Skip to main content

Perhaps Apple Could Design a Nuclear Power Plant?

By

Ales_Bursic_1 One thing you can say about nuclear power plants - or any industrial structure - is that they are not inspiring pieces of architecture. Obviously, the message they want to project is one of functionality, not aestheticism. But people actually do work at plants and many more see them from their cars and boats. So why not spruce them up? Given the cost of the average new plant, why not splash out a little extra and have a chance of getting your plant into a glossy magazine?

So it is that World Nuclear News has invited its readers to submit plant designs. We suspect the most imaginative entries come from people who know how to use Bryce and 3DS Max rather than architects, but they do indicate tremendous imagination and a desire to plant plants on the plants, er, we mean, give nature a certain run of the grounds. The design pictured above, by Aleš Buršič, shows this at work. Another design, shown at the WNN site, shows a cooling tower covered with a grassy drop cloth.

We suspect, by the way, that if Apple did design a plant, it would be white, squat and square. But somehow they make that work.

Labels:

Comments

Harold Asmis said…
I think that would only cost an extra billion or so. You'd have to bury all those nasty power lines!
November 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM
GRLCowan said…
You'd have to bury all those nasty power lines!

What power lines?



--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
November 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Brian Mays said…
Well, personally, I think that Gia Milinovich had a pretty good idea two years ago: paint the cooling towers sky blue. It doesn't require a major overhaul in the design of the plant, just a fresh coat of paint.

In fact, painting cooling towers is not a new idea at all. The French have already done it, but then again, leave it to the French to recognize the value of art and decor.

In fact, I think that the picture of the plant's four cooling towers on the Wikipedia page is rather pretty. The only aesthetic complaint that I can make about this plant is that EdF has recently added a couple of ugly wind turbines right next door (they're taller than the containment buildings and almost as tall as the cooling towers), which partially block the view of the mural on the side of the cooling tower. What a shame.
November 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Matthew66 said…
The good thing about siting windmills around a nuclear power plant is that if someone is stupid enough to think that they can damage a nuclear power plant by crashing a commercial airliner into it, the windmills act like tank traps. So, while the windmills will make a negligible contribution to the electric grid, they are a moderately priced, politically convenient, security measure.
November 8, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Anonymous said…
...on the other hand, those same windmills are FAR more likely to throw a blade into the containment dome than the likelyhood of an aircraft attack.
November 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
rsynnott said…
Kirk: And if it did any damage, then the designer would be criminally negligent. :)

I dunno, I think quite a few modern nuclear plants are already quite pretty. There's a stunning one on an island in a river in France, and Sizewell B is quite nice, too. Especially in comparison with Sizewell A, which came from the deliberately hideous 60s school of architecture.
November 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous said…
Why not? Once upon a time (back when the public expected more from its public works), power plant designers hired only the best architects for their facilities:
Hoover Dam
Battersea
November 11, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Anonymous said…
The Taiwanese also paint their plants to blend in more with the countryside. The ones I saw were all situated in some awesome surroundings and the plants and stacks were painted with mountains, sky and clouds.
November 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said…
As a designer of the "blended plant", I have to say the following:
1. It was designed in Blender-textured with a help of Gimp, so actually anyone can do it, software isn't a limitation.
2. Power lines are just not designed (you could have them burried or as usuall - above the ground)

author: Aleš Buršič
November 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more