Prospect for Nuclear Power Industry in US [Archive]

Morbius

Apr28-05, 07:14 PM

I am gald he brought up nuclear power, but everything I have read about his speech does not reference it much. I think he only just casually slipped it in.

Even if our president is for nuclear power, I doubt he can do much to make it a major source of power. However reducing restrictions may change the minds of some private companies and they may end up building some of their own plants.

Candyman,

It's going to take action by the Congress! More specifically - a revamp of
the licensing process; going to a one-step licensing process.

For example, let's take the case of the licensing process that one goes
through when building a new custom home. One has to submit the plans
for the house to the local building department. The plans have to be
inspected for compliance with local building codes. One may have to
make sure that the house complies with the "CCRs" for the development,
etc, etc, etc....

However, after all that - the city issues a building permit and the
construction can begin. At regular intervals, the house is inspected by
the local building inspectors. Anything that is not up to code must be
fixed.

At the end of construction; if the building inspector states that the
house was constructed as per the building permit - the house is certified
to be occupied.

That's a single step licensing process.

However, if home licensing was a two-step process - then
after the house was built, and certified by the building inspector, you
would have to apply for a permit to inhabit the house. At this point,
all the issues that were gone over in the permit phase are revisted. If
your new neighbors didn't like the way things were resolved in the
construction permit phase - they get a second chance to complain
about the color of the house, or the direction the garage door faces....

The occupation of your house could be held up for years in Court while
all the issues are revisted. All the while, you have to make payments
to the bank on the mortgage of your new home, even though you can't
live in it.

That's what it's like for a nuclear power plant. A company can get
permission to build the plant, and build it exactly according to the specs.
However, they must then apply to operate the plant - and if someone
didn't like the way issues were resolved in the construction permit
phase - they can now go to Court to have the operating license denied.

Companies are not going to invest large sums of money with such
uncertainty.

For example, Long Island Lighting [ LILCO ] built the Shoreham Nuclear
Plant on Long Island in New York. After the plant was built; the State
of New York essentially forced LILCO to dismantle the plant without it
ever having run a single day!!!

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p15.htm

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs9shore,0,563942.story?coll=ny-lihistory-navigation

Does that make sense?

No power company is going to build a nuclear power plant under those
conditions.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Apr28-05, 08:54 PM

The US NRC is implementing a one-step licensing process - COL

See - http://www.nustartenergy.com/Progress.aspx

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col-generic-issues.html

Regarding Shoreram - it did operate in the testing phase for about 3 effective full power days, IIRC, but it never generated electricity (never went into full operation). So the fuel was slightly irradiated. The fuel ended up being shipped by barge and cask to the Limerick station in Pennsylvania where is was used.

LILCO got a good deal in which they made millions to hand the plant over to NY state, which cost the NY taxpayers hundreds of millions.

Pengwuino

Apr28-05, 09:07 PM

Even if our president is for nuclear power, I doubt he can do much to make it a major source of power. However reducing restrictions may change the minds of some private companies and they may end up building some of their own plants.

Not the problem at all. The big problem is who wants these things in their states? People, as usual, fear what they dont understand and we can't force it on states. Theres your main problem, getting people to take them in. Decades of dumb lil hippies crying out 'radioactive babies!!' has kinda got its dumb lil image stuck into the popular culture.

The thing is... this all seems kinda like pipe dreaming but wheter you like him or not, this President sure can get the impossible going. I mean people are starting to admit thsi impossible dream of democracy in the middle east is actually showing the signs of beginning... then you got social security who they all said would be impossible to truely change... well hes getting somewhere there too... and hopefully this would be a hat trick for him.

selfAdjoint

Apr28-05, 09:11 PM

Not the problem at all. The big problem is who wants these things in their states? People, as usual, fear what they dont understand and we can't force it on states. Theres your main problem, getting people to take them in. Decades of dumb lil hippies crying out 'radioactive babies!!' has kinda got its dumb lil image stuck into the popular culture.

Why isn't Commonwealth Edison, a firm which runs a number of light water reactors, in a state (Illinois) which is much less anti-nuke than most, building more reactors? They have retired their old Zion reactor and probably are in need of more power, so what is holding them back?

Astronuc

Apr29-05, 08:58 AM

Commonwealth Edison, which became part of Unicom, is now part of Exelon - from a merger between Unicom and PECO Energy (Philadelphia Electric Company). They own/operate about 20 reactors - almost 20% of the nuclear plants in the country.

Incidentally, Zion is laid-up and could be brought back on-line.

Exelon, like other utilities, do not wish to risk capital and cash flow on a new plant. They are waiting for government subsidies and risk assumption.

Morbius

Apr29-05, 09:44 AM

LILCO got a good deal in which they made millions to hand the plant over to NY state, which cost the NY taxpayers hundreds of millions.

Astronuc,

As I recall [ and as is stated in the first paragraph of the first link in my
preceeding post ], New York state got Shoreham for $1.

The good deal for LILCO was that they got the money they paid for the
plant back from the New York ratepayers.

Even though the State of New York would not participate in the contigency
planning for any emergency at the plant, the NRC was prepared to issue a
license to LILCO to operate the plant.

That's when the State of New York, and in particular Gov. Cuomo; really
put the screws to LILCO. The State is responsible for governing the
electric rates - i.e. what LILCO can charge its customers.

So the State of New York told LILCO that they would not be allowed to
charge for electricity that was generated by Shoreham. However, if
LILCO sold the plant to the State for $1; then the State would allow
LILCO to recoup the cost of its investment in Shoreham.

The job of a business is to make money - and the State tells you that you
can not make money doing your normal business - in the case of LILCO,
generating electricity - but you can avoid the loss by decommissioning
the plant.

It was an offer that LILCO couldn't refuse.

However, it was a waste of over $5 BILLION - a cost that was paid by
the poor ratepayers of New York. They, of course have Cuomo to thank
for that!!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

theCandyman

Apr29-05, 10:54 AM

Morbius

Apr29-05, 12:59 PM

Why are the taxpayers covering the cost of the plant and how was Cuomo responsible? Are they really paying for all five billion dollars of the plant?

Also, does the federal government not have a say in this? If something like this happened today, would President Bush or COngress have higher authority in this or would that be impeding on state's rights?

Candyman,

Then New York Gov. Cuomo was very anti-nuclear.

The reason the rate payers are paying for the plant is that was the deal
that the State of New York offered LILCO.

Although the State of New York was using obstructionist tactics to
prevent Shoreham from operating - by not participating in emergency
planning - the NRC was prepared to issue LILCO an operating license
anyway.

The State of New York was running out of ways to stop Shoreham from
operating - so they used their option of last resort - they bought the
plant. They couldn't legally force LILCO to sell the plant - but since the
State controls LILCO's rate structure - the State of New York told LILCO
that they would not be allowed to make any money with Shoreham.

So Shoreham was then a financial loser for LILCO. Then the State offers
to buy Shoreham from LILCO for $1, in exchange for a change in the
rate structure to allow LILCO to recoup its $5 BILLION investment.

Courtesy of the University of Texas chapter of the American Nuclear
Society:

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/anti4.htm

So the ratepayers of New York had to pay $5 BILLION to LILCO without
getting any electricity from Shoreham in return. That's just how the
politicians running the State of New York chose to stop Shoreham from
operating - they bought it with the ratepayer's money. That's why the
New York ratepayers are paying for the plant - their duly elected
political leaders saddled them with that burden.

The Federal Government doesn't have a say in how much money an
electric utility can charge - that's a State issue.

The Federal Government - via the NRC - can decide whether a nuclear
plant will be allowed to operate. The NRC decides if the plant is built
to specs, meets safety requirements, has properly trained operators....

However, the Federal Government doesn't control the utility's finances -
the State does! The State of New York essentially bought the Shoreham
plant from LILCO to ensure that it would not be run. To make sure that
LILCO had to sell the plant to the State - the State would not allow
LILCO to charge for the electricity that Shoreham generated.

If the State is willing to buy the plant - and won't let you make money
on the plant if you don't sell - what else is there for the utility to do -
BUT to sell.

In a regulated market like electric utilities - the State controls the
power of the purse.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

russ_watters

Apr30-05, 04:57 PM

Yucca Mountain has been very thoroughly studied, and the long term
storage of nuclear waste has been modeled via computer simulation:
I was thinking about this issue and then saw this thread - excellent.

As an engineer, I have to say I strongly question the logic of that study. It seems to me that requiring more than about a 100 year lifespan of the facility is not just pointless from an engineering standpoint, but politically damaging and the reason it hasn't been built yet.

The assumptions required for trying to contain the waste for 100,000 years are, essentially, the fall of civilization as we know it. If civilization fails, then we will stop maintaining the site. Ok, but if civilization fails, what is the site protecting? In addition, requiring more than 100 years of storage is a bet against scientific progress that will almost inevitably find a better way to deal with the waste than simple long-term storage. But even if it doesn't, that doesn't preclude us from maintaining the site or building another, possibly better one 100 years from now.

Currently, storage is done on site at nuclear plants all around the country and has been successful for something like 45 years (not sure exactly how long). Yes, a central storage location is needed to aleviate the inventory issues at these sites, but I don't see why the central storage needs to be much more sophisticated/permanent than the existing ones.

Astronuc

Apr30-05, 05:38 PM

The assumptions required for trying to contain the waste for 100,000 years are, essentially, the fall of civilization as we know it. If civilization fails, then we will stop maintaining the site.We're lucky if politicians think beyond the next election, :biggrin: or the planning boards think beyone their 5 or 10 year plan, which changes according to money and politics. :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Consider than most man-made objects or more than a few hundred years are pretty much ruins, we don't have a track record of durable construction. Just look at the oldest structures like the Pyramids and similar structures. Yes, those are exposed to the elements, rather than being buried inside a mountain.

In 300 years, most of the radiologically hottest material (e.g. half-life =< 30 years) has decayed by a factor of 1000, and in 600 years by a factor of 1 million, and in 900 years, by a factor of 1E9 (1 billion) and most of that is then inert.
================================================== =====

As for Shoreham, NY State created the Long Island Power Authority ( http://www.lipa.state.ny.us/ , http://www.lipower.org/ ), a quasi-government organization. I am not sure what it has cost taxpayers. But certianly LILCo, the publically-owned utility got a sweetheart deal, and yes it probably did very little to help rate-payers. And the CEO and some senior managers did get in hot water about his retirement package. :biggrin:

The board's treatment of the CEO-who left Lilco at the time of the Lilco-Marketspan merger to become the CEO of Marketspan-was surprisingly magnanimous in the face of a generally lackluster LILCO performance over the past few years. First, the CEO's employment agreement was amended to extend beyond the normal retirement age, so that he would have been able to serve until the year 2002, followed by an additional five-year consulting period. Treating the LIPA transaction as a "Change of Control" also vested generous severance benefits in the CEO, with growth potential based on his age, highest salary level reached, highest bonus received, and length of service. Under the compensation plan, if he were to have retired in 1998, his annual retirement benefits would have been $895,000-at a minimum.

