Practice Test 2 – Reading for Comprehension

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Deposits of fossil fuels are scattered around the world. There are some regions of the world that have rich and plentiful deposits, while other regions have none at all. The location of fossil fuel deposits depends on a number of factors.
Coal is made up of the remains of swamp plants that were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. When these plant remains are covered by layers of sediment and then compressed within the crust of the earth, there is the potential for deposits to form. Between 250 and 300 million years ago, large swaths of the eastern United States were swampy, which explains the rich coal deposits that are found there today. There are also coal deposits in the western United States, though these are only around a hundred million years old.
Oil and natural gas are the products of decaying marine organisms. The marine organisms that compose the deposits being mined today were alive millions of years ago. The marine organisms died, and their remains were covered by sediment. Beneath the surface of the earth, the heat and pressure gradually converted them into complex carbon molecules. In places where the carbon deposits were alongside formations of porous rock, the molecules seeped into this rock. These days, the largest deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are found in Alaska, Texas, California, and underneath the Gulf of Mexico.
Finding these deposits of oil and natural gas has become an incredibly sophisticated and expensive process. Experts have discovered that oil and natural gas tends to settle in certain geological arrangements, like salt domes and faults, where there is a space enclosed by impermeable rock. Unless there is a border of nonporous rock, the oil and natural gas will be distributed over a much larger area, which will make it more difficult to access. Once geologists have identified a promising area, they will drill exploratory wells to obtain more information about the deposits there. Sometimes, the exploratory wells indicate that the oil or natural gas is not plentiful, or will be difficult to extract. If the wells deliver positive feedback, however, larger wells will be drilled so that more of the fossil fuels can be pumped to the surface. In its raw state, this oil is known as petroleum. Before it can be used by consumers and in industry, petroleum must be refined at special facilities.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

Breeder reactors were developed as a solution to the scarcity of uranium. This was particularly worrisome back in the 1960s, when there was more optimism about nuclear power. Breeder reactors are useful, because they maximize the isotopes used in the production of nuclear power. However, these reactors pose some unique challenges to engineers and safety personnel.
A standard nuclear reactor requires an isotope of uranium, U²³⁵. During fission, two or three neutrons will be ejected from each atom of U²³⁵. However, all but one of these neutrons will be absorbed and will not perform their intended function of knocking another neutron loose from another atom. In a breeder reactor, the U²³⁵ is combined with U²³⁸, in which fission does not take place. The extra neutrons will be absorbed by the U²³⁸, which will then become plutonium, specifically Pu²³⁹. This form of plutonium can be used as nuclear fuel. Therefore, since, multiple neutrons are dislodged in the fission of U²³⁵, a breeder reactor may be able to generate more fuel than it consumes.
At present, there are two main types of breeder reactor. A fast breeder reactor, commonly known as an FBR, converts U²³⁸ into plutonium, though in some cases it can also create U²³³ from a less common fuel, the element thorium. This type of reactor uses so-called “fast” neutrons, which must be slowed down with a neutron moderator so that they can sustain a chain reaction. A thermal breeder reactor, meanwhile, only creates U²³³ from thorium. This type of reactor generates slower neutrons, which do not require moderation.
The appeal of breeder reactors is clear: they generate power without depleting uranium reserves. Unfortunately, breeder reactors also present some special risks. The plutonium used in a breeder reactor has a much longer half-life than U²³⁵, so a meltdown would be much more catastrophic. Breeder reactors are very expensive to construct, operate, and maintain, as well. In addition, the plutonium used in breeder reactors is more readily convertible to weapons material. This means that breeder reactor facilities must be guarded closely.
Indeed, as the demand for new nuclear reactors has declined, and the concern over limited supplies of uranium has diminished, breeder reactors have mostly been used for military purposes. The United States is one of many countries that maintain breeder reactors strictly for the development of weapons-grade plutonium. Commercial use of breeder reactors has largely been restricted to Russia, Japan, and France. Even in these countries, breeder reactors have not been in continuous use.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

