The Nuclear Power Thread

[russ_watters]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum HERE (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370) where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. Under the 2002 law, Germany’s 19 nuclear reactors will close down after reaching 32 years of operation. Stade is the first reactor to be removed from the grid. When the last reactor goes off the grid in around 2020, nuclear and coal power, which currently provide the country with 80 percent of its electricity, will have bowed out in favor of renewable energy. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so HERE (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html) is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

[mathman]

There is at least one major unsolved problem with nuclear power. What do you do with the spent fuel? Right now it just accumulates at the various plant sites. Yucca mountain is still iffy as a long term solution.

[Njorl]

Spent fuel is not as big a problem as you might think. The vast majority of nuclear waste, even today, is from the weapons industry.

If we went to a very large scale production of nuclear energy, it would be a problem. It is not a matter of scale though. Spent fuel could still be removed, transported and stowed with less loss of life and health than fossil fuel effects, but the fuel production would be dirtier. Large scale use of enriched uranium is not feasible for a long period. We would need to implement plutonium use as a fuel. Plutonium is inherently dirtier. I'm not saying it is a problem that can't be solved, just saying the waste situation does not scale linearly with energy production.

I think one problem is people don't want to discuss death. Death from fossil fuels is OK, because it's always been that way. Death from nuclear power is weird and unnatural. If we had always used nuclear power, and never burned anything for fuel, and somebody decided to try burning oil, the first housefire would be seen as a horrifying bizarre incident resulting in pointless destruction.

I have always been frustrated by those who are too pure and good to put a pricetag on a life. They think I'm ghoulish for equating lives to things like money, or in this case power generation. When I ask "What do you give up to save a life?", they usually answer, "whatever it takes." I then ask, "Then what do you give up to save the next life?" That's when the namecalling usually starts.

Njorl

[RuiMonteiro]

First, thanks to russ_watters for starting this thread as i find this to be a very intersting subject that will be debated for many years to come for sure
Here are some of my thoughts:

Nuclear Power is certanly a very cheap resource that can be very helpfull for any country, the problem arises on what its the effective consequence on the environment.

The nuclear usine itself doesn´t release any CO2, but does release some very dangerous radioactive elements for the atmosphere and nearest river, lake...(depending on the case), even if it´s in a small quantities, and this is officially recognized by the responsible authorities and most of the public doesn´t know this. What the general public doesn´t no either is that the process to enrich uranium releases vaste amounts of green house gases.
So, nuclear energy isn´t as "earth-friendly" as we are made to believe.
And even if, at this time, the pollution released during the process to enrich uranium is much smaller then the fossil fuel pollution (wich represents the biggest part of the US air pollution - wich is what russ_watters statment -"-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US"- implies because clean energy doesn´t release any green house gases and the enrichment of uranium is never taken into account in the pollution studies on energy production), let´s just take a look at the number of nuclear plants that the US has - wich is around 100 unites - and the 20% that nuclear energy represents on the total of energy suplly to the US, so how much more nuclear usines are needed to compensate a big part of the fossil usines? And how much more pollution would that bring?
(Let´s also not forget the new nuclear usines being build at this precise time in several countrys in Asia)

But what i find to be the main problem is the spent fuel. The problem isn´t obviously easy, because if there is a solution it must be very expensive wich makes it impracticable, or, on the other hand, there isn´t a solution yet. And there hadn´t been any viable solution for the last decades.

As for nuclear disasters, like Chernobyl, i believe that nuclear plants are safe. The only problem that could occur right now is human incompetence like on Chernobyl, but i find it hard to happen now, and i also think that that human incompetence was in some way because of the sovietic regime (not directly). And let´s not forget that a terrorist attack could happen, even if its very unlikely - i don´t want to sound like those extremists that say this could be the end of the world lol but taking into account the latest events it doesn´t seem very difficult.
But just because this is very unlikly to happen it is not a strong argument against the pollution generated.

And as for economical reasons the only ones to take profit from it are the eletric companies, not the consumer.
In terms of scientific research the decline of nuclear power isn´t a big problem, because the US is responsible to develop the fusion reactor (this accoring to a treaty signed some years ago), so there will be a vaste and profound research and big investments.


With this, i´m still not sure what we should do in terms of energy supply, on one hand we have the pollution, but on the other hand we have the need of energy. So, i think that waiting for a better solution to the spent fuel and for the development of the fusion reactor is probably the best choice considering all facts, even if this is the easy way, but we need to be realistic and i don´t see the governments spending big money on studies on what to do with the pollution, neither they seem intersted in that, so, in some time, when the ambiental problems are more and more discussed perhaps the governments are forced to do something.


I hope i made myself clear, as my english isn´t exactly the best.


Rui.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RuiMonteiro
The nuclear usine itself doesn´t release any CO2, but does release some very dangerous radioactive elements for the atmosphere and nearest river, lake...(depending on the case), even if it´s in a small quantities, and this is officially recognized by the responsible authorities and most of the public doesn´t know this. That just plain isn't true - in the US (and I would venture to say Western Europe) anyway. In terms of scientific research the decline of nuclear power isn´t a big problem, because the US is responsible to develop the fusion reactor (this accoring to a treaty signed some years ago), so there will be a vaste and profound research and big investments. Unfortunately, fusion power is still a very long way off.Originally posted by Njorl
I have always been frustrated by those who are too pure and good to put a pricetag on a life. They think I'm ghoulish for equating lives to things like money, or in this case power generation. When I ask "What do you give up to save a life?", they usually answer, "whatever it takes." I then ask, "Then what do you give up to save the next life?" That's when the namecalling usually starts. I've been thinking about this one for a day now. In engineering ethics, the Ford Pinto (I think) case was discussed in detail. There, the execs weighed the cost of fixing the fuel tank flaw against cost of dealing with all the lawsuits and other backlash resulting from people burning to death. They miscalculated and lost a lot of money and got a lot of bad press.