Since LILCO was not highly popular with its customers and reportedly had the highest utility rates in the country, there was a loud outcry when the CEO's total compensation package was disclosed. His severance pay from LILCO as a result of the merger was put at $42 million.

Morbius

May2-05, 10:11 AM

I was thinking about this issue and then saw this thread - excellent.

As an engineer, I have to say I strongly question the logic of that study. It seems to me that requiring more than about a 100 year lifespan of the facility is not just pointless from an engineering standpoint, but politically damaging and the reason it hasn't been built yet.

The assumptions required for trying to contain the waste for 100,000 years are, essentially, the fall of civilization as we know it. If civilization fails, then we will stop maintaining the site. Ok, but if civilization fails, what is the site protecting? In addition, requiring more than 100 years of storage is a bet against scientific progress that will almost inevitably find a better way to deal with the waste than simple long-term storage. But even if it doesn't, that doesn't preclude us from maintaining the site or building another, possibly better one 100 years from now.

Currently, storage is done on site at nuclear plants all around the country and has been successful for something like 45 years (not sure exactly how long). Yes, a central storage location is needed to aleviate the inventory issues at these sites, but I don't see why the central storage needs to be much more sophisticated/permanent than the existing ones.

russ,

I agree. What should be done; is that we should follow the original plan
that the scientists put together. First of all, nuclear waste definitely
should be reprocessed. Unfortunately, the anti-nukes got Congress to
pass a law in 1978 that outlawed reprocessing.

As Astronuc points out - the radioactivity in nuclear waste is decaying.
If we reprocess, the longest lived component of any consequence in the
waste would be Cesium-137. Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years.

In just a few hundred years, the radioactivity of the nuclear waste will
be less than that of the uranium that was originally dug out of the
ground - so your idea for a 100 year repository is the right order of
magnitude.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

The Enivironmental Protection Agency [ EPA ] set a standard that was
10,000 years long. However, the State of Nevada went to Court and
last year the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that EPA has to set a standard
of at least 250,000 years!

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/

The problem is that people don't know the science. The common
perception about nuclear power and nuclear waste is all the scare
stories that come from the anti-nukes.

Whether scientists have failed to communicate the facts is to blame -
or that the anti-nukes have just done a better job of "marketing" [lying],
and scare stories sell, or perhaps it's the dismal state of scientific
education in this Nation. All in all, there is an unfounded phobia when
it comes to nuclear issues:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/dupont.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Pengwuino

May2-05, 10:20 AM

So what is the actual worsecase scenario and its effects if the worst did happen in a nuclear power plant anyhow?

russ_watters

May2-05, 11:10 AM

So what is the actual worsecase scenario and its effects if the worst did happen in a nuclear power plant anyhow? Good question - everyone alludes to it, but few people actually discuss it. This may warrant its own thread...

First, a quick note - there is always something worse, but one has to consider what is reasonable. The worst that could possibly happen is a meteor strike that atomizes the nuclear fuel and tosses it into the sky, spreading it around the nearby area. While that is, of course, possible, it is also extremelly unlikely.

One somewhat common scenario that is mentioned is the possibility of a nuclear explosion (ie, like a bomb). This needs to be perfectly clear: it is not physically possible for a nuclear power reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb.

After recent discussions, I may need to watch "The China Syndrome", but from what I understand, it uses the backdrop of actual historic events (accidents) to support a rediculous fictional disaster scenario. People knew some actual events were depicted and that fooled them into thinking the scenario itself was possible.

Chernobyl represents the worst [reasonable] case scenario for any reactor - the final result was a fire that engulfed the reactor building and spread a decent amount of radioactive material over the surrounding countryside. The immediate death toll due to acute radiation sickness was about 40 people, virtually all of them firefighters. The long-term death toll won't be known for some time, but estimates range from zero to tens of thousands. The problem is that an increase in death-rates from cancer is extremely difficult to pick up from the background noise of normal cancer rates. A resulting tiny increase in cancer rates, spread through a population of millions over 50 years produces the scary numbers (tens of thousands) that may or may not actually mean anything.

Had Chernobyl happened near (inside, really) a city, perhaps it could have killed significantly more, but I don't know the geographical placement of Russian nuclear plants.

Chernobyl is not a possible scenario for an American (or, afaik, any western) reactor. Among other things, all American reactors are surrounded by a containment buidling strong enough to withstand a large airplane crashing into it at high speed (yes, they have tested it - the video is pretty exciting). Older Russian reactors have no such containment, which is what allowed so much radioactive material to be released.

The worst [reasonable] case for an American reactor is Three Mile Island. A string of coincidental screwups led to what, inside the reactor core, was somewhat similar to Chernobyl - a partial meltdown. The nuclear fuel melted its way through the reactor vessel but did not penetrate the containment building. Due to excess pressure buildup inside the reactor core, air containing some radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. No one died of acute radiation sickness and long term cancer rate studies showed no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area. In addition, the quantity of radioactive material released was calculated to be far below the natural background radiation a very short distance from the plant - in other words, it is not even theoretically possible for TMI to have caused any noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Morbius may come here and tell you that TMI is no longer possible due to changes in the way reactors operate since then, but I think I'd still include it because while it may be significantly less possible, the remote possibility still exists. I like to be as pessimistic as possible against my own arguments, lest I appear more biased than I actually am. o:)

I assume you came here looking for information after reading a little about the subject in the politics forum. While this discussion should remain technical, I'd very much like to hear from an "environmentalist" what they think might be possible. I hear a lot from "environmentalists" that TMI shows that 'something bad' "almost" happened and therefore could happen. Setting aside the [il]logic in equating "almost" (didn't) and "could", I'm not sure I've ever heard an explanation of what that 'something bad' is, and I'd really like to hear it. That way we can discuss whether or not the concern is actually a reasonable one.

HERE (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2bp7m79fa6cm1?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nuclear+meltdown&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03b) is some decent not-from-me information. A key quote, to me, is this: In a modern reactor, a nuclear meltdown, whether partial or total, will be contained inside the reactor containment structure. Thus (in the unlikely event that no other disasters occur) while the meltdown will severely damage the reactor itself, contaminating the whole structure with highly-radioactive material, a meltdown alone will generally not lead to significant radiation release or danger to the public. The effects are therefore primarily economic (see [1] (http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/part-melt.htm)).

hitssquad

May2-05, 12:22 PM

Among other things, all American reactors are surrounded by a containment buidling strong enough to withstand a large airplane crashing into it at high speed (yes, they have tested it - the video is pretty exciting).They have not tested it. The video shows an F-4 fighter jet crashing into a concrete block.
http://www.nci.org/02NCI/08/pr9202002.htm

--
With regard to the aircraft threat, the authors cite an unpublished industry-sponsored report and a videotape on the Internet of a plane crashing into a concrete block to support their claim that an aircraft attack cannot cause enough damage to a nuclear plant to cause a meltdown. In fact, straightforward engineering calculations, utilizing empirically derived formulas, demonstrate that such penetration is plausible. The videotape in question actually provides no information regarding the question of whether a fully fueled commercial jet plane can penetrate a concrete containment wall. The video documents a test at Sandia National Laboratories in which an F-4 fighter jet, with considerably lighter engines than a commercial jet like a 767, collided with a concrete block that was not fixed to the ground but was actually floating on an air cushion. The purpose of the test was to measure the impact force, not to measure the maximum penetration of the target. According to the test report, “the major portion of the impact energy went into movement of the target and not in producing structural damage.” Real-world nuclear power plant containments are anchored to the ground. Sandia National Laboratories, the sponsor of the video, has said that the nuclear industry is misrepresenting the results of the test.
--

Commercial jet airliners, besides being much more physically massive and having a lot more fuel whose heat from burning might be able to weaken the steel rebar, have spindles in their engines that may be massive enough to act as penetrators. If terrorists on the ground sabotaged a reactor to cause a meltdown, and their compatriots in the air poked a 6-inch diameter hole in the containment shell by crashing a commercial jetliner into it thus driving an engine spindle through the 2.5-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete, you would have a serious radiation release to the public.

Besides the threat of spindle penetration is the threat of containment explosion if a containment weakened by burning jet fuel were to simultaneously undergo sufficient atmospheric pressure build-up within the containment. Concrete is very weak in tension, and -- like happened to the WTC buildings -- if the steel reinforcement were weakened by heat of the jet fuel you could have a Chernobyl-style explosion, perhaps even with suicide teams dumping lead on the burning reactor from helicopters, just like at Chernobyl.

hitssquad

May2-05, 12:34 PM

Morbius may come here and tell you that TMI is no longer possible due to changes in the way reactors operate since thenGeneration II reactors -- which all of the current operating commercial power reactors in the United States are -- are susceptible to core damage from operator error. Generation III reactors, such as those of the recently-qualified Westinghouse AP-600/AP-1000 design, address that problem, meaning they are passively safe.

Morbius

May2-05, 02:29 PM

They have not tested it. The video shows an F-4 fighter jet crashing into a concrete block.
http://www.nci.org/02NCI/08/pr9202002.htm

--
With regard to the aircraft threat, the authors cite an unpublished industry-sponsored report and a videotape on the Internet of a plane crashing into a concrete block to support their claim that an aircraft attack cannot cause enough damage to a nuclear plant to cause a meltdown. In fact, straightforward engineering calculations, utilizing empirically derived formulas, demonstrate that such penetration is plausible. The videotape in question actually provides no information regarding the question of whether a fully fueled commercial jet plane can penetrate a concrete containment wall. The video documents a test at Sandia National Laboratories in which an F-4 fighter jet, with considerably lighter engines than a commercial jet like a 767, collided with a concrete block that was not fixed to the ground but was actually floating on an air cushion. The purpose of the test was to measure the impact force, not to measure the maximum penetration of the target. According to the test report, “the major portion of the impact energy went into movement of the target and not in producing structural damage.” Real-world nuclear power plant containments are anchored to the ground. Sandia National Laboratories, the sponsor of the video, has said that the nuclear industry is misrepresenting the results of the test.

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WRONG!!!!

The safety of reactor containments is NOT dependent on the test of the
F-4 hitting the concrete wall.

The safety of reactor containments is certified by computer modelling.
The purpose of the F-4 test is to verify the accuracy of the computer
modelling - not as a "proof test" for an actual airliner crash.

From the Sandia National Laboratory website:

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/#rocketsled

which states:

"The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time,
due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines
— onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66
meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test
was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any
particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact."

I'd like to see where Edwin Lyman gets his information that Sandia
has claimed the nuclear industry is misrepresenting their conclusions.
I have yet to see any such proclamation from Sandia - and I know many
of the people at Sandia - I went to school with them.

