer is that you have put up a strawman or your question is absurd. Those are also answers.
The 9mbd, I already said that is my opinion on what will happen before some doom and gloom scenario.
5. What I have said is the one twin reactor looks certain. The other possible reactors are based on calculations of IF reactors are used for most or all of the oilsand powering.
6. A lot of what is said here on the oildrum are scenarios based on crunching numbers and using researched facts.
All you have done so far is patch together a bunch of industry and lobby quotes. That is way below par for the Oil Drum, and in no way belongs here.
Not because of me, but because of the people who write posts here that have high levels. These people deserve to stand apart from what you write. Also, the readers who come to TOD for them, for Stuart Staniford and Robert Rapier et al., should feel confident that posts contain some minimum level of truth, effort, research and understanding of the topic. You are nowhere near, you haven't even tried to get an opinion that could provide a counterweight to all the corporate sales talk. So you insult two groups of people. Both deserve much better than this.
When I ask you questions, there are no answers, other than links to bland IAEA files or more of the same industry snake-oil. I take that to mean that you don't know the answers to the questions. Where's the waste going to go, Brian, what's in the budget for securing it for the next 100.000 years? How much in the budget for decommissioning the plants in 2060? Never mind, you have no idea, do you?
Costs are crucial factors in these matters, not unfortunate incidents falling by the wayside. Cost assumptions by AECL are worth less than the paper the numbers are printed on. They're not proof of anything at all, apart from an active PR department in the industry. At $290 million annually in taxpayers' money, that's hardly surprising. And that's just AECL's subsidy.
If these are the people who pay you, you need to come forward and say so. If not, I can't imagine why you would post this; certainly not to be taken seriously. I'm sure you didn't expect to, not here of all places. People here do actual crunching of numbers and researching of facts, they don't copy quotes from promo flyers.
The answers for your question is in the articles. Were you unable to read them.
They already said the waste (unburned) fuel will be stored on site. Just like all other fuel for Canadian reactors currently operating are stored on site.
I have already answered your questions. You complain that I don't have the answers while in fact I did answer your questions. Which you could not take the time to contribute by simply reading what I had already provided or googled.
So I find your whining worthless when you do not read or try to understand.
I found all of the details and answers that you were unable to do for yourself.
So your welcome. I know you want to thank me but you are embarassed by your inability to read wikipedia or google. I guess you have some kind of internet dyslexia. Should we start an internet fund raiser for you. You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it. I have not seen your crunched numbers. Dazzle me with your number crunching savant skills. I say savant skills since you are unable to communicate without insult tourettes or actually completely reading a set of articles or information.
In a few years we will see who is right about the world. I bet this project happens and your statement about $15/gallon does not. So this is a little preview of the future. I also bet that by 2025 the second oilsand reactor is also operating.
Well, this is useless Brian. You can't answer my questions, nor defend your points, because you have done no research.
Pointing back to the same industry promo clips that your entire 'post' is based on, is void of any meaning. It does, however, make abundantly clear what the level of your thinking and writing is.
And that is, as I said, way below par for TOD. I'm starting to think you were set up, and you'll be the laughing stock of the family soon.
In the meantime, are you going to tell us if you work for the nuke industry? Personally, I can't figure any other reson why someone would produce this drivel.
PS I didn't make this personal, you did, And you're not very good at that either.
PS 2 You say:"You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it."
I'm sure Stuart et al will really appreciate being cut to size in this manner.
Any idea how much energy is lost when instead of direct use of natural gas or nuclear they are used to refine this third product oil?
Seems like we are trading one lame horse for another lame horse, and that to run a senseless horse; the auto industry.
As far as multiples of nuclear plants, where is all that water to come from, I am led to understand that present use is about maximum? Could be wrong here though and as well maybe it would be a goodly step in removing our treaty obligations with the first nations, you know that part that goes....'So long as the sun shines the grass grows and the rivers run'. Get those nukes steaming away and with Monsanto having a lock on the death of grass and just about everything else green and growing all we would have to do then is wait for a solar eclipse and voila this devastated land would really be ours...the only question is would we want it?
You obvisouly do not comprehend the scope of what is happening with the resurgence of the nuclear industry. 30 reactors being built right now. $60+ billion going into to that.
In Canada, they already have all the local, provincial and federal support. Candu cut big money deals with Hitachi to ensure no taxpayer financed overruns. They do not need anyone readig the Oil drum to agree with them.
I am saying prove anything that you "HeisSofly" are saying. None of what you said has any number crunching. None of what you say has any research. I am saying that you cannot figure your way out of a paper bag. It is why you think because information that upsets your world view is presented you think that someone must be paying me to present it.
you say that you did not start making it personal. Reread your first posts. You are a silly liar and a buffoon.