The usual conclusion is that you can't put a price on a human life. But you can - you must. And EVERYONE, even those who won't admit it, do it all the time. Whether its actual money or just plain convenience (your overall odds of dying in a car crash are 10%), people weigh risks and make choices based on those risks. As an engineer, my designs are governed by laws and standards, so that reduces the choice for me and therefore my liability, but its always going to be there.

Whenever someone asks me about the value of a human life - (ie, we should spend $XXX to make YYY safer), I ask them how many immunizations that money would buy for children in Africa. Or pre-natal care for pregnant inner city women in the US. You get to a point where spending a whole lot of money will only gain you a very small improvement in health/safety when it comes to engineering issues.

[HAVOC451]

Ahhh clean energy too cheap to meter. What a whopper that was.

From mining the uranium to disposing the spent fuel nuclear power is expensive and carries a small but significant risk of monumental disaster. Find a uranium mine that hasn't caused a groundwater problem. Find a plant that's never sprung a leak in it's primary cooling system and had to let off a little steam. Find fuel pool that hasn't been racked and re-racked so many times that the plant it serves isn't a few re-fuels from shutting down simply because there is no other place to put the spent rods.
Pointing to the (debatable) fact that nuclear power hasn't killed anyone in the U.S. doesn't reduce the risk. If a big ugly earthquake knocks Diablo canyon into the ocean (it does sit on a fault)the death toll would be huge and the San Joaquine vally will be useless for agriculture for two hundred thousand years. Small risk? Perhaps, but risk indeed. If the worst happens at any reactor all the advocates of the industry will be able to do is stand by and weep with the rest of us.

Nuclear energy looked good on paper but failed miserably in a practical sense. When it all said an done splitting atoms to boil water is overkill on a scale like slicing tomatos with a chainsaw. If the effort to resurect the nuclear industry was put into photovoltaic technology we'd take a big step toward ending our dependence on coal and oil. Nuclear power is dying out in the U.S. Let it go.

[theroyprocess]

Guest Article: Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm
Opinion: Guest Opinion

A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful

By Dennis F. Nester,
special for NuclearNo.com,
Originally published 20 June 2003
- Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements
- There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process

It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology.

Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below).

The Roy Process Brief Description
from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.

Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.

In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.

What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.

How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.

It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.

To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.

The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained from Phase II.

Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million. For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium - under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years."

If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below.

A final note

To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer, shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens?

"There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution." Radha Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus

"Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process. They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus

The below includes the Patent application claim.....describing other uses for the Roy Process transmutation method

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html




*************
AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS

Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA (602) 494-9361 theroyprocess@cox.net

[theroyprocess]

Subject: RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECT--DR. BERTELL


http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html

Radiation and thyroid disease:

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=26069

TWO BULLET ROULETTE

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030922&s=bivens

[RuiMonteiro]

That just plain isn't true - in the US (and I would venture to say Western Europe) anyway.

It is true. The responsible authorities say this quantities are safe for the human body. But how safe are they? Considering all the pressure that nuclear industry does, it doesn´t seems very safe to me.


Unfortunately, fusion power is still a very long way off.


Yes, the treaty agreeded that the US should present the fusion reactor around 2050, but a vaste and profound research will exist. And the research related to nuclear power will have to continue, the spent fuel isn´t solved yet. But this (in terms of scientific research) is not a strong argument in my opinion, there are inumerous areas to do research, whether it´s physics related or medical care related.


theroyprocess, thanks for all the articles. I still haven´t read them all, and the ones i did weren´t on their entirity, but they seem very intersting.



Rui.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
From mining the uranium to disposing the spent fuel nuclear power is expensive and carries a small but significant risk of monumental disaster. Find a uranium mine that hasn't caused a groundwater problem. Find a plant that's never sprung a leak in it's primary cooling system and had to let off a little steam. Find fuel pool that hasn't been racked and re-racked so many times that the plant it serves isn't a few re-fuels from shutting down simply because there is no other place to put the spent rods.
Pointing to the (debatable) fact that nuclear power hasn't killed anyone in the U.S. doesn't reduce the risk. If a big ugly earthquake knocks Diablo canyon into the ocean (it does sit on a fault)the death toll would be huge and the San Joaquine vally will be useless for agriculture for two hundred thousand years. Small risk? Perhaps, but risk indeed. If the worst happens at any reactor all the advocates of the industry will be able to do is stand by and weep with the rest of us. Yes, there is no such thing as a perfect plant. Its true. But unless you want to allege (and PROVE) a vast conspiracy to hide evidence, at the end of the day all of what you just posted is evidence of how safe nuclear power is. The fact that nuclear power hasn't killed anyone in the US (or I'll allow - hasn't been SHOWN to have killed anyone) doesn't DECREASE the risk, it ILLUSTRATES what the risk is: extrordinarily low. And while those risks you speak of are measurable and quantifiable, the scenarios you describe are simply not in the realm of possibility. Chernobyl (for example) was orders of magnitude worse than anything that has ever happend in the US and what you describe is orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl. And the the actual risk of something like that is extrordinarily low.