One of the more common facilities for the production of electricity is the gas turbine power plant. In a gas turbine power plant, the turbine is moved by the expansion of gasoline inside. The gasoline expands when it is heated. The gas turbine power plant is similar to a steam power plant, in which gasoline is burned to heat water, which turns into steam and expands inside the turbine. The gas turbine power plant simplifies this process by placing the gasoline inside the turbine itself, eliminating the need for water altogether.
Gas turbine power plants have a number of advantages. To begin with, they are easy to design and install. These systems are extremely reliable and do not cost much to build, relative to other power plant types. Gas turbine power plants are also quite compact: they do not need to be housed in large buildings, and they do not require a great deal of water for cooling. Moreover, gas turbine plants can be started and stopped quickly, and can move from a state of inaction to working at full capacity almost instantly. These power plants may be operated from a remote location, and require very few maintenance personnel while the plant is at work. Despite the fact that these plants consume more fuel than other types of power plant, they almost never require expensive repairs or maintenance.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the gas turbine power plant. The major disadvantage of these plants is that they produce little net output relative to their consumption of fuel. In a gas turbine power plant, the bulk of the fuel consumption goes toward powering the compressor, and a great deal of heat is lost through the exhaust gases. Another disadvantage of the gas turbine power plant is that it may only be powered with lighter petroleum products: in other words, coal and other heavy residual petroleum products cannot be used. Gas turbine electric power plants are loud, and they can only produce a limited amount of electricity.
Some of the problems of gas turbine power plants are in the process of being resolved. For instance, scientists are attempting to make these plants more efficient by installing regenerators, intercoolers, and reheaters. A regenerator uses the heat of the exhaust gases to warm the compressed air before it enters the combustion chamber, which diminishes the amount of power needed to operate the plant. An intercooler cools the compressed air between the stages of compression, thus improving the work ratio, thermal efficiency, and air rate. A reheater further expands gases that have already been partially expanded in the turbine; this process is especially beneficial for plants that have a moderate cycle temperature.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

Electricity is referred to as a secondary energy source, because it must be derived from another, primary source. For instance, many power plants burn coal or use waterpower to turn a generator, which creates the electricity. About a third of the fossil fuel production in the United States goes to the creation of electricity.
There are a few different methods for converting primary energy sources into electricity. The most basic of these is the generator, which was invented in the nineteenth century. The development of the first generators was based on a simple observation: when a coil of wire is passed through a magnetic field, an electrical current moves through the wire. This electrical current is the flow of electrons. A simple generator just rotates a coil of wire in a magnetic field (or, conversely, rotates the magnetic field around the coil). In this way, mechanical energy becomes electricity.
These simple generators create a great deal of waste. To begin with, they lose energy through heat and whatever friction exists in the workings of the machine. In addition, the current that flows through the wire creates its own magnetic field, which will be opposed to the first field and therefore, to the flow of the current. In electrical production, the general rule is that it takes three units of primary energy to create one unit of electricity. However, electricity is valuable enough for this to be worthwhile.
A slightly more complicated, but also more powerful system for generating electrical power is the turbogenerator, so named, because it combines a turbine with a generator. A turbogenerator works by using a primary energy source to boil water, which produces steam in a confined space: the resulting pressure is enough to spin the turbine. The most common primary energy sources for turbogenerators are coal, oil, and nuclear power, but researchers are at work to develop more environmentally friendly sources.
Some turbogenerators do not require steam for their operation. A hydroelectric turbine uses water that is under great pressure, typically because it is at the bottom of a dam or a long pipe. A gas turbogenerator uses the tremendous heat generated by the combustion of natural gas to drive the turbine. There is also an ongoing effort to develop wind turbines that can efficiently produce large amounts of power.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.

The demand for new nuclear plants in the United States has declined over the past few decades, in part because of the diminishing economic results of these facilities. There are a few reasons for this decline in demand. To begin with, forecasters in the 1960s and 1970s drastically overestimated the amount of energy that would be required by Americans in the coming decades, which meant that more new power plants were built than were needed. This has diminished demand for every type of power plant.
Another reason why fewer nuclear power plants have been built is that disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aroused public skepticism of nuclear power plants, and so every new plant proposal was met with protests. This discouraged investment and delayed construction, which increased the start-up costs. When start-up costs increase, so do utility bills for the consumers who ultimately receive the power. Higher utility bills increase public dissatisfaction with nuclear power, and the demand for more plants is diminished further.
The high-profile catastrophes had another consequence for future nuclear development: stricter safety standards, which require greater outlays during construction and operation. Some analysts estimate that the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear power plant has more than quadrupled because of increased regulation. At the same time, the United States government has been less willing to subsidize an unpopular industry, so utility companies have had to bear the costs of new plants alone.
A final driver of costs for nuclear power plants has been the shorter-than-expected lifespan of the plants that already exist. In the heyday of nuclear plant construction, it was believed that these plants would last about forty years, but, in practice, they have only lasted an average of seventeen. The scientists who oversaw the construction of the first plants did not know that steady bombardment by neutrons would weaken the reactor vessel, a process known as embrittlement, or that corrosive chemicals would gradually degrade the pipes used for generating steam.
No matter the cause, when plants operate for less than half of their anticipated lives, the power they produce becomes much more expensive. Shutting these plants down can be quite expensive, as well. This process, known as decommissioning, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and is often much more than the cost of building the plant in the first place. In some cases, the facilities can be converted into natural gas power plants, but there are many former nuclear plants that sit idle for years as owners struggle to cover the costs of properly disposing of material and equipment.