Sandia has one of the largest programs for computer modelling of
aircraft hitting containments. Contrary to your assertion above,
Sandia does NOT state that the industry is misrepresenting the tests.
In fact, Sandia has supported the claims of the nuclear industry - much
of which is based on results from Sandia's own modelling efforts:

http://www.ofcm.gov/atd_dir/pdf/contain.pdf

Commercial jet airliners, besides being much more physically massive and having a lot more fuel whose heat from burning might be able to weaken the steel rebar, have spindles in their engines that may be massive enough to act as penetrators.

Again you are incorrect. You have made the simplistic assumption that
the penetration capability of the a commercial aircraft scales linearly
with the weight.

In actuallity, it does not. You can see why, if you look at the F-4 video
closely. First, airliners are rather fragile structures, mechanically.
They are aluminum tubes with a frame. Nothing that even remotely
approaches the strength of steel reinforced concrete.

As you watch the F-4 video in slow motion, you see the plane's fuselage
splatter against the wall and flow radially outward. In essence, the
wall deals with each longitudinal "slice" of airplane individually.

It's a little like watching salami being run through the slicer at your
local butcher shop. If you see a 1 foot long salami run through the
slicer, you can't say that the slicer can't handle a 2 foot long salami
because it's only been tested with a 1 foot salami.

The airliner does not behave as a rigid body in the crash with the
containment. It behaves as a series of smaller longitudinal slices of
aircraft. The containment wall deals very effectively with each slice
of airliner in turn. That's why the containment wall handles a heavier
longer airliner just as effectively as a lighter shorter airliner as has
been shown in computer structural modelling.

If terrorists on the ground sabotaged a reactor to cause a meltdown, and their compatriots in the air poked a 6-inch diameter hole in the containment shell by crashing a commercial jetliner into it thus driving an engine spindle through the 2.5-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete, you would have a serious radiation release to the public.

Besides the threat of spindle penetration is the threat of containment explosion if a containment weakened by burning jet fuel were to simultaneously undergo sufficient atmospheric pressure build-up within the containment. Concrete is very weak in tension, and -- like happened to the WTC buildings -- if the steel reinforcement were weakened by heat of the jet fuel you could have a Chernobyl-style explosion, perhaps even with suicide teams dumping lead on the burning reactor from helicopters, just like at Chernobyl.

BALONEY!!!

You don't ANY chance for a Chernobyl-style explosion in a western-style
power plant. Unlike Chernobyl, you do not have an unstable reactor
design, with fueled "followers' on the control rods, and you do not have
a big block of combustible material as the moderator.

In a western-style LWR, you have a stable reactor design, without fueled
"followers" - and you have only non-combustible materials in the
containment. So from whence comes this "Chernobyl-style explosion"?

The WTC was weakened by fire because the fire got inside the building
where it could set the building's contents on fire. The main source of
heat that melted the structure in the WTC was not the jet fuel but the
combustible contents of the buildings - desks, carpets, furniture,....

In a crash of an airliner into a containment building, the containment
building will successfully keep the burning jet fuel on the outside of the
building. Additionally, the interior does not have the combustible fuel
load that the WTC did.

These scenarios have been very thoroughly studied by the scientific
community and the national laboratories. Your conjectures above
are unrealistic.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Morbius

May2-05, 03:55 PM

Generation II reactors -- which all of the current operating commercial power reactors in the United States are -- are susceptible to core damage from operator error. Generation III reactors, such as those of the recently-qualified Westinghouse AP-600/AP-1000 design, address that problem, meaning they are passively safe.

hittsquad,

I'm afraid you are in error here also.

The Gen III reactors are passively safe - which means that they will
safely shutdown and cool even when the safety systems fail.

Gen IIs do not have that property. They could be damaged by operator
error - IF NOT for the newest control systems that limit what the
operators can do.

For example, the whole reason for the meltdown of TMI II was that
the operators were able to override the control system and shutdown
the coolant flow in the middle of a loss of coolant accident.

Current control systems preclude such actions by the operators. The
old maxim for the NRC was the human operators knew best. That is
no longer the case. The safety of Gen II reactors have been substantially
improved post-TMI. Although they are not "passively safe" [ some even
argue if the Westinghouse APs, MHTGR, and PRISM reactors are passively
safe]; they are much improved with regard to the possibility of core
melt over their original designs.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

hitssquad

May2-05, 03:57 PM

A link to the jet crash test video, so interested readers of this thread can see a visual of what we are discussing:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

Morbius

May2-05, 04:12 PM

The worst [reasonable] case for an American reactor is Three Mile Island. A string of coincidental screwups led to what, inside the reactor core, was somewhat similar to Chernobyl - a partial meltdown. The nuclear fuel melted its way through the reactor vessel but did not penetrate the containment building. Due to excess pressure buildup inside the reactor core, air containing some radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. No one died of acute radiation sickness and long term cancer rate studies showed no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area. In addition, the quantity of radioactive material released was calculated to be far below the natural background radiation a very short distance from the plant - in other words, it is not even theoretically possible for TMI to have caused any noticeable increase in cancer rates.

The fuel at TMI did NOT melt through the reactor vessel. The cladding -
the zirconium tubes that contain the fuel - melted and reacted with the
water; but the uranium dioxide fuel pellets end up as a jumble on the
floor of the reactor vessel. This volume was submerged through out the
entire accident - and the fuel pellets are sized so that the jumble forms
a geometry that is coolable by natural convection.

No radioactivity leaked out. A small amount of radioactivity was
intentionally vented in order to reduce radiation exposure to plant
workers. The amount that was vented was on the order of 15 Curies
of I-131; which amounts to about 4 million-ths of an ounce; if memory
serves. About 2.5 megacuries of noble gases were released; but because
there's no uptake of these gases by human tissue - the radiation dose
is small.

According to the results of the study of the radiation impact to the
inhabitants of the area [ known as the Rogovin Report ], the average
person in the affected area got about 1.4 mrem of radiation exposure -
or about one and one-half days worth of normal background exposure.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

May2-05, 08:19 PM

For an overview of the study on the impact of commercial aircraft on nuclear reactor containment systems, see:
Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants Shows Aircraft Crash Would Not Breach Structures Housing Reactor Fuel (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=470)

More details
http://www.nei.org/documents/eprinuclearplantstructuralstudy200212.pdf

The study focused on an impulse loading generated by the spindle or engine shaft from a 767, which is the one of the densest materials in the craft. The shaft, and any other part of the craft, does NOT penetrate containment. The aluminum alloy frame disintegrates outside containment.

NCI (Nuclear Control Institute) has some issues with that study, and of course, they disagree with the results.

One issue is the speed of the aircraft. In the NEI/EPRI-sponsored study, a speed of 350 mph (563 km/h) was used. This is about the maximum speed one can 'control' a commercial airliner near the ground, and it is pretty close to the breakup speed, i.e. when tail and control surfaces start failing.

NCI did a study assuming maximum cruising speed - which if based on speed at normal service would be something like 500 - 550 mph, which is beyond the break-up speed near ground level.

theCandyman

May2-05, 11:08 PM

The videos are very impressive, but the collisions are shown from the sides. Are there not any implications of a extremely heavy object on top of a containment building to consider?

Astronuc

May2-05, 11:42 PM

Are there not any implications of a extremely heavy object on top of a containment building to consider?Can you elaborate? Do you mean an aircraft coming straight down or . . . . ?

The top of the containment is a rounded dome - in many cases - which distributes stress very well compared to a cylinder.

Morbius

May3-05, 10:21 AM

NCI (Nuclear Control Institute) has some issues with that study, and of course, they disagree with the results.

Astronuc,

Of course, NCI is an "activist" group - with an agenda against nuclear
power - not an unbiased group of scientists. NCI has an axe to grind.

For example, look at the statement in the link that hitssquad provided:

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/08/pr9202002.htm

where NCI's president Edwin Lyman states:

"The authors are also firmly in the camp of the small group of dissidents
who believe in a dose threshold for the carcinogenic effects of radiation.
This controversial “threshold” theory has support among neither the
established radiation protection authorities nor the scientific
community at large. "

Excuse me - where has this guy been? It is well accepted in the
scientific community that humans have a mechanism to combat the
effects of radiation. It's analogous to the immune system that we have
to protect us from pathogens [ germs ].

Radiation can cause damage when that "immune system" is overwhelmed
by large doses of radiation - but small doses are dealt with effectively -
and small doses have even been found to have a positive effect - not
unlike the way a vaccine "challenges" the regular immune system; which
results in the body acquiring the ability to more effectively combat
disease.

Courtesy of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html

which states:

"Low-Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit
what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely
low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the
cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The
degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced
chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about
6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to
50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the
priming dose.

Pretreatment with a low dose of ionizing radiation sets the cell up to
better survive a much higher dose of radiation. "

This research is well accepted by the scientific community and the
radiation protection community, in particular - contrary to the
statement in the link to NCI about a "small camp of dissidents".

Does one really want to base one's opinions on the president of the NCI
speaking "ex cathedra" - or does one want to base one's opinions on the
evidence acquired by scientists?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Morbius

May3-05, 12:19 PM

NCI did a study assuming maximum cruising speed - which if based on speed at normal service would be something like 500 - 550 mph, which is beyond the break-up speed near ground level.

Astronuc,

I really have a hard time comprehending how some people can be so
intellectually dishonest. They have their point of view; they know what
answer they want - so they just go about trying to prove their preconceived
notions.

That, of course; leads to ridiculous assumptions - like flying faster than
the break-up speed at low altitude.

One would think that after having such manifest errors called into question,
that these groups would lose all credibility among thinking peoples.

However, they seem to go on, and on, and on. ... like the Energizer bunny.

Go figure!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

May3-05, 01:17 PM

Lyman is somewhat of an adversary. :biggrin:

Incidentally, IIRC, the density of air at about 10,000 m (33,000 ft), which is a reasonable normal cruising altitude, is about 1/3 that of near sea level (or even with 100 m of sea level). So drag on an aircraft near sea level would be on the order of 3x that of the normal cruising altitude. So I am not sure one can get a commercial jet airliner up to 500 mph. :biggrin: Maybe in a dive, if the aircraft stays intact.

Military jet fighters on the other hand can break the sound barrier near sea level, which looks really spectacular and is very LOUD.

hitssquad

May3-05, 02:50 PM

I am not sure one can get a commercial jet airliner up to 500 mph.google.com/search?q=wtc+velocity+mph+175+%22cruising+speed+of +the+planes%22 (http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+velocity+mph+175+%22cruising+speed+of +the+planes%22)

--
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 [km/h] 503 [mph]
--

russ_watters

May3-05, 07:38 PM

Morbius

May4-05, 10:11 AM

While that does show it is possible to get an airliner up to 500mph at low altitude, the planes that hit the WTC were not in ground-effect (700 feet up or so). That's what limits the velocity of a plane trying to hit a building less than 100 feet off the ground.