Your statement "Small risk? Perhaps, but risk indeed" implies that that any risk no matter how small needs to be guarded against. That simply isn't true. For example, there is a very real, measurable, and quantifiable risk that you will be struck and killed by a meteor. Do you worry about that risk? I sure hope not.

I kinda hinted at this in my last post, but the whole idea of probability and risk management just isn't understood (or maybe just not accepted) by the general public: Not every risk is worth doing something about. And this is one of the reasons for the lack of public support of nuclear power. The risks you speak of are too low to be considered worth ditching nuclear power - especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year.

[theroyprocess]

Here is a web site that dispels nuclear power 'safety'.

[dead crackpot link deleted]

[enigma]

Theroyprocess,

quite frankly, I don't trust your sources.

In the thread I started in the hosted forums, you posted "evidence" that more people than have been alive since the Manhattan project have died as a result of nuclear power. That's not only a silly assertion, it's physically impossible.

Every site you post is not an unbiased account, they are all hyper-reactionary sites with no clear grasp on reality.

There have been NO, count 'em, NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Is a coverup possible? Sure. Anything's possible, but why bother?

Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detremental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.

There is Uranium in trace amounts in sea water, and there has been from soil runoff long before we started mining the stuff out of the ground. We get blasted by rads from the Sun 24/7/365 and have been since the solar system formed. Coal burning is making more of those rads actually getting through the ozone hole to hit us.

Quite frankly, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't use nuclear power. The only way around it is to return to the a middle ages aggrarian society, and I doubt you'll attempt to make the case that the mean quality of life or lifespan were higher back then.

The unbiased facts are that unless you're detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, the effect on quality of life on this planet is statistically insignificant.

It's the reactionaries with their heads in the clouds who obfusciate the issue, causing thousands of extra people each year to die from breathing related afflictions from the coal plants.

Give me the nuclear plant in my backyard over a coal plant any day.

[RuiMonteiro]

There is one determinant aspect that is crucial for this thread, the fossil fuel power plants won´t be closed just because the number of nuclear plants is increased (if increased, in the US at least), there´s still large reservs of fossil fuels, where petroleum is estimated to end around 2050 (wich, ironically is around the same time the US should present the fusion reactor) and coal in about 200 years. And this is just because the energetic demands are still growing, this is the reality. So, an increase on the number of nuclear powrs will just increase the air pollution.



Rui.

[theroyprocess]

The only thing unbiased in this world...is a corpse.
Nuclear power will kill us all in time by slow burn or
nuclear war. NPPs were devised to make electric rate payers
pay for the high cost of weapons grade elements. The 'big
lie' was Nukes would provide FREE electric power..."too cheap
to meter" ! Now there are 441 NPPs worldwide, 103 in the USA.
There is so much plutonium and 'dirty bomb'elements out there
it's an international security risk. Nukes was the biggest
mistake of the industrial age.

Half-Life: Living With Nuclear Waste

http://archive.greenpeace.org/mayak/index.html


Dr. Rosalie Bertell...new book,

http://www.iicph.org/planet_earth.htm


NIRS URL

http://www.nirs.org/

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by enigma
Theroyprocess,

quite frankly, I don't trust your sources. Sorry, Theoryprocess, I agreee. That site can best be described as an enviro-conspiracy theory site. It doesn't provide evidence but rather claims the evidence is covered up. Convenient. Also, Theoryprocess, you lump together nuclear power and nuclear weapons. They are similar but not the same thing and the politics and risks of nuclear weapons doesn't change the benefits of nuclear power. Your opinion on this subject quite simply isn't based on the facts.

Also, I will wholeheartedly agree that nuclear power isn't a perfect solution. Such a thing does not exist. But if you want to argue against it, you need to first substantiate your claims of its problems and second, suggest a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. You have done neither.Give me the nuclear plant in my backyard over a coal plant any day. Ditto. Incidentally, I live about 20 miles from the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pottstown, PA. And I spent a year in a prep school in Pottstown less than 5 miles from the plant. Except for an extra hand growing out of the middle of my chest, I'm just fine.[:D] And chalk up a few hundred more deaths today to the type of ignorance I'm trying to change. Though maybe there is more to it than just ignorance. Fear is a powerful force at work here. But either way, the solution is KNOWLEDGE. There is one determinant aspect that is crucial for this thread, the fossil fuel power plants won´t be closed just because the number of nuclear plants is increased...So, an increase on the number of nuclear powrs will just increase the air pollution. What I would support is adding nuclear plants to REPLACE existing coal plants. Obviously if we only add new plants to handle new capacity, we don't reduce pollution. But yes, coal is cheap and abundant so thats why we use it. So that makes it tough economically to justify. But call me a sappy environmentalist - I think its worth the money to save a hundred thousand lives a year and increase the quality of life for everyone.[:))]

[HAVOC451]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I will wholeheartedly agree that nuclear power isn't a perfect solution. Such a thing does not exist. But if you want to argue against it, you need to first substantiate your claims of its problems and second, suggest a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. You have done neither. Ditto. Incidentally, I live about 20 miles from the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pottstown, PA. And I spent a year in a prep school in Pottstown less than 5 miles from the plant. Except for an extra hand growing out of the middle of my chest, I'm just fine.[:D] And chalk up a few hundred more deaths today to the type of ignorance I'm trying to change. Though maybe there is more to it than just ignorance. Fear is a powerful force at work here. But either way, the solution is KNOWLEDGE. What I would support is adding nuclear plants to REPLACE existing coal plants. Obviously if we only add new plants to handle new capacity, we don't reduce pollution. But yes, coal is cheap and abundant so thats why we use it. So that makes it tough economically to justify. But call me a sappy environmentalist - I think its worth the money to save a hundred thousand lives a year and increase the quality of life for everyone.[:))]

I don't think that's sappy at all. But, in the time it would take to design, license, and build a few nukers, (Add extra time to deal with the courts while every anti-nuke protester in the country trys to stop construction.) the photovoltaic industry could provide a better solution. As demand grows the technology improves and the cost comes down. Lots of good paying jobs are created. There's really no reason why there couldn't be 2 or 3 kilowatts of PV cells on 2 million roofs through the sun belt in just 2 years.
Just a thought.

