Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (4653)	1/29/2009 8:33:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86356

RW, I've ALREADY posted that I would be opposed to the Nuclear Reactor they are proposing there because they are intending to replace two of the coal generation plants, which really doesn't add much power. That said, if they do build there, they should utilize a Gen IV design, especially if they're serious about a "hydrogen economy", because VHTR technology is designed specifically for hydrogen production: The Very High Temperature Reactor concept utilizes a graphite-moderated core with a once-through uranium fuel cycle. This reactor design envisions an outlet temperature of 1,000 °C. The reactor core can be either a prismatic-block or a pebble bed reactor design. The high temperatures enable applications such as process heat or hydrogen production via the thermochemical iodine-sulfur process. It would also be passively safe. en.wikipedia.org Which I found rather interesting since one of the people in this article tried to make the claim that by the time this nuke is built it would be overcome by the "hydrogen economy", without supplying us the answer as to where that hydrogen was going to come from: Binns argued by then, nuclear could be obsolete. "If you ask my scientist-engineer father, he'd tell you that the hydrogen economy is probably the wave of the future," Binns said. cfnews13.com Maybe you two are related.. Hawk