Russ,

EXACTLY!!!

Basically, it's a question of whether the wing-tip vortices [ the small
"tornados" of airflow that result at the tip of the wing due to the
pressure differential between the wing surfaces, and an attempt by the
air to try to equalize the pressure by making an "end run" around the
wing tip ] which are "shed" by the wings - are interacting with the ground.
Change the characteristics of the wing tip vortex formation - and you
change the dynamic loading on the aircraft.

As I recall, the terrorist pilot of UA-175 actually increased speed as he
made his run at the WTC South Tower. In doing so, he was actually
risking a break-up of the aircraft before he hit his objective.

Unfortunately, the aircraft held together - fewer people would have
been killed had the aircraft broken up in the sky above Manhattan
rather than hit the tower.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

May4-05, 09:28 PM

Thanks hitssquad, that's a report with which I was not familiar.

The limiting speed (VNE, velocity not exceed) for a Boeing 767 is 954 km/h (593 mph / 516 knots) at 35,000 ft (10,667 m). The maximum cruising speed is about 563 mph (906 km/h or 490 knots). The 'normal' cruising speed is about 530 mph (853 km/h or 460 knots).

Below 10,000 ft, VNE = 250 knots or 287.7 mph (463 km/h).

It does appear from a calculation (link posted by hitssquad) that the Boeing 767-200, which hit the south tower of the WTC was traveling at a 503 mph (437 knots, 810 km/h). But that seems to be the only such study readily available online.

I read on citation that the FBI somehow assumed the craft was traveling near 590 mph, i.e. near VNE. This conclusion seems problematic since the aircraft had to turn more than 90° to head back to the south tower. Perhaps it slowed then accelerated, as Morbius indicated in his post.

Nevertheless, this is certainly much faster than 350 mph which was referenced in a industry report on containment survivability in the event of an impact of a commercial aircraft. It would be prudent to repeat the study with a speed of at least 500 mph.

NCI claims a calculation at "maximum cruising speed" with some equation from NRDC shows that penetration of containment is likely. However, I cannot find the speed (max. cruising or VNE), nor the equation, so it is not possible to verify the conclusion of containment penetrability.

hitssquad

May4-05, 09:42 PM

Would neutron-radiation embrittlement of the steel rebar in older containment buildings also be an important factor, Astronuc?

Astronuc

May4-05, 10:38 PM

The neutron fluence is neglible out at the containment. The iron in the pressure vessel and core structures has a very good scattering (fast removal) cross-section for fast neutrons, and the water moderates the fast/epi-thermal neutrons to thermal energies. Furthermore, the reactor vessel is located down in a cavity, which is surrounded by a lot of interior concrete walls. The cavity is empty during operation, but it is flooded during refueling while the reactor head is removed.

Neutron fluence is certainly a major issue for the core baffle plates, core barrel and structures which surround the core. Together, the pressure vessel and the core barrel form the downcomer (in PWR) or annulus (in BWR) for the coolant returning to the core.

Starting back in the 1980's, utilities implemented the so-called 'low-leakage' loading patterns, whereby high burnup fuel is located toward the periphery of the core. The fuel toward the periphery is operation at about 0.1-0.3 of core average power, depending on depletion of U-235 and conversion of U-238 to Pu-239/240/241.

A problem with high burnup fuel though is the dimensional stability (bowing of the assembly) which has caused some recent headaches in the industry. In addition, grid-to-rod fretting in PWR fuel became a problem during the mid-1990's.

One thing to consider about any advanced reactor design - will it require a new manufacturing facility and proof of concept program?

Gen 3 plants can use existing LWR fuel designs/products.

Some Gen IV concepts call for higher temperatures or different coolants (e.g. gas, or liquid metal). Higher temperatures may severely limit some existing LWR fuel designs.

Certainly, pebble bed, gas-cooled reactor fuel (carbide fuel in carbide/carbon spheres) would require a new plant to manufacture fuel, unless its manufactured in an existing plant. Liquid metal-cooled, fast reactors would require a different manufacturing plant than current LWR designs. If gas reactor or fast reactor fuel used UO2, this could be handled in existing conversion plants, but spherical fuel would obviously require a different manufacturing route than cylindrical pellet fuel, although in the case of fast reactors, existing pellet lines could be used, assuming the fast reactor fuel uses pellets in cylindrical tubing.

Morbius

May5-05, 10:25 AM

Would neutron-radiation embrittlement of the steel rebar in older containment buildings also be an important factor, Astronuc?

hittsquad,

You're "clutching at straws" here.

Neutron embrittlement is only a concern for the metal internal to the
reactor.

In the containment, the reactor is positioned below the surface
grade and surrounded by a large shield. [ Otherwise personell couldn't
enter the containment to service the equipment when the reactor was
shutdown.]

Additionally, it's only "fast neutrons" that have enough energy to cause
embrittlement - and you only find those IN the core - not outside of the
reactor.

The rebar in the containment wall has a better chance of being hit by
a neutron created by a cosmic ray entering from outside the
containment - than being hit by a fast neutron from the reactor.

You're plumbing new depths of absurdity in this latest postulate.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

theCandyman

May5-05, 10:41 AM

"You're plumbing new depths of absurdity in this latest postulate."

I like that phrase, it actually made me laugh.

I think hitssquad was just unaware of how reactors were set up inside the containment building. I have yet to see inside a power generating sized reactor so I had no idea either, I am glad he asked. I have a question though, why do neutrons make steel more brittle and are there any other effects on the metal?

Astronuc

May5-05, 11:10 AM

I have a question though, why do neutrons make steel more brittle and are there any other effects on the metal?

Neutrons displace atoms form their lattice positions in the metal lattice, and this increases the number of dislocations with in a material. So there is a lot of potential mechanical energy.

Those familiar with materials have probably heard of 'work hardening' in which cold working a material decreases ductility while the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength, and also hardness. There is a correlation between hardness and strength. Cold working a material increases the dislocation density.

Neutron irradiation similarly increases the dislocation density. However, energetic gamma and beta radiation may also produce dislocations (think of the effect of ionization), but at much lower level than neutrons.

Morbius

May5-05, 01:06 PM

"You're plumbing new depths of absurdity in this latest postulate."

I like that phrase, it actually made me laugh.

Candyman,

I read such statements all the time in online discussions.

The central theme is a "problem du jour" - some bit of jargon that then
becomes the central theme for some fatal problem with nuclear power.

I was in an online discussion concerning the Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ]
which is a liquid sodium cooled fast reactor design. One of the nuclear
critics had evidently just learned the term "Departure from Nucleate
Boiling" or DNB.

DNB is when the temperature of a surface exceeds the Leidenfrost
temperature and water can no longer "wet" the surface. You see this
effect when you prepare your griddle when making pancakes. You flick
a few drops of water on the griddle surface - and the little drops "dance"
around on the griddle; rather than going "splat" on the griddle surface
and forming a very temporary wet spot.

What is happening is that the surface is so hot that it forms a layer of
steam between the drop and the griddle surface. That layer of steam
insulates the drop from the heat of the griddle, and allows it to last
longer than if the water wet the surface of the griddle.

Because the steam reduces heat transfer from the hot surface of the
fuel cladding to the surrounding coolant - PWRs [pressurized water
reactors] are operated so that "vapor-blanketing" of the cladding
surface doesn't happen.

A PWR is allowed to have a very limited amount of boiling - "nucleate
boiling" - where small bubbles are allowed to form. But they are not
allowed to operate at a power level for which those small bubbles can
coalesce into a vapor layer - which is "DEPARTURE from nucleate boiling".
[ Note: the water in a PWR is "near" boiling conditions. ]

This other participant in the online discussion was proffering an idea
that a little DNB in a sodium-cooled reactor would bootstrap itself
in a contrived series of events which would do Rube Goldberg proud;
into a major calamity - and that this was a fatal flaw in the IFR that
the designers were unaware.

The temperature at which the IFR, as well as other liquid metal fast
breeder reactors [ LMFBRs ] operate is nowhere near the boiling point
of sodium. He had transfigured an effect that dictates the operational
limits for a PWR into a fatal flaw in the design of LMFBRs; stating,
"You can never tolerate even an infinitesimal amount of DNB..."

Evidently he had learned a new term; "DNB" and that to him was the
ultimate counterarguement against nuclear power. He never realized
how far out in left field he was. I'm continually dumbfounded as to the
limits of absurdity some anti-nuclear critics will go.

I just experienced a litte "deja vous" reading the above.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

theCandyman

May6-05, 10:34 AM

Morbius

May6-05, 01:53 PM

That is an amusing story, and it just shows that antinuclear activists seem to only educate themselves on the outlandish dangers and problems of reactors that have been solved or are simply no threat. How a person be smart enough to learn about reactors and still believe they are dangerous is incomprehendable to me.

Candyman,

The anti-nuclear activist isn't interested in learning about the safety
features - they have an agenda. They've already made up their minds.

Now their problem is to convince other people to agree with them. But
how do they counter a technical arguement made by one of the nuclear
power's proponents? They have to present something that sounds just
as technical and grounded in science.

How does one do that when they are not well versed in the specifics of
the technology? The answer is - they can't. They can proffer something
that "sounds" plausible - but to those knowledgeable in the technology,
it is absolutely absurd.

That's why it's important to require someone to explain their position,
and not just accept a bunch of buzzwords and believe the person knows
what they are talking about.

It makes for some long answers; as above. I didn't just throw out the
term "departure from nucleate boiling" - I explained it and gave you
a nice homey example that you can demonstrate for yourself in your
own kitchen.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

May13-05, 09:11 PM

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

For a copy of the report - http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"

Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions
for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases

July 29, 2003

Washington, D.C. – A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."

The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear's share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.

"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"

The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:

Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;

Offering a limited production tax-credit to 'first movers' - private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;

Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;

Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program;

Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.

Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.

The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration.

The members of the study team are: John Deutch (co-chair), Ernest Moniz (co-chair), S. Ansolabehere, Michael Driscoll, Paul Gray, John Holdren (Harvard), Paul Joskow, Richard Lester, and Neil Todreas.

Members of the Advisory Committee included: former U.S. Congressman Phil Sharp (chair), former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and John Sununu, John Ahearne, Tom Cochran, Linn Draper, Ted Greenwood, John MacWilliams, Jessica Mathews, Zack Pate, and Mason Willrich.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

CONTACTS: David Dreyer / Eric London
PHONE: 202-986-0033

theCandyman

May14-05, 04:56 PM

Thank you for sharing that Astronuc. I read a little bit of it and they seem to support once through fuel, but I disagree. I thought the whole point of going to a nuclear powered infrastructure was to get rid of waste. I know this has to get started somewhere, but I think long time focus should be concentrated on reuseable fuel.

50 years is a long time, is it not?

Astronuc

May14-05, 11:39 PM

Candyman, what do mean by 'reusable' fuel.