[theroyprocess]

I knew the late Dr. Roy for the last ten years of his astounding
career as a world leading pioneer in nuclear physics. Click on BIO
and career highlights on the web site:
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
During that time I typed up the first manuscript of his yet
unpublished autobiography. It was such a privilege to hear his
memories and quite instructive about the political and racial
realities of science.

Obviously most people's political favor goes to whomever signs their
paychecks.

The next Chernobyl magnitude meltdown will put an end to the nuclear
experiment. The Union of Concerned Scientists predicts a 1 in 3 chance
of a meltdown in the USA in the next 5 years due to sumps plugging
up.

The FDA has approved anti-radiation drugs. You can't fool mother
nature forever with rhetoric. The bill comes due at some point.

http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

[enigma]

Want to place a bet then?

I'll give you 3 to 1 odds.

If there is a meltdown in the US in the next 5 years, you get $300 of my money.

If there isn't, you owe me $100.

How about it?

[RuiMonteiro]

What I would support is adding nuclear plants to REPLACE existing coal plants. Obviously if we only add new plants to handle new capacity, we don't reduce pollution. But yes, coal is cheap and abundant so thats why we use it. So that makes it tough economically to justify. But call me a sappy environmentalist - I think its worth the money to save a hundred thousand lives a year and increase the quality of life for everyone.

But that´s a solution, i´m talking about the reality. If there´s still large reservs of fossil fuel they will be used till the end of them. My post was one more fact that needs to be considered, on paper all the ideas to reduce the pollution are only valid if the governments are willing to spend big money when they can use cheaper solutions, it would be very expensive to replace fossil fuel plants by nuclear plants, just consider the number of nuclear usines in the US and the 20% of energetic resources they represent there, so, i ask again, how more nuclear powers would be needed? It´s more chepear to just add more plants (any type of plant) instead of replacing them. It´s all about money.
With this, i´m not validating or invalidating your reply, i´m just stating on happens.


Rui.

[theroyprocess]

Dr. Roy estimated cost at 80 million dollars in 1979 to
construct a Roy Process pilot plant. You could shut down the
aging nuclear power reactors and use the transmutation of the
spent fuel as the heat source to make steam and power the
existing generators. Forever eliminate high level isotopes, prevent
bomb grade and 'dirty bomb' element theft, and generate electric
power....what more could you ask for?

Bet on a nuclear meltdown? It's already too late! Atmospheric
atom bomb 'testing' fallout has forever adulterated the genetic
fabric of all life on earth. I believe first cited in Rachel Carson's
book SILENT SPRING. Man made, long lived radioactive elements are in
our DNA, our bones, muscles, teeth...and will affect the health of
future generations who will add to their body burden of toxics.


Pressure Reactor Sump Failure.

http://www.nirs.org/reactors/ucspwrsumpbrief.pdf

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The next Chernobyl magnitude meltdown will put an end to the nuclear
experiment. The Union of Concerned Scientists predicts a 1 in 3 chance
of a meltdown in the USA in the next 5 years due to sumps plugging
up. Remember, the magnitude of Chernobyl was TINY. Like I said before, if EVERY nuclear power plant in the US has a Chernobly magnitude meltdown, air pollution would STILL kill more people in a month. The biggest cost would be the money and energy lost.

And I'd take the bet too. I'd give 100 to 1 odds. Because of the differences in design, a Chernobyl style meltdown would require something like a meteor strike to happen - the odds really are that low.

Another risk management analogy I like to use is cars vs planes. I know a whole lot of people who are afraid to fly. Many really do even think that cars are safer than planes. I actaully had an aunt and uncle who for a while would drive to the airport together, then take separate flights so that if one of them died, the other would be able to take care of the kids. Never mind that they were several orders of magnitude more likely to die on the car ride than on the plane. And these were otherwise intelligent people. Maybe its just emotion overriding logic. Dunno, but its a very dangerous thing.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RuiMonteiro
...just consider the number of nuclear usines in the US and the 20% of energetic resources they represent there, so, i ask again, how more nuclear powers would be needed? It´s more chepear to just add more plants (any type of plant) instead of replacing them. It´s all about money. True. And assuming your 20% number is right (sounds about right) it would require about 150 more nuclear plants to replace our existing coal plants. With this, i´m not validating or invalidating your reply, i´m just stating on happens. Given the political climate, you are probably right - it won't be a realistic possibility any time soon. You never know though - if New York style blackouts start happening every week ten years from now (a real possibility), that just might change the political climate.

The difference between what I propose and what the "environmentalists" propose however is that my solution is real, would work, would reduce pollution, would not require massive changes in our energy usage, and would save lives. Environmentalist's plans don't even get to the "would work" stage.

[theroyprocess]

[spam deleted]

Don't do that.