Waste will be stored above ground in ponds until is become more economical to run it through a different nuclear cycle than dig up new nuclear fuel.
The above statement HAS ALWAYS been proven TRUE.
There was an article somewhere about how recycled waste has higher ppm concentrations of precious metals than commercial ORE. This means that for Gold and Copper we are closing the cyclic loops, and will likely transition to sustained development!!!
That statement is merely stupid. There has never been a viable next nuclear cycle other than the weapons vs power generation one, which are entirely different levels. There are no breeders in the world today, and there never will be again. It's just nonsense contocted by horny 10th grade males.
France used to have one, it was uneconomical to run.
What is meant is that humans can recognise the value of waste and knowing that it can be reprocessed if nessiary means that it will not be sealed away.
The 4th gen nuclear fuel cycles are on the way, far from today, but I speak of the future.
Your statement of 'no more breeders' flys in the face of experience. Some places burn trash for power, TRASH!
GAIA Host Collective
Any chance you will answer any of my questions? Or some IAEA list is all you got?
9mbd, Brian? Dozens of reactors in Alberta? You sure you don't want to think that over?
Where are the data about delays and cost overruns?
All I see from you are industry and lobbying files. Which for the Oil Drum is way below par.
You write a post, defend what you say. No strawmen.
http://www.aecl.ca/Projects/CANDU-P/Wolsong-P.htm
several Candu 6 reactors completed on time and on budget in the 90s in South Korea.
The IAEA list has detailed information on construction times.
In general if they completed roughly on time then they would be roughly on budget.
Do you understand the original article? Apparently you do not.
The point I was making is
1. there is details on the thermal energy and electrical energy and how that will translate into generated oil
2. It shows detailed cost assumptions. It also shows sensitivity analysis where if there were delays or problems or changes in prices how that would effect the project. So if you have some other assumptions you can run the numbers yourself. Fire up an excel spreadsheet. You do know how to use a spreadsheet.
3. You want to find numbers on delays and overruns. Look it up and Google it yourself.
4. I have answered your questions. Sometimes the answer is that you have put up a strawman or your question is absurd. Those are also answers.
The 9mbd, I already said that is my opinion on what will happen before some doom and gloom scenario.
5. What I have said is the one twin reactor looks certain. The other possible reactors are based on calculations of IF reactors are used for most or all of the oilsand powering.
6. A lot of what is said here on the oildrum are scenarios based on crunching numbers and using researched facts.
=====
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
All you have done so far is patch together a bunch of industry and lobby quotes. That is way below par for the Oil Drum, and in no way belongs here.
Not because of me, but because of the people who write posts here that have high levels. These people deserve to stand apart from what you write. Also, the readers who come to TOD for them, for Stuart Staniford and Robert Rapier et al., should feel confident that posts contain some minimum level of truth, effort, research and understanding of the topic. You are nowhere near, you haven't even tried to get an opinion that could provide a counterweight to all the corporate sales talk. So you insult two groups of people. Both deserve much better than this.
When I ask you questions, there are no answers, other than links to bland IAEA files or more of the same industry snake-oil. I take that to mean that you don't know the answers to the questions. Where's the waste going to go, Brian, what's in the budget for securing it for the next 100.000 years? How much in the budget for decommissioning the plants in 2060? Never mind, you have no idea, do you?
Costs are crucial factors in these matters, not unfortunate incidents falling by the wayside. Cost assumptions by AECL are worth less than the paper the numbers are printed on. They're not proof of anything at all, apart from an active PR department in the industry. At $290 million annually in taxpayers' money, that's hardly surprising. And that's just AECL's subsidy.
If these are the people who pay you, you need to come forward and say so. If not, I can't imagine why you would post this; certainly not to be taken seriously. I'm sure you didn't expect to, not here of all places. People here do actual crunching of numbers and researching of facts, they don't copy quotes from promo flyers.
The answers for your question is in the articles. Were you unable to read them.
They already said the waste (unburned) fuel will be stored on site. Just like all other fuel for Canadian reactors currently operating are stored on site.
I have already answered your questions. You complain that I don't have the answers while in fact I did answer your questions. Which you could not take the time to contribute by simply reading what I had already provided or googled.
So I find your whining worthless when you do not read or try to understand.
I found all of the details and answers that you were unable to do for yourself.