In the fission process, the fissile isotope U-235 or Pu-239 is fission into 2 fission products, and 2 or 3 (sometimes 4) neutrons. Now, some of the U-238 is converted to Pu-239. The problem is that the fission products, which a parasitic neutron absorbers accumulate. Furthermore, the fuel thermal conductivity decreases, so for a given linear power, the fuel temperature would be greater. Some of the fission products, e.g. Xe and Kr are gaseous. Fission gases also accumulate and lead to increased rod internal pressure - and there are regulatory limits on rod internal pressure.

Not only that, the Zr-alloy cladding material (in LWRs) gradually oxidizes. A new Zr-Nb alloy (M5) developed by Framatome shows surprisingly good corrosion resistance up to high exposures - 60-70 GWd/MTU.

One way around this is to 'recycle' or 'reprocess', but this means chemical dissolving the fuel, removing the fission products (which will be vitrified as high level waste), and recycling the unused U and Pu. This is done now in Europe, but is quite expensive. It was started in the US in the 1970's, but was the program was cancelled by the Carter administration over concerns of proliferation or diversion of Pu for weapons.

I think Morbius can contribute quite a bit here, particular with regard to the IFR and actinide burner.

theCandyman

May15-05, 01:29 PM

Sorry, I meant reprocessing. I have no clue why I wrote what is there.

Astronuc

May15-05, 03:16 PM

No apology necessary. Actually, there have been concepts for 'reusing' fuel, such as being able to turn the assembly upside-down (inverted) to even out burnup. But there are significant technical issues with regard to the materials, both the ceramic fuel and the metal cladding.

Reprocessing still leads to radwaste. One partial solution is to separate the actinides from Pu and beyond, i.e. Am and Cm.

The problem with reprocessing is that the MOX+ fuel is radiological hot and all manufacturing and inspection must be done remotely. That can be a real headache, as BNFL is finding out. :biggrin:

Morbius

May16-05, 11:08 AM

The problem with reprocessing is that the MOX+ fuel is radiological hot and all manufacturing and inspection must be done remotely. That can be a real headache, as BNFL is finding out. :biggrin:

Astronuc,

It's also a "mixed blessing" [ pun intended :smile: ] because the radioactivity
also makes it more difficult for someone to hi-jack the reprocessed fuel
for weapons applications.

The Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ] concept that I worked on at Argonne in
the early 80s under the leadership of Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

features a metallic fuel instead of the ceramic fuel used in most reactors.

The metal fuel allows metallurgical techniques to be used in lieu of the
chemical processes required for ceramics. Since these metallurgical
techniques are much simpler - the reprocessing plant can be co-located
with the reactor. Therefore, the reprocessed plutonium and other
actinides would never leave the high-radiation portion of the plant.

Therefore, there would never be an opportunity for terrorists to either
steal or disperse the plutonium. The plutonium is also not separated
from other "hotter" actinides.

Because of the on-site reprocessing, and that the plutonium is never
made pure - the IFR fuel cycle is resistant to proliferation, as Dr. Till
states - in spite of what was said about the cycle in the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

May16-05, 11:44 AM

It's also a "mixed blessing" because the radioactivity
also makes it more difficult for someone to hi-jack the reprocessed fuel
for weapons applications.I agree that it is proliferation resistant.

However the radioactivity is a pain for a commercial fuel manufacturing operation, especially one that is supposed to be profitable. :biggrin:

Astronuc

May27-05, 11:26 AM

Private equity firms eye BNFL's US unit
By Katherine Griffiths in New York (The Independent)
21 May 2005

Westinghouse, the US nuclear arm of BNFL, has been put up for sale by the British government, attracting interest from a variety of bidders including a private equity firm chaired by Dan Quayle, a former American vice president.

Rothschild, bankers to the publicly owned BNFL, are handling the sale and are looking for in excess of $1bn for Westinghouse. The Pittsburgh-based company is one of the largest providers of nuclear technology in the world, and is one of three contenders to win a multibillion-dollar contract to build 30 reactors in China by 2020.

Cerberus Global Investments, which Mr Quayle joined in 2000, has informed the Government that it is interested in buying Westinghouse, and has assembled a team of well-known names from the nuclear sector to lead the bid, according to New York financial circles.

They include Norman Askew, a former chief executive of BNFL and currently the chairman of Manchester-based IMI, an engineering company. Also involved are Charles Pryor, a former head of Westinghouse and currently president of Urenco, the state-owned uranium enrichment company. They declined to comment.

Blackstone, the New York-based buyout group, is also thought to be eyeing Westinghouse closely, along with Oaktree Capital, a Los Angeles-based buyout firm. The business could also attract attention from industry buyers, such as the Louisiana-based Shaw Group or France's Areva.

Barry Gardiner, the minister in charge of overseeing government-owned businesses, and BNFL's board are expected to approve the Westinghouse prospectus within the next few weeks.

Government officials have already had conversations with interested buyers and are likely to meet bidders after the prospectus has been circulated.

The Government's decision to sell Westinghouse comes at a time of unprecedented interest in the US and UK in nuclear energy as a way of meeting targets to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

That is likely to make Westinghouse particularly desirable at the moment. The Government may also build a stipulation into the deal which would require the acquirer to pay more if Westinghouse wins the reactor contract in China, which will not be decided until late this year.

At the same time, divesting Westinghouse will remove Downing Street's obligation to use the British-owned group in any future programme of building new reactors in the UK. Sources said Whitehall officials prefer the cutting-edge technology developed by competitors in France and South Africa.

BNFL would not comment on the sale of Westinghouse. A spokesperson for the Department of Trade and Industry said no formal decision had been taken on the deal.

Nuclear industry circles have been speculating on Westinghouse's future since its chief executive, Steve Tritch, told an industry meeting in Pittsburgh last month that "there are people in the British government considering whether Westinghouse ought to continue to be part of BNFL or whether Westinghouse ought to have a new home".

The company was bought by BNFL in 1999. Cerberus, which has about $15bn under management, would not comment on the deal. It is understood that Messrs Askew and Pryor would form a new board at Westinghouse if the bid succeeds. But their close ties to other parts of the nuclear industry could raise difficulties for the Government. Mr Pryor at Urenco is running a business with financial connections to BNFL.

Astronuc

Jun9-05, 10:20 PM

Looks like reprocessing, which we now refer to as 'recycling', is back on the table based on some comments I heard at the recent ANS conference.

theCandyman

Jun9-05, 10:29 PM

What do you mean?

Astronuc

Jun10-05, 02:20 PM

Exactly what I said - ". . . reprocessing, which we now refer to as 'recycling', is back on the table". I presume by changing the name of the process, some think that the present government can circumvent Carter's Presidential Directive.

No government agency or business has ever recycled nuclear waste for commercial use on U.S. soil, a policy begun when President Jimmy Carter renounced reprocessing and plutonium breeder research in a secret 1977 executive order.

The order, Presidential Directive 8, was declassified in 1994 and survives today as President Bill Clinton`s Presidential Decision Directive 13. For reprocessing research to resume, the directive would have to be either rescinded or reinterpreted. The Bush administration has not yet decided how to proceed. from http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?181

But that is incorrect because I have reviewed the MOX utilization in the US and we have reprocessed commercial fuel and we have irradiated MOX in several plants.

==================================

For reference:

http://www.nci.org/new/pu-repro.htm

President Jimmy Carter, Presidential Directive/NSC-8, March 24, 1977 - http://www.nci.org/new/pu-repro/carter77/index.htm

President Bill Clinton, Statement on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Export Control Policy, September 23, 1993 - http://www.nci.org/new/pu-repro/clinton93.htm

================================

Also look for the "Advanced Fuel Cycle Inititiative" - http://afci.lanl.gov/

Basically, Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository has been designed for current and projected discharges from currently operating nuclear plants, presumably with the consideration of life extension from 40 to 60 years for many plants. But if the US builds new plants, either the capacity of Yucca Mountain has to be increased OR a new repository has to be built.

AND it is not clear that the US DOE will ever accept fuel at Yucca Mountain! Seriously. That would force the US to reprocess.

theCandyman

Jun13-05, 03:54 PM

Morbius

Jun14-05, 10:25 AM

On Fox News yesterday there was a short segment about nuclear plant security and terrorism. It was discussed a bit in here, so I want to ask, in a realistic sense, what is the most damage terrorists could do? Destroy the containment building?

Candyman,

I'd find it hard to believe that they could destroy the containment building.

If you had a tank or a howitzer - you'd have to pound away at the building
all day to destroy it. Basically, nothing short of a nuclear weapon is going
to destroy a containment building in a single blow - and that includes
crashing airliners.

With all the improvements to the reactor control systems that were
instituted in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident to prevent the
operators from doing something stupid that could lead to an accident -
those same systems which prevent the operator from damaging the
plant out of stupidity - will prevent a terrorist from damaging the
plant out of malice.

Conjectures about what terrorists could do to a nuclear plant are
great "scare stories" - which is why "journalists" like them.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Sep26-05, 02:12 PM

Energy Group Plans to Build Nuclear Plants in Gulf States
by Matthew Wald, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 - A consortium of eight companies said on Thursday that it would spend about $100 million to prepare applications to build two nuclear reactors, in Mississippi and Alabama, a step that seems to move the industry closer to its first new reactor order since the 1970's.

The announcement was made by NuStart Energy, a consortium of companies that has substantial government financing. The consortium selected a site in Claiborne County, Miss., adjacent to Entergy Nuclear's Grand Gulf reactor, and another in northern Alabama, next to the Tennessee Valley Authority's long-abandoned Bellefonte nuclear construction project.

The Energy Department is committed to sharing costs to develop the two applications, and has agreed to pay the application fee, about $30 million, for one of them; the consortium is asking the department for money for the other. At the same time, Entergy announced that it would act on its own to develop an application for a reactor at a site next to its Waterford plant, in Louisiana.

The government, the reactor manufacturers and companies that own and operate existing reactors are testing a reformed licensing procedure, established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 1990's to avoid the pitfalls of the 1970's and 80's, when several reactors were ordered and construction begun before design was completed or regulatory approval obtained.

Under the program, designs for the Grand Gulf reactor, to be made by General Electric, and the Bellefonte reactor, to be made by Westinghouse, will be mostly completed and also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before substantial work is done at the sites.

http://www.nustartenergy.com/
NUSTART NEWS RELEASE — Washington — The nation’s largest consortium of nuclear power companies today selected Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and Bellefonte Nuclear Plant as the sites it will use on applications for combined construction and operating licenses for new nuclear plants, the first in 30 years.

Grand Gulf, owned by an Entergy subsidiary, is near Port Gibson, Miss. Bellefonte, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is near Scottsboro, Ala.

. . . . , but a new nuclear plant would bring considerable economic benefits – about 2,000 construction jobs for a four-year period, then 250-400 professional permanent jobs to operate and maintain the new plant.