-Russ

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Atmospheric
atom bomb 'testing' fallout has forever adulterated the genetic
fabric of all life on earth. I believe first cited in Rachel Carson's
book SILENT SPRING. Man made, long lived radioactive elements are in
our DNA, our bones, muscles, teeth...and will affect the health of
future generations who will add to their body burden of toxics.
Boy, you bring alarmism to new heights. No, really, you're basically insane.

Do you realize that radioactive carbon, radioactive nitrogen, radioactive oxygen, radioactive silicon, radioactive potassium, radioactive sodium, and radioactive calcium are all in your body right now, all from completely natural sources? These radioisotopes are already in your DNA, your bones, your muscles and your teeth! When you go out and sit on the beach, the UV light from the Sun is causing some tens of thousands of lesions (bonded thymine bases, causing the separation of the two strands of DNA) per second per cell. This is no sweat for your cellular defenses.

Why do you not grasp the concept that radioactivity is natural, and is all around us, every day? Why do you think a plutonium atom in your breakfast cereal is going to kill you instantly?

- Warren

[chroot]

By the way, your continued alarmism re: long half-life radioisotopes begs the comment:

Nearly all heavy metals have a biological half-life of less than six months. This means the half-life of the radioisotope is not a big deal, assuming that the people in the contaminated area are moved elsewhere so their consumption of the material stops.

Let's take an example: Cs-137, one of the most dangerous radioisotopes due to its chemical similarity to potassium.

1) The biological half-life of Cs-137 is about 115 days. (Source: CDC, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp)

2) The radiological half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years. (Source: DOE)

3) The specific activity of Cs-137 is 86.4 curies/g, or 3.2 x 1012 beta decays per second per gram. (Source: DOE)

Let's say a very unlucky person ingests an entire milligram of pure Cs-137. How many decays will his body experience in the time period until the concentration of Cs-137 is his body is 1% of the original dose?

This takes 6.64 biological half-lives, or about two years.

After two years, about 95% of the Cs-137 is still active.

The total dose received by the subject is 1.42429 x 1012 decays over those two years.

If the radiological half-life for Cs-137 were instead 10,000 years, 330 times longer, the total dose would be 1.43842 x 1012 decays, or just about 1% more decays.

- Warren

[theroyprocess]

I have heard that at the beginning of the industrial age
200 years ago..the cancer rate was estimated at 1 in 100
died from cancer. It is almost 1 in 2 today. Dr. Jay Gould's book
ENEMY WITHIN cites breast cancer rates were going down prior
to 1945...then with the first atom bomb explosion, breast cancer
went up about 2% each year till now 1 in 9 women with get it.
Here is more on radiation and biology.

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
I have heard that at the beginning of the industrial age
200 years ago..the cancer rate was estimated at 1 in 100
died from cancer.
You've heard this? Do you have any statistical evidence? I don't think this is true at all. I'm not even sure if people knew how many different illnesses were in fact all just different forms of cancer 200 years ago.

Besides, you have blinders on. What did these people die from then, if not from cancer? Was the life expectancy the same then as it was today?

If you're really so paranoid, you can buy or build you own Geiger counter for less than $100. Then you can personally monitor your dose 24 hours a day, and you can compare it to the dose received on average by people living 200 years ago.

I think you'll eventually learn the following: the Earth is an absolutely immensely large place. If you take a pound of plutonium-239 and distribute it evenly over the entire planet -- which is apparently your conception of the worst case -- each square meter receives 5.56470179 × 10^-22 kg of plutonium, or about 1400 atoms of plutonium.

1400 atoms of plutonium has a specific activity of 3.40828 x 10^-20 curies, or about 1.2610636 x 10^-09 decays per second. That's right, that's about one decay in 25 years.

You could go further and calculate the chances of those decay products actually hitting people -- most of them will go right into the earth or right up into the atmosphere. Only a very very few will be emitted at the correct angle to strike a person. I could calculate this factor, but what's the point?

I'll let you extrapolate the figures for 100 pounds, or 10,000 pounds of plutonium released. Observe the trend:

It's utterly insignificant.

- Warren

[theroyprocess]

6/3/02
5:32:18 PM


16th Anniversary of Chernobyl

2002 marked the 16th anniversary of worst nuclear power plant accident in history. On April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am technicians at the Chernobyl Power Plant in the Ukraine allowed the power in the fourth reactor to fall to low levels as part of a "controlled" experiment. The reactor overheated causing a meltdown of the core. Two explosions blew the top off the reactor building releasing clouds of deadly radioactive material in the atmosphere for over ten days. People living near Chernobyl were exposed to radioactivity 100 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. People in other parts of the world were also exposed to radioactive material blown northward by the wind. Seventy percent of the radiation is estimated to have fallen on Belarus. Ten years after the accident, babies were still being born with no arms, no eyes, or only stumps for limbs. Some 15 million people have been victims of the disaster in some way. More than 600,000 people were involved with the cleanup, many of whom are now sick or dead. The Chernobyl Plant is made up of four graphite reactors; Number 4 exploded in 1986, Number 2 was shut down due to a fire in 1991.

