The CardBoard
OT - power generation - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT - power generation (/thread-25293.html)


OT - power generation - rogpodge - 11-20-2024

https://x.com/SickosCommittee/status/1859034024716759082

Why doesn't Stanford have a nuclear reactor of some sort? Shouldn't SLAC have its own power source? I mean, Cogen is nice, but can't Stanford do better, safely?

RE: OT - power generation - CardinalSagehen - 11-20-2024

(11-20-2024, 08:31 AM)rogpodge Wrote:  https://x.com/SickosCommittee/status/1859034024716759082

Why doesn't Stanford have a nuclear reactor of some sort? Shouldn't SLAC have its own power source? I mean, Cogen is nice, but can't Stanford do better, safely?

Before I clicked through, I thought this was about how our tackles can't push anyone.

I am all in favor of clean, safe, cheap nuclear energy. And powerful offensive tackles.

RE: OT - power generation - PalmTree - 11-20-2024

(11-20-2024, 08:31 AM)rogpodge Wrote:  https://x.com/SickosCommittee/status/1859034024716759082

Why doesn't Stanford have a nuclear reactor of some sort? Shouldn't SLAC have its own power source? I mean, Cogen is nice, but can't Stanford do better, safely?

This would need to be approved by, at least, the (fed) NRC + SC County - good luck with getting EIRs approved for that project. Guessing it wouldn't be cost effective either based on operating/storage costs and storage/disposal costs for spent materials alone. As an analogy, the university did get permitting for and operated an on-site medical waste incinerator for ~10 years but closed down that operation ~ 10-15 years ago.  County use permit and DOT restrictions limited processing to only internally-generated (SHS & university departmental) waste streams and costs of initial capital outlays and ongoing operations made the facility a (big) money loser vis-a-vis commercially available waste disposal alternatives.

RE: OT - power generation - 82lsju - 11-20-2024

(11-20-2024, 04:23 PM)PalmTree Wrote:  
(11-20-2024, 08:31 AM)rogpodge Wrote:  https://x.com/SickosCommittee/status/1859034024716759082

Why doesn't Stanford have a nuclear reactor of some sort? Shouldn't SLAC have its own power source? I mean, Cogen is nice, but can't Stanford do better, safely?

This would need to be approved by, at least, the (fed) NRC + SC County - good luck with getting EIRs approved for that project. Guessing it wouldn't be cost effective either based on operating/storage costs and storage/disposal costs for spent materials alone. As an analogy, the university did get permitting for and operated an on-site medical waste incinerator for ~10 years but closed down that operation ~ 10-15 years ago.  County use permit and DOT restrictions limited processing to only internally-generated (SHS & university departmental) waste streams and costs of initial capital outlays and ongoing operations made the facility a (big) money loser vis-a-vis commercially available waste disposal alternatives.

and the biggest output on the list is 10MW (most are 1MW or less) which would seem to be rounding error for Stanford's electricity consumption and reading about a couple of them (including the 10MW facility in Missouri and 6MW facility at MIT) they appear to be for research not power generation

Missouri considering adding a new/replacement reactor

Quote:The current reactor, located at the University of Missouri, has been the nation’s only supplier for a key active ingredient of a drug used to treat prostate cancer. NextGen MURR’s overall construction cost is set at $1 billion, and it is expected to be operational in 8-10 years, according to the university.

https://www.komu.com/news/midmissourinews/second-nuclear-research-reactor-to-make-missouri-epicenter-for-nuclear-medicine-um-board-of-curators/article_c01b3f0e-df8a-11ed-a287-0b1faa90bdfd.html

RE: OT - power generation - Goose - 11-20-2024

University reactors have historically been for research purposes. They are not used as a power source for the universities that own them. Their research use precludes the steady predictable operation to be a "commercial grade" power source. No way is a university getting a permit from the NRC for a commercial power reactor. Even if they did somehow did get one the regulatory burden would be overwhelming and therefore cost prohibitive.

RE: OT - power generation - jacket3ree - 11-20-2024

Don't let the old  "we never should have left the SEC" GT guard see this. The 5 MW reactor that was still on campus when I was there (decommissioned in 1999) would have put is in 3rd. I think the nanotechnology research center is on that site now. Actually, that makes all kinds of sense. As I recall, the reactor was defueled ahead of the 1996 Olympics out of concerns for safety.  That sure worked out....