Ms. Kray said NuStart will prepare two COL applications, one for the GE design and one for the Westinghouse design, but is currently funded by DOE to submit to NRC only one of the two. NuStart has a request pending at DOE that would permit NuStart to submit both applications. “We want competition and some selectivity,” she said.

The next step is for NuStart to begin detailed engineering and environmental work of the two respective reactor technologies at their designated sites in support of the applications for a combined COL which NuStart will file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2007 or early 2008.

After an estimated two-year review, the NRC could issue in 2010 its first COL for a new nuclear power plant in 30 years. Then any NuStart member company or group of companies could take over the approved NuStart license in 2010 and use it to build that reactor. Construction is expected to take four years so the earliest that the first new nuclear plant could startup would be about 2014.

The NuStart work is being funded under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program to kickstart new nuclear energy construction. The federal government is sharing 50-50 the cost of the detailed engineering with NuStart. http://www.nustartenergy.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?ID=20050922-1

Astronuc

Sep27-05, 08:56 PM

NuStart Selects Grand Gulf, Bellefonte For Advanced Nuclear Plant Licenses

http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/Nuclear/newsroom/newsDetail.asp?ID=764&RC=Nuclear&List=Region

WASHINGTON - The nation's largest consortium of nuclear power companies today selected Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and Bellefonte Nuclear Plant as the sites it will use on applications for combined construction and operating licenses for new nuclear plants, the first in 30 years.

Grand Gulf, owned by an Entergy subsidiary, is near Port Gibson, Miss. Bellefonte, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is near Scottsboro, Ala.

Astronuc

Feb27-06, 01:02 PM

http://nuclear.gov/nerac/reports1.html

Also in the news, Toshiba has purchased Westinghouse Electric from BNFL.

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Toshiba Corp., Japan's largest maker of nuclear power plant equipment, will pay $5.4 billion to buy 100 percent of Westinghouse Electric Co. to expand in atomic energy amid renewed interest in countries such as the U.S. and China.
"The time for nuclear is right," said British Nuclear Fuels Plc Chief Executive Officer Michael Parker said today in an interview in London. British Nuclear Fuels is a U.K. state-owned maker of reactors.

Toshiba, based in Tokyo, is seeking to expand its power plant operations as earnings from chips and consumer electronics slow amid increased competition. Westinghouse would give Toshiba the pressurized water reactor technology preferred by China, which may spend as much as $54 billion by 2020 building nuclear plants.

Toshiba plans to sell a minority stake in Westinghouse to several investors, the company said today in a statement. The nuclear power-generation market is expected to grow by 50 percent by 2020, the statement said.

Marubeni Corp., Japan's fifth-largest trading company, is in talks with Toshiba to invest in Westinghouse, Takashi Hashimoto, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Marubeni, said earlier today. Mitsui & Co. and Shaw Group Inc. were identified as possible partners, according to the Nihon Keizai newspaper last month. http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=10616

BNFL, Toshiba Agree to Sale of Westinghouse
http://www.bnfl.com/content.php?pageID=69&newsID=248

Ah, the fun never stops in our industry. :rolleyes:

Chronos

Mar2-06, 01:40 AM

Nuclear energy will rise from the dead again someday. Think modular fast gas, or pebble bed reactors for now. Middle east oil reserves will be nearly depleted by 2050, IMO. A few countries, like the US, will be able to milk their domestic reserves for a decade or two.

jhe1984

Mar2-06, 03:43 PM

We had to watch a documentary about nuclear energy (and how its dangers are perceived much higher than in reality) and I remember some very interesting facts in the film - though I've forgotten the science behind them (yall will have to help with that).

In one experiment, this guy set outside for a period of time (like 3 hours or so) of a NY or NJ reactor with a geiger counter and measured the radiation. Then, he took that same geiger counter (yeah, it was pre-9/11) on an airplane and found that the amount of radiation exposure a person receives during a one-way airplane trip something like triples the amount of radiation received sitting outside a reactor for the same period (or longer).

He then took a geiger counter inside some lady's home and found that the building materials (I think granite and other rocks) that were inside her home were emitting TONS of radiation. Then he followed that lady's husband, who worked at a nuclear plant, from there home into the nuke plant and he set off the detectors (which I guess they have going into and coming out of) going INTO the nuke plant. Ha.

Then he went to one of those pill-shaped concrete cylinders of nuclear waste (I forget where) sitting somewhere in the US and sat outside of those for awhile. Again, negligible radiation.

Finally, he went to a coal extraction plant (or some type of stripmine) and found that the radiation exposure coming from the surrounding rocks that they had to dig through to get coal (apparently some fairly normal rocks are pretty radioactive, I think) were many multiples the amount of the emitted radiation of a nuke plant.

Basically, the film showed how effective nuclear energy can be (they showed how 70% of France is powered by it - and is thus an electricity EXPORTER) and also how overblown and fear-mongering the attacks against it could be.

And what was really frustrating was that the groups most vehemently opposed to nuclear energy were the environmental lobbies (the reactionist-type ones) and that, unwittingly, all they had accomplished for their 30-plus years of operation were to increase the market share of coal and petroleum plants - which are the ones that have really been hurting the environment with carbon emissions, etc.

Also, my teacher said that the only by-product of a nuke plant (apart from the waste - which he said is only not recycled in US, unlike France et al) was steam. Is that correct?

All mistakes in my accounting of this film were mine, please poke around with questions.

jhe1984

Mar2-06, 04:04 PM

It's really frustrating how candidates who run on a pro-environment platform (at least comparatively) at the same time bash nuclear energy and, whether they want to or not, only increase the fossil fuel-based market share - which they also rant against constantly.

My family is in the oil business and has been for some time (so financially it's no particular sweat to us if the nuke industry tanks) but each one of us sympathizes with the nuclear industry for two reasons. First, every sane person - especially in the exploration business - knows that it's getting harder to find new reserves. In fact, iirc, the ratio of new reserve discoveries-to-oil and gas consumption has been negative (more new demand, less new oil) since something like 1975. The ones we have found are harder to get to -deep sea/artic reserves - and less profitable, making the whole thing enormously more speculative (a risk which gets passed on to the consumer). The market economics of the oil and gas industry are extremely complex and very interesting, but would require an entire thread to fully introduce.

But the second reason the oil and gas exploration industry is sympathetic to the plight of the nuclear energy industry is that they are having to face, in a less vicious but more pervasive way, the attacks from folks who seem to always be critical and never constructive (generally, under the 'environmentalist' nom-de-guerre) when it comes to energy supply and demand. For example, there is simply no logic (rooted in understanding of economics or conservation for that matter) in opposing - across the board - drilling in ANWR, middle east oil dependence, AND, at the same time, nuclear energy generation. For whatever reason, there is little compromising on their side, except semantically, with unsubstianted or unreasonable pleas toward things like solar energy, which, right now, simply can't supply (in an economically reasonable manner) the massive mW that nations demand.

(And also because the attacks can get pretty personal and vicious. When I tell people my family's in the oil industry, they immediately think and sometimes accuse crazy things like being imperialist propogaters of war in the middle east, drilling in ANWR, destroyer-of-rare algae (yes, that ones real) etc. all the while overlooking the simple fact that, the more the US actually gets cheap oil, the less profitable our industry becomes. Crazy, I tell ya..)

I've got shares - which have been tanking, btw - in some nuke energy businesses, simply cause I think they're the real future in energy production.

Astronuc

Mar2-06, 04:44 PM

Also, my teacher said that the only by-product of a nuke plant (apart from the waste - which he said is only not recycled in US, unlike France et al) was steam. Is that correct? Not quite.

Nuclear plants generate low, moderate and high level waste, which are ranked by radioactivity.

The high level waste consists of spent fuel, which having operated in the core for 4-6 years, contains fission products. The spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool until it cools sufficiently to then put it in dry storage. In theory, the spent fuel is supposed to go to a final repository (once-through fuel cycle plan), which is supposed to be Yucca Mountain, NV. That hasn't happened yet, so the spent fuel continues to accumulate at each reactor/plant site.

In the normal course of operation, corrosion products in the cooling system become radioactive. This material (several 10's of kg) is collected on filters, which ultimately must be disposed. This waste is sent to special sites which dispose of low or moderate radioactive waste.

Other low-level waste accumulates during normal maintenance. Workers clothing, even with very low levels of radioactivity must be disposed of according to strict rules.

Astronuc

Mar2-06, 04:46 PM

I've got shares - which have been tanking, btw - in some nuke energy businesses, simply cause I think they're the real future in energy production. You mean utility shares?

jhe1984

Mar2-06, 08:43 PM

Yep. Two utilities within the NuStart Consortium. Had 'em for about a year now. Hopefully they'll pick up.

I've only got a limited number of shares currently because 1) it doesn't seem like the nuclear power industry is a particularly nimble creature (with application and building restrictions and all) and 2) I have yet to really understand the innerworkings of nuclear energy consortiums.

Mainly I'm banking on the DoE incentives coming to fruition between '08 and 2011. If the next Congress (or President for that matter) does an abrupt about-face - which apparently can happen [thinking of that Cuomo story] - then I guess I'm s.o.l.

But like I said, this is more me owning em cause I believe in their practicality (apart from the market). <--- why idealists make bad floor traders... :rofl:

Astronuc

Mar3-06, 09:04 AM

DOE will be tight on money.

The time to buy ETR was a year ago, but they are doing reasonably.

It it prudent to do one's research.

vanesch

Mar3-06, 09:25 AM

Would neutron-radiation embrittlement of the steel rebar in older containment buildings also be an important factor, Astronuc?

I would say that if the neutron flux is high enough to damage the building, I wouldn't want to be standing just outside of it ! :bugeye:

Morbius

Mar3-06, 06:22 PM

I would say that if the neutron flux is high enough to damage the building, I wouldn't want to be standing just outside of it ! :bugeye:

vanesch,

You are very correct. The rebar in the walls of the containment doesn't get the hefty
neutron dose.

Embrittlement by neutrons is limited only to those parts of the plant that get a
direct exposure to neutrons - namely the reactor vessel and its internals.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Apr2-06, 01:04 PM

National Geographic Article -
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature2/index.html

It's scary. It's controversial. It's expensive. And it might just save the Earth.

Presently in the US, there are 12 (Combined Operating License) COL's in various stages of preparation.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert.html

Astronuc

Apr9-06, 12:00 AM

Just adding in something from the European Nuclear Society -

http://www.euronuclear.org/library/public/enews/ebulletinautumn2004/issue-6-print.htm

The bottom of the page contains websites for many societies and companies in the European nuclear industry.

http://www.euronuclear.org/library/public/enews/

Current news

Astronuc

Jun19-06, 08:56 PM

Today I heard a rumor (news which I cannot yet substantiate), that two pressure vessels have been ordered by a US utility(s) for two ABWRs - in the US of course.