Remembering the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, Ecodefense! and the Youth Human Rights Movement in Russia organized a demonstration in front of the Kremlin. Activists from 30 Russian cities gathered to speak out against the government's intention to import nuclear waste into Russia and against the country's plan to develop nuclear energy. Dressed in white jumpsuits with radiation symbols on the front, many activists experienced violence from police, and both activists and journalists alike were arrested at the demonstration. Many individuals and organizations oppose the plans of the Russian Ministry of Atomic Power (MINATOM) to import spent nuclear fuel from other countries, plans that were approved by both the Russian Parliament and President Vladimir Putin in 2001. Environmentalists say their country cannot even handle its own nuclear waste safely, and until problems with Russian waste are solved, waste from anywhere else should not be imported. (source: Environmental News Service; 26 April)

In London, Irish protesters commemorated the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl by bombarding Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prince Charles with postcards demanding the closure of Britain's Sellafield nuclear plant. Ali Hewson, the wife of Irish rock star Bono of the band U2 stated, "Sellafield has the potential to be 80 times the size of the Chernobyl accident." More than 1.2 million postcards reading "Tony, look me in the eye and tell me I'm safe," were sent from Irish households for delivery on 26 April. Sellafield, which houses some 75 tons of plutonium, has been an ongoing source of tension between Ireland and Britain because it is a source of pollution on the Irish coast and prone to accident.

>From 6-8 May, Norway will host talks with 20 countries on how to cooperate in the case of a Chernobyl-style nuclear disaster. Experts discuss ways to implement conventions on early notification and assistance in nuclear accidents. Countries attending include Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Nordic nations, the US. Russia has said it is unable to attend but is willing to contribute to later work.

Resources on Chernobyl:

Graph of Chernobyl Fallout

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

Chernobyl Children's Project

http://www.adiccp.org/

Chernobyl: Ten Years On Radiological and Health Impact

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/welcome.html

Chernobyl radiation disaster information

http://www.chernobyl.com/

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
You've heard this? Do you have any statistical evidence? I don't think this is true at all. I'm not even sure if people knew how many different illnesses were in fact all just different forms of cancer 200 years ago. On the contrary, it likely IS true - for the reason you stated: Besides, you have blinders on. What did these people die from then, if not from cancer? Was the life expectancy the same then as it was today? People didn't die from cancer 100 years ago because they quite simply didn't live long enough to get it.

Thats a pretty basic error, theoryprocess - as, quite frankly, are most of your errors.

[chroot]

Originally posted by russ_watters
People didn't die from cancer 100 years ago because they quite simply didn't live long enough to get it.
Precisely, that's what I was leading him to see...

- Warren

[theroyprocess]

So far as the cancer rate estimate of 200 years ago I
remember from decades ago....why do you presume the
study did not take into account death from other causes?
There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can.

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
So far as the cancer rate estimate of 200 years ago I
remember from decades ago....why do you presume the
study did not take into account death from other causes?
Because, as a scientist, I cannot trust someone else's assumptions -- ever. If you can't provide evidence that the researchers actually performed their analysis correctly, their conclusions are useless. I'm sorry, but you remembering something from a paper you read decades ago just won't cut it for "scientific evidence."
There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can.
Of course. In industry, people strive for doses that are ALAP -- As Low As Possible. This is just common sense.

- Warren

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can. Clearly. But you don't understand what that means: Virtually all of the radiation you are exposed to you CAN'T avoid. And the amount of that radiation that comes from man-made sources is too low to measure. So wear sunscreen. Heck, wear lead underwear. It won't keep you from getting colon cancer.

Though I won't say it as bluntly as Warren, I too wonder where you get your misconceptions. I said in the beginning of the thread that I hoped to help educate the ignorant. But that isn't you. You have clearly made a great effort to gather all of the INCORRECT information you can on the subject. Through the course of your research, I am CERTAIN you must have accidentally stumbled upon mountains of correct information and conclusions. Why you choose to believe wrong information and wrong conclusions, I can't begin to understand, much less help you fix. Is it conscious - do you know the truth but have an adjenda you want to pursue so you consciously choose to ignore the truth? Or is it unconscious - do you have some sort of bias or blindness or fear that doesn't allow you to recognize the truth when you see it or reach logical conclusions when you do have correct information (you even cited information that supports what I said - your 10 years after Chernobyl link)? I just don't know.

Those who are ignorant and willing to learn or have incorrect ideas and are willing to learn I can help. Those who have incorrect ideas and are not willing to learn, I can do nothing for. Fortunately, there are a lot more of the former than the latter.

[theroyprocess]

Go to Chernobyl...talk to the people...go to the hospitals,
talk to the doctors if they arn't too afraid to speak.
Have a nice mushroom omelette...and check it with your
Geiger counter.

It will happen again...somewhere.

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Go to Chernobyl...talk to the people...go to the hospitals,
talk to the doctors if they arn't too afraid to speak.
Have a nice mushroom omelette...and check it with your
Geiger counter.

It will happen again...somewhere.
Oh no! Boogedy-boogedy! Beep, beep, Ritchie!

- Warren

[theroyprocess]

Can't fool mother nature...and get away with it !

Human Sperm In Dramatic Decline Scientists Warn
By Aaron Derfel Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com 7-3-1

Scientists from around the world are alarmed by a
dramatic increase in genetically damaged human sperm -
a trend that is not only causing infertility in men,
but also childhood cancers in the offspring of those
who can reproduce.

It's now estimated that up to 85 per cent of the
sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged, a
leading authority on the subject revealed yesterday at
an international conference being held in Montreal.

"That's very unusual," said John Aitken, head of
biological sciences at the University of Newcastle in
Australia.

"If you were to take a rat or a mouse or a rabbit,
usually more than 80 per cent of their sperm would be
normal."

For the last 20 years, scientists have known about
declining sperm counts. But researchers are now
learning that the quality of human sperm is steadily
eroding, and might be causing birth defects as well
as brain cancer and leukemia in children.

Abnormal sperm is also being blamed for a global
increase in testicular cancer - a disease that strikes
men in their 30s. Scientists believe that when a
DNA-damaged sperm fertilizes a woman's egg, it can
trigger a mutation of a key gene in the embryo.