So your welcome. I know you want to thank me but you are embarassed by your inability to read wikipedia or google. I guess you have some kind of internet dyslexia. Should we start an internet fund raiser for you. You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it. I have not seen your crunched numbers. Dazzle me with your number crunching savant skills. I say savant skills since you are unable to communicate without insult tourettes or actually completely reading a set of articles or information.
In a few years we will see who is right about the world. I bet this project happens and your statement about $15/gallon does not. So this is a little preview of the future. I also bet that by 2025 the second oilsand reactor is also operating.
Well, this is useless Brian. You can't answer my questions, nor defend your points, because you have done no research.
Pointing back to the same industry promo clips that your entire 'post' is based on, is void of any meaning. It does, however, make abundantly clear what the level of your thinking and writing is.
And that is, as I said, way below par for TOD. I'm starting to think you were set up, and you'll be the laughing stock of the family soon.
In the meantime, are you going to tell us if you work for the nuke industry? Personally, I can't figure any other reson why someone would produce this drivel.
PS I didn't make this personal, you did, And you're not very good at that either.
PS 2 You say:"You say that numbers are crunched here. Why don't you prove it."
I'm sure Stuart et al will really appreciate being cut to size in this manner.
HeIsSoFly,
Any idea how much energy is lost when instead of direct use of natural gas or nuclear they are used to refine this third product oil?
Seems like we are trading one lame horse for another lame horse, and that to run a senseless horse; the auto industry.
As far as multiples of nuclear plants, where is all that water to come from, I am led to understand that present use is about maximum? Could be wrong here though and as well maybe it would be a goodly step in removing our treaty obligations with the first nations, you know that part that goes....'So long as the sun shines the grass grows and the rivers run'. Get those nukes steaming away and with Monsanto having a lock on the death of grass and just about everything else green and growing all we would have to do then is wait for a solar eclipse and voila this devastated land would really be ours...the only question is would we want it?
You obvisouly do not comprehend the scope of what is happening with the resurgence of the nuclear industry. 30 reactors being built right now. $60+ billion going into to that.
In Canada, they already have all the local, provincial and federal support. Candu cut big money deals with Hitachi to ensure no taxpayer financed overruns. They do not need anyone readig the Oil drum to agree with them.
I am saying prove anything that you "HeisSofly" are saying. None of what you said has any number crunching. None of what you say has any research. I am saying that you cannot figure your way out of a paper bag. It is why you think because information that upsets your world view is presented you think that someone must be paying me to present it.
you say that you did not start making it personal. Reread your first posts. You are a silly liar and a buffoon.
===============
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Waste will be stored above ground in ponds until is become more economical to run it through a different nuclear cycle than dig up new nuclear fuel.
The above statement HAS ALWAYS been proven TRUE.
There was an article somewhere about how recycled waste has higher ppm concentrations of precious metals than commercial ORE. This means that for Gold and Copper we are closing the cyclic loops, and will likely transition to sustained development!!!
That statement is merely stupid. There has never been a viable next nuclear cycle other than the weapons vs power generation one, which are entirely different levels. There are no breeders in the world today, and there never will be again. It's just nonsense contocted by horny 10th grade males.
France used to have one, it was uneconomical to run.
What is meant is that humans can recognise the value of waste and knowing that it can be reprocessed if nessiary means that it will not be sealed away.
The 4th gen nuclear fuel cycles are on the way, far from today, but I speak of the future.
Your statement of 'no more breeders' flys in the face of experience. Some places burn trash for power, TRASH!
The Russians has a functioning Fast Breeder Reactor (560 MW) Beloyarsk 3
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/status-of-nuclear-breeder-react...
Russia has funded and restarted construction on their 800MW fast breeder, which they also are discussing selling to Japan.
China has a 75 MWth FBR under construction scheduled for divergence in 2010
India is making FOUR 500 MW fast breeder reactors.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2854
Japan will be reopening the Monju reactor in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju
So by 2008 back to two breeder reactors.
In 2010, 4 breeder reactors
In 2012, 5 breeders generating abot 2GW of power.
============
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
About 8% of the nuclear waste (unburned fuel) (66000 tons/year) that is generated in the world each year is being reprocessed into MOX.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/status-of-nuclear-breeder-react...
COGEMA La Hague site, France 1700 tonnes/year
Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, United Kingdom
900 tonnes/year
Rokkasho nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, Japan
800 tonnes/year
Mayak, Russia 400 tonnes/year
B205 at Sellafield, United Kingdom 1500 tonnes/year
Kalpakkam Atomic reprocessing plant, India 275 tonnes/year
The French reprocessing has been going on for decades.
Do you not tire of being wrong?
===================
http://advancednano.blogspot.com