Stay tuned.

Adding to this -

New Nukes for North America
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00024&segmentID=1
Air Date: Week of June 16, 2006

Ontario, Canada plans to build two new nuclear reactors in the province to meet increasing demand for electricity.. At the same time, the government has delayed closing its existing coal plants as promised. Host Steve Curwood talks with Bob Carty, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, about the controversial plan.

. . . .

Nuclear power is set to make a major comeback in North America. The Bush administration recently pushed a plan through Congress that grants as much as 15 billion dollars in federal aid, to jumpstart nuclear power plant construction, in the United States. And now in Canada the provincial government of Ontario has just announced it will spend 40 billion dollars to upgrade old atomic power stations and build some new ones.

Morbius

Jun20-06, 04:16 PM

New Nukes for North America
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00024&segmentID=1
Air Date: Week of June 16, 2006
Astronuc,

One part of the above "Living on Earth" segment advises one look to how California
is dealing with its energy policy, as to how to be "environmentally sensitive".

California's power supply is anything but robust - which was why it was so easy for
energy companies to "game the system" a few years ago when California was having
blackouts and brownouts.

California gets a good chunk of its electricity from the two nuclear power stations
that are in the State; Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. In addition, the Los Angeles
Dept. of Water and Power is a partial owner the largest nuclear power plant in the
USA, Palo Verde in Arizona.

As for how "environmentally friendly" California is going to meet its future needs?

The California Energy Commission has plans for the building of new transmission
lines to the Rocky Mountain States where California's future electric power needs
will be provided by fossil-fueled power plants burning coal. [ For the CEC, it doesn't
count as pollution if the pollution isn't sourced in California. ]

California has a law on the books that there can be no new nuclear power plants
built in California until the Yucca Mountain Repository or its equivalent opens.

PG&E wants to do some upgrades on the steam turbo-generator portion of the
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Those changes to the steam cycle will
increase the efficiency of the plant - so California will get more electricity from
a given amount of heat from the reactors.

However, the California Energy Commission ruled that to increase the efficiency of
Diablo Canyon and get more electrical energy from the same amount of heat at
Diablo Canyon would be the functional equivalent of building a new nuclear power
plant - and hence would be illegal under state law.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Jun20-06, 06:05 PM

PG&E wants to do some upgrades on the steam turbo-generator portion of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Those changes to the steam cycle will increase the efficiency of the plant - so California will get more electricity from a given amount of heat from the reactors. Sounds reasonable - convert more of the thermal energy to mechanical energy, by increasing turbine efficiency. Many plants have done that in US and Europe reducing the need to build additional units.

However, the California Energy Commission ruled that to increase the efficiency of Diablo Canyon and get more electrical energy from the same amount of heat at Diablo Canyon would be the functional equivalent of building a new nuclear power plant - and hence would be illegal under state law. :surprised - Shocked, not surprised. Idiots! Those people should be removed from the CEC for being stupid to the point of absurdity. What are they smoking? :grumpy:

Morbius

Jun21-06, 09:48 AM

:surprised - Shocked, not surprised. Idiots! Those people should be removed from the CEC for being stupid to the point of absurdity. What are they smoking? :grumpy:
Astronuc,

This is California - what do you think they are smoking?

Actually, this is just the latest in a series of actions by the California state
government that makes one wonder about the mental faculties of state leaders.

About a decade ago, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), believed that they
could lower the pollution by diesel engines by eliminating a lubricant that is in diesel
fuel. So California got its own formulation of diesel fuel without the lubricant.

However, diesel engines RELY on that lubricant!!! Many, many diesel engines were
destroyed because they were operating without proper lubrication. The "poison diesel
fuel" incident ended up costing the taxpayers of California an awful lot of money.
See the 8th paragraph of:

http://www.pushback.com/environment/SmogCheckTestimony.html

The subject of the above testimony is another debacle; the mandate by CARB
that California gasoline must contain 11% MTBE. A few years later, toxic MTBE
started showing up in California drinking water reservoirs. The State commissioned
the University of California and Lawrence Livermore National Labs to study the
problem. The study indicated MASSIVE pollution of California water:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/News1098.html

"Lab reports on downside of gas additive

In mid-June, Laboratory scientists filed a report of their comprehensive assessment of
the extent to which the gasoline additive MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) has
contaminated groundwater in California. ... the Livermore report concludes that MTBE
has contaminated groundwater at more than 10,000 sites, spreads quickly through the
water supply, and "may prove a cumulative contamination hazard" as it builds up in
groundwater... The Environmental Protection Agency has identified MTBE as a
"possible human carcinogen." Livermore scientists found MTBE in nearly 80 percent of
the 1,858 monitoring wells examined throughout the state. Groundwater provides 40 to
60 percent of the state's water supply. "

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Happel.html

"MTBE is a frequent and widespread contaminant in shallow groundwater throughout
California, that MTBE plumes are more mobile than hydrocarbon plumes, and that
MTBE may attenuate primarily through dispersion because it resists biodegradation.
Put together, these conclusions point to a compound that may progressively
accumulate until it contaminates groundwater resources on a regional scale."

The "take-away" point is that when someone justifies an action because "that's what
California is doing..", as in the case of the article posted by Astronuc - that's when
one really needs to be SCEPTICAL!!

California, and particularily the California State Government seems to be repleat with
idiots like those that Astronuc denounces above.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Jun21-06, 01:26 PM

NRG Energy Inc., one of three owners of the South Texas Project, on Wednesday proposed a plan to build two new generating units at the nuclear power plant for $5.2 billion.

Princeton, N.J.-based NRG (NYSE: NRG) owns 44 percent of the nuclear power facility along with CPS Energy in San Antonio and Austin Energy. CPS Energy and Austin Energy own the remaining 40 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2006/06/19/daily21.html

I don't know if this is about the two ABWRs on order. I would think they would put two AP-1000's down there at STP.

edward

Jun21-06, 11:21 PM

The Paloverde Nuclear power station west of Phoenix AZ is talking about adding two new reactors to their current three.

Are there any companies in the USA who make components for reactors? The last I remember there was a tariff on foreign made components.

Astronuc

Jun22-06, 08:13 AM

Large forgings, such as pressure vessels, would have to be build at Japan Steel Works, the only shop in the world which is qualified for nuclear grade forgings. ( http://www.jsw.co.jp/en/product/material/steel/index.html )

There are some shops in the US, which could become qualified, if the business picks up.

Ansaldo (Italy) and B&W Canada have made steam generator vessels (for replacement projects in the US), and I believe GE Canada has made pressure vessels.

Morbius

Jun22-06, 09:03 AM

Are there any companies in the USA who make components for reactors? The last I remember there was a tariff on foreign made components.
edward,

Sure - practically all the components in current US reactors are of US manufacture.

The nuclear components in nuclear-powered US warships - are also US made.
The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan [CVN-76] was completed a couple years
ago - and currently under construction is the U.S.S. George Herbert Walker Bush
[CVN-77].

However, as Astronuc points out, at the present time; US manufacturers are not
certified to make nuclear grade components. But that's more of a licensing issue
than a capability issue. If a company isn't making components for nuclear power
plants, why would they keep their certification active? But, when there is a market;
they can be re-certified.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Astronuc

Sep6-06, 12:06 PM

The Nuclear Option (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0000137A-C4BF-14E5-84BF83414B7F0000)
A threefold expansion of nuclear power could contribute significantly to staving off climate change by avoiding one billion to two billion tons of carbon emissions annually
By John M. Deutch and Ernest J. Moniz
Scientific American, Sept. 2006

Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world's electricity. Along with hydropower (which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is the major source of "carbon-free" energy today. The technology suffered growing pains, seared into the public's mind by the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency recently. The world's ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exists today throughout their 40- to 50-year life span.

With growing worries about global warming and the associated likelihood that greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated in some fashion, it is not surprising that governments and power providers in the U.S. and elsewhere are increasingly considering building a substantial number of additional nuclear power plants. The fossil-fuel alternatives have their drawbacks. Natural gas is attractive in a carbon-constrained world because it has lower carbon content relative to other fossil fuels and because advanced power plants have low capital costs. But the cost of the electricity produced is very sensitive to natural gas prices, which have become much higher and more volatile in recent years. In contrast, coal prices are relatively low and stable, but coal is the most carbon-intensive source of electricity. The capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide, which will add significantly to the cost, must be demonstrated and introduced on a large scale if coal-powered electricity is to expand significantly without emitting unacceptable quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. These concerns raise doubts about new investments in gas- or coal-powered plants.

Original LWRs were designed for a 40 yr life. Life extension programs are pushing the lifetime to 60 yrs, although that could change dramatically based on the aging of the pressure vessel and primary coolant systems components, primarily the in-core structures.

Emfuser

Oct16-06, 02:25 AM

About 16 new reactors between about 10 utilities are in various early processes for building new nuclear plants. I work at one of them. I'm surprised to see how quiet this has been to the rest of the country, but we're definitely going to build.

Look for the first new generation 3+ plants to be online in the 2015 time frame and two ASBWRs (gen 3) to go online at South Texas Project a bit before that.

If you want questions answered from within the industry, fire away.

Astronuc

Oct16-06, 08:03 AM

I know that two pressure vessels have been orderd by NRG for the two ABWRs at STP site, but I think the COLs are still pending. A friend in the industry told me about the plans for Amarillo Power to build two ABWRs, piggy-backing on STP's designs.

Developer George Chapman has filed paperwork with a host of agencies on a plan to build a twin-unit, 2,700-megawatt nuclear reactor. His company, Amarillo Power, will have to jump through innumerable hoops to obtain the necessary permits. And as we proceed through the thicket of regulations, it becomes incumbent on everyone - in government and in neighborhoods throughout the Panhandle - to keep a wide open mind.

Then comes the financing of this $6 billion project. Chapman doesn't have that kind of money just lying around, so he'll need help. The Amarillo Economic Development Corp., which uses sales-tax money to spur economic development in the Panhandle, has begun studying whether it wants to get involved with this project. http://www.amarillo.com/stories/080606/opi_5266689.shtml

Here is a list of new plants under consideration.
http://www.nei.org/documents/New_Nuclear_Plant_Status.pdf

Dominion has plans for an ESBWR at North Anna (although I have heard 2 were being considered), Nustart/Entergy has plans for an ESBWR at Grand Gulf, and maybe River Bend (later), and Southern Co (SNOC) has plans for 2 AP1000's at Vogtle site. These seem most likely and are farthest along.

I've heard TXU has plans for several nuclear plants.

Astronuc

Mar11-07, 06:11 PM

Here are various reports on the Gen IV concepts.

http://nuclear.inl.gov/deliverables/

Some IAEA reports and TECDOCs on Fast Reactor Technology and Fuel
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/fnss/abstracts/index.html

Astronuc

May6-07, 02:19 PM

That little matter of waste storage - LLW, HLW and spent fuel.