And even if men today can reproduce, their damaged
sperm might lead to infertility in their male progeny,
Aitken suggested. "You're likely to see lots of
diseases that are related to poorer semen quality."

Scientists suspect a wide range of environmental
causes for the abnormal sperm - from exposure to
pesticides and heavy metals to electromagnetic
radiation.

"We're all exposed to 10 times more electromagnetic
radiation than our forefathers," Aitken said. "It's
all the electrical appliances we use, including
microwave phones."

There is a consensus in the scientific community
that men who smoke cause damage to their sperm, and
that this might be responsible for childhood cancers.
"If you are a man and you smoke, your semen profile
won't be obviously affected," Aitken said. "You'll
still have lots of sperm swimming around and you'll be
fertile. But the DNA in your sperm
nucleus will be fragmented."

The average ejaculate of human sperm contains 80
million spermatazoa, each genetically programmed to
fertilize a woman's egg. Scientists examining human
sperm have discovered that not only are sperm counts
on
the decline, but that the vast majority of sperm is
sluggish, poorly structured, their DNA fragmented and
that they generate a lot of cellular waste called free
radicals.

"Generally speaking, everything is bad with the
sperm," Aitken said.

Fortunately for most couples, it's the undamaged
or least damaged sperm that tends to fertilize the
egg.

As a result of increasing male infertility,
scientists have developed a new technique to help
couples conceive. It's called Intra-Cytoplasmic
Sperm Injection (ICSI). In the lab, a technologist
will take from the would-be father a single sperm, or
even a cell that is on its way to becoming a sperm,
and fertilize it in the test tube with the woman's
egg. The resulting embryo is then transferred to the
woman's uterus.

Dr. Keith Jarvi, of the University of Toronto-Mount
Sinai Hospital, said the ICSI technique has
revolutionized the treatment of male infertility. But
he wondered about the health outcomes of the ICSI
children.

That human sperm is of poorer quality than that of
other mammals is not surprising. The human species is
the only one that wears clothes, and healthy sperm
need to be kept a couple of degrees cooler than the
full body temperature. But clothing alone is not
responsible for the extent of abnormal human sperm,
Aitken argued.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/010622/5081326.html

Aaron Derfel's E-mail address is
<aderfel@thegazette.southam.ca>
______________________________
(c) 2001, The Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com


=====
"We're all downwinders!" Check
out http://www.downwinders.org

[chroot]

Uh right... my cell phone is making my nuts sick? This is retarded. Where do you find this crap?

- Warren

[theroyprocess]

FYI

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.

[theroyprocess]

RF radiation health threat news story from Scotland.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print32689

[theroyprocess]

NewScientist.com


Sea birds drop radioactivity on land


19:00 02 January 03
Andy Coghlan


Droppings from seabirds could be introducing radioactive isotopes into the food chain. That is the conclusion of researchers who found high levels of radioactivity in droppings and plants on an island close to the Arctic.

If tests confirm that the guano is bringing radioactivity ashore, it will need to be factored into pollution assessments that gauge radiation risks to human health and ecosystems. The risk is probably low at temperate latitudes, but could be much greater in the fragile wastes of the Arctic. There, guano is a major source of nutrients for plants, which are then eaten by animals.

Radioactive material gets into the oceans from natural geological processes on the sea floor, but radioactive isotopes from human nuclear activity can add to this. In the Arctic, radioactive material has been dumped in the Kara Sea to the east of the Barents Sea.

And radioactive material from nuclear accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster has reached the seas, along with particles from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.


Vast piles


The evidence that bird droppings are bringing radioactivity ashore comes from Mark Dowdall and his team at the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority in Tromsø. They spent two years between 2000 and 2002 collecting soil, vegetation and guano samples from a remote coastal inlet called Kongsfjord on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, about halfway between the northern tip of Norway and the North Pole.

The samples of bird droppings were from vast piles produced by two colonies of seabirds supporting kittiwakes, puffins and fulmars. Tests showed the guano contained 10 times the concentration of radioactive isotopes found at other sites on the island.

The researchers found unusually high concentrations of the natural radioisotopes uranium-238 and radium-226, which decay to form more hazardous isotopes. But they also found high concentrations of the isotope caesium-137, which does not occur naturally. Dowdall suspects this is from the fallout of atmospheric nuclear tests carried out decades ago.

Tests on vegetation growing near the guano also revealed high concentrations of radioactive material. "It means that low levels in the Arctic environment don't stay low, they become concentrated," he says.


Fish and crustaceans


Dowdall believes the birds eat contaminated fish and crustaceans, and the radioactive material is then concentrated in their faeces. The extra nutrients the droppings provide encourage plants to grow, and the plants take up and concentrate the radioactive material.

This poses a problem, because plants make up the bulk of the diet of many animals, especially that of indigenous reindeer. "We're talking about a very vulnerable environment, and when reindeer eat the [contaminated] vegetation, it's in the food chain," says Dowdall.

Environmental researchers are intrigued by the finding. "I don't think people have looked at this particular pathway before," says Scott Fowler at the International Atomic Energy Authority's Marine Environmental Lab in Monaco.

However, in 1999, pigeons roosting in contaminated buildings on the site of British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield reprocessing complex in Cumbria were found to contain 40 times the European Union's safe limit of caesium-137.