Nuclear power's waste problem (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/04/PM200705045.html)

Morbius

May6-07, 02:56 PM

That little matter of waste storage - LLW, HLW and spent fuel.

Astronuc,

Very timely program / article.

Quoting from the article:

ADAM LEVINE: There's an opportunity to use more than 90 percent of the weight in new fuel.

Recycling / reprocessing reduces the amount of nuclear waste by a large amount. Just
recently we had a poster claiming that recycling / reprocessing creates more waste which
just isn't true. When one can remove 90%+ of the material from the waste stream, there's
no way that "adds" to the waste, regardless of whether your metric is mass or volume.
The anti-nukes persist at trying to propagate that myth.

Then there's the input from the representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council:

PAINE: All the calculations show that recycled fuel is more costly than the most
pessimistic predictions for the future of conventional nuclear fuel.
PAINE: This is the process that was used to separate material for U.S. nuclear weapons.

The USA doesn't need any more Plutonium for nuclear weapons. The USA shutdown
its production reactors decades ago. The USA ceased production of weapons-grade
Plutonium decades ago. The USA has all the Plutonium it needs for weapons. The
experience of the last couple decade of the Cold War was that as new weapons designs
came out; they needed less Plutonium than the current generation. So the USA could
always scavenge any needed Plutonium for new weapons from old weapons that the
new ones would replace. The short of it is that you don't need to be concerned about
the USA making more weapons Plutonium. It doesn't need it; and it doesn't want it.

So why should the USA forgo recycling / reprocessing nuclear waste? The Plutonium
in commercial reactor waste isn't weapons grade; so why would the USA want it for
weapons when the USA has all the weapons Plutonium it wants / needs?

The USA isn't a "proliferation risk" when it comes to reprocessing spent fuel. There's a
concern about OTHER nations reprocessing; but "that ship sailed" back in the the days
of the Carter Administration. The USA decided not to reprocess in order to convince
other nations like Great Britain, France, and Japan not to reprocess. It didn't work.

I wouldn't want reprocessing technology spread to non-nuclear weapons states; where it
could be used by a nascent proliferator. However, just because this technology can be
used for nuclear weapons is no reason that a country like the USA which already has all
the weapons material it needs; should be prevented from using it.

As to Mr. Paine's point about reprocessed fuel being more expensive than virgin fuel;
yes. However, don't we tell people that it's good environmental policy to buy products
that have a high percentage of recycled content, even if it is a bit more expensive?

Don't we tell people that the beneficial environmental effects are WORTH the extra $$$
to have a product that uses recycled material? Mr Paine's group the NRDC makes that
point for consumer products; why does he take issue with it for the nuclear utility industry?

In the long run; I believe the nuclear utility industry would probably be willing to expend
more $$$ for reprocessed fuel because they would take the view that the reduced volume
of waste would be worth the extra $$$ in the long term.

Of course the NRDC is anti-nuclear; and they don't want to see any reduction in the
amount of nuclear waste, or any solution to the nuclear waste problem. Their whole
strategy has been to promote policies to MAXIMIZE the nuclear waste problem in hopes
of using the backlog of waste to shutdown nuclear power in the USA.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

russ_watters

May7-07, 12:43 PM

When an environmentalist mentions money, people should instantly put their guard up. Environmentalists are supposed to be worried about the environment - if money were all that's important, we'd just build more coal plants.

And the nuclear power-nuclear weapons connection, though valid for countries like North Korea, doesn't make a lot of sense here.

Anyway, a decent story otherwise. At least it was the inverse of the usual story: the story was told from the point of view of the nuclear power professional the floating-head-objector at the end was the "environmentalist". Still, this journalistic technique isn't very good for actually discussing/evaluating the pros and cons.

And I do like the use of the word "recycling" - the public needs to understand that what we have here is environmentalists arguing against recycling - another red-flag that something is amiss. At the same time, it will increase the publc's acceptance of the concept.

russ_watters

May7-07, 12:45 PM

Of course the NRDC is anti-nuclear; and they don't want to see any reduction in the amount of nuclear waste, or any solution to the nuclear waste problem. Their whole strategy has been to promote policies to MAXIMIZE the nuclear waste problem in hopes of using the backlog of waste to shutdown nuclear power in the USA.
As nefarious as that sounds, I've come to the same conclusion about "environmentalists" tactics. I don't really understand why they hold the positions they do (is it the politics?), but certainly when using tactics like this, it seems they are trying to take down what they oppose by causing the problems they use as a reason to stop what they oppose.

Morbius

May7-07, 01:40 PM

it seems they are trying to take down what they oppose by causing the problems they use as a reason to stop what they oppose.
Russ,

Yes - it's very circular.

I think part of the problem is that many so-called "environmentalists" have never really
separated nuclear power and nuclear weapons in their minds. [ The main anti-nuclear
group that opposed the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant called themselves,
"Mothers for Peace". It's as if the nuclear power plant was "anti-peace"; a tool for war.]

Although duplicitous, it's a clever tactic. You can have one group that can appear to be
ingenuous; they want nuclear power plants operated in a sustainable fashion; they want
the waste dealt with; and they want the operation to also make economic sense. In
other words; they look like they have valid concerns.

What they don't tell you; is that they are also the ones that are causing the very problems
they complain about by working behind the scenes.

Unfortunately, many believe the way to being environmentally responsible is to promote
policies whereby humans have little, if any; impact on the environment. Dr Patrick Moore
spoke of this in his address to Congress:

http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70

He found that the "environmentalists" in Greenpeace were "anti-human", that they
consider humanity as a "cancer on the Earth". They don't want an environmentally
friendly way for us to have the availability of power and the lifestyle that we've come
to depend on. They want humanity to change to a low-energy, low-impact lifestyle.
Nuclear power enables the opposite without the environmental objections to our
current power generation capabilities. So naturally they are opposed to nuclear power;
it takes away their main issue forcing humanity into the "low-impact" mode.

As Patrick Moore told Congress, "I believe the majority of environmental activists,
including those at Greenpeace, have now become so blinded by their extremism that they
fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet
and secure America�s growing energy needs."

Patrick Moore left Greenpeace, because it was taken over by extremists.

Dr. Moore realizes that the majority of our citizenry are not going to take up the "sack-
cloth" in favor of environmentalism. People want to live the way they do now.
Dr. Moore is being pragmatic.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Emfuser

May9-07, 12:35 PM

Of interesting note is that DoE has contracted the Shaw group and AREVA to down-blend old weapon plutonium with depleted tails and other previously undesirable materials to make MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel for use in commercial reactors. Their facility at Savannah River is under construction, and I had the opportunity to sit through a technology and sales presentation for what they're doing and what they're offering, just this Monday, the 7th. The DoE is willing to foot the bill for much of the analysis work necessary for the commercial plants to use the MOX fuel.

If the fuel reprocessing center goes up at SR as well, then that site is going to become hugely important to the commercial nuclear industry.

Morbius

May9-07, 12:46 PM

Of interesting note is that DoE has contracted the Shaw group and AREVA to down-blend old weapon plutonium with depleted tails and other previously undesirable materials to make MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel for use in commercial reactors.
Emfuser,

Correct - as I stated above - the Department of Energy has all the Plutonium it needs for
nuclear weapons - and then some. The Dept of Energy and the United States are NOT
interested in getting more Plutonium - and certainly not from commercial power reactors.

As Emfuser points out; the Dept. of Energy is actually trying to rid itself of some of the
Plutonium it does have, so it doesn't have to store the stuff. When you store Plutonium,
you must make sure it is safe and secure from theft - thus making Plutonium much,
much, much more expensive to store than an equivalent volume of steel or some other
non-sensitive material.

If the Dept of Energy is trying to get rid of excess Plutonium, it is certainly NOT going to
be searching for more the in waste stream of commercial power plants. So to argue that
reprocessing by the United States somehow supports nuclear weapons development is
FOOLISH!!

There should be no constraint on nuclear waste reprocessing by the USA on the grounds
that it is a proliferation risk.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

vanesch

Jun17-07, 02:04 AM

As nefarious as that sounds, I've come to the same conclusion about "environmentalists" tactics. I don't really understand why they hold the positions they do (is it the politics?), but certainly when using tactics like this, it seems they are trying to take down what they oppose by causing the problems they use as a reason to stop what they oppose.

Greens have their historical grassroots in the anti-nuclear movement. In fact - I wasn't aware of this until recently, because there were legislative elections in my country - Belgium which has been one of the countries producing most of its electricity by nuclear power (> 60%), decided in 2003 to "close all nuclear power plants in 2015, or at latest in 2025". This was done because there was a green party in the government coalition. They ideally want to replace them with "solar and wind power", and if necessary with coal power plants.
Then, in their policy statement, they say that they have two main concerns: global warming, and "the nuclear problem", and that they did well on the second one.

In other words, when the green movement is confronted with a choice between a potentially REAL ecological problem, and their historical battle against "all things nuclear", then they do not mind agravating the first in order to be able to push their old agenda.

Astronuc

Jun22-07, 07:06 PM

I read an article today that Dominion Generation has placed a contract for the procurement of long-lead components (large forgings) with GE for a new nuclear unit (ESBWR) at North Anna site.

Astronuc

Jul28-07, 02:26 PM

Details of U.S.-India Nuclear Pact Unveiled
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12309269

All Things Considered, July 27, 2007 · Without providing many technical details, Washington and New Delhi released a joint statement Friday saying they've completed negotiations on a deal that would open the doors for U.S. and Indian firms to participate in each other's civilian nuclear energy sector — a deal, first announced in 2005, that the Bush administration says is historic.

Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns says negotiators have worked for two years and two days to reach this point — and he believes the deal complies with U.S. law.

"We believe this great historic civil nuclear agreement will become part of a new strategic partnership between our countries," Burns says. "We are ready to build that relationship with India."

The deal has many critics on Capitol Hill and among non-proliferation experts. Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control says the deal sends the wrong message to Iran.

"We tried to stop India from getting the bomb; we failed. India has the bomb; India is still building its missile program, and yet we are ready to treat India as a normal trading partner, basically because we want to make money," Milhollin says.

India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Bush administration argues that this deal will bring India into the fold — putting its civilian nuclear facilities under inspection for the first time. Burns says Iran, on the other hand, is an outlaw state that should get a different message from the India deal.

. . . .

This should kick things up a notch.

Interestingly, the US domestic nuclear industry is largely foreign controlled. Westinghouse (including ABB-CE) was sold by the British BNFL to the Japanese Toshiba, and the French control AREVA (formerly B&W's and Exxon's/Siemens's nuclear divisions). GE's nuclear fuel group, GNF, is still US owned, but they are partnered with Hitachi and Toshiba, although with Toshiba's purchase of W, they will most likely withdraw from the partnership with GNF/Hitachi.