19:00 02 January 03

[russ_watters]

Ok theoryprocess, enough with the flooding. It isn't helping you any. And why don't you read your own link - the one titled "Chernobyl: Ten Years On Radiological and Health Impact." It confirms what I said about the [LACK OF] severetiy of the accident. 38 deaths from acute (immediate) radiation sickness (several other people died in the accident, but they were killed by the fire) and a statistically significant increase in only ONE type of cancer in the immediate area of the accident (several hundred cases of a curable form of thyroid cancer).

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

With the radio tower thing, I'm also getting a much clearer picture of where you are coming from - you're a "dark ages" environmentalist. Someone who is anti-technology in general. Well, my friend, the first place to start is always with yourself - you posted all those floods with a computer. And [gasp] it uses electricity. There are several "dark ages" environmentalists who I have heard of who have gotten rid of all of their technology and gone to live in national parks. Those at least I respect - they aren't hypocrites.

[enigma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.


I'll second that. This is not your personal soapbox. Unless and until you can answer that question, anymore of your "articles" will be deleted.

This thread did have a point before you took it upon yourself to derail it.

[theroyprocess]

Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites....or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough.

http://www.mothersalert.org/victims.html

[enigma]

But there has only been one Chernobyl, and 70,000 die each year from hacking death due to coal plants. Chernobyl happened once, killing far less than 70K per year. Which is the greater evil?!?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites....or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough. On rereading the article YOU PROVIDED, I must correct myself - the number is 31, not 38. And that includes those who burned to death (ie died from causes other than radiation).

In any case, your answer is insufficient. Feel free to explain yourself and answer the question I posed, but further rants will be deleted.

And congratulations - in the two months I have been a mentor, your post was the first I have felt the need to edit.

Also, the last article you posted sounds complicated and technical enough to fool people who don't read it closely enough (thats probably why it is made to sound so complicated and technical), but it contains glaring errors in the assumptions and calculations. I would hope though that most lay people picked up on the fact that the title doesn't match the later statements - 1.2 vs 1.3 billion (overall casualties).

Also using the rate of 10 million and doing a reality check on how it relates to the 1.2 billion number brings up a glaring mismatch, seeing as how nuclear power/weapons have only been around for about 50 years. If the injury/death rate scaled linearly (it wouldn't - it would scale geometrically, reducing the total further) and the earth's population doubled since 1950, that would equal a total of 125 million casualties. Her own calculations don't match each other by an order of magnitude.

Further, such numbers are so high we would see them - clustered around nuclear power plants. The assumption of a uniform exposure of the entire earths population besides being preposterous allows her to ignore the fact that there is no statistically relevant increase in cancers in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.

[theroyprocess]

Not technical enough...or too technical...here is a
good source of material that the layman can understand
but no doubt you will find some reason to dismiss it.
It is very rare for scientists to get enough funding to
do proper 'independent' studies.


EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:


Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?

[theroyprocess]

I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct. That is illogical, but I thank you for finally providing your opinion.

[HAVOC451]

While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted (http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030822.asp) the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ? (http://www.greens.org/s-r/10/10-07.html)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted (http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030822.asp) the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ? (http://www.greens.org/s-r/10/10-07.html) The part of this issue that has me most upset is the 50% of the electricity in the US that comes from COAL. This is the leading cause of air pollution and the leading cause of those 70,000 deaths, not to mention global warming and all the other effects of air pollution.

As far as the Clean Air Act goes, we should immediately do some more sweeping things such as require MASSIVE reductions in emissions by coal plants. Such things are possible, but expensive. And I think expensive is good - it will help the general public see the issue in terms they care more about since clearly people don't care enough about air pollution alone. The same goes for blackouts - blackouts are good because they show people the importance of making sound energy policy decisions.

The US is a "squeaky wheel" democracy. People only care about the issues that they percieve to be doing them immediate harm. Coal power isn't even on the radar for most people.

[RuiMonteiro]

Originally posted by russ_watters
True. And assuming your 20% number is right (sounds about right) it would require about 150 more nuclear plants to replace our existing coal plants.


So, there would be around 250 nuclear plants. So the quantities of radioactive elements released to the environment would increase a lot (and this only considering the quantities released officially, not counting accidents, like happened on norway (i think it´s norway) where a nuclear usine over there released, illegaly, to the environment radioactive elements during nine years directy to the environment, and at the end of this time, they said it was an 'accident'), and if there are more nuclear plants there is a need for more enriched uranium, and as i already said, the process to enrich uranium releases great amounts of green house gases, plus all the unnecessary elements.



Given the political climate, you are probably right - it won't be a realistic possibility any time soon. You never know though - if New York style blackouts start happening every week ten years from now (a real possibility), that just might change the political climate.
The difference between what I propose and what the "environmentalists" propose however is that my solution is real, would work, would reduce pollution, would not require massive changes in our energy usage, and would save lives. Environmentalist's plans don't even get to the "would work" stage.

The New York blackout happened due to bad managment on the energetic network. The US does not have a good energetic network and a simple failure in a power plant is enought to put milions in the dark.

There are several countrys with a very good energetic network like France or the country i live - Portugal - and our energetic resources are quite different, where France energetic resources are around 80% supplied by nuclear plants, while Portugal doesn´t have a nuclear plant, my point with this is that just because blackouts happen that doesn´t implie that the solution is to increase nuclear powers, an investment in the energetic network supply would do the work in the US (and this has nothing to do with the energetic needs of each country, it´s just a matter of organisation on the network supply).
I´m not saying the political climate would never change, but having in mind that it´s all about money, it´s very hard to happen, at least serious investments and dramatic changes would not happen, and considering this facts on how the New York blackout could have been prevented is just to say there isn´t a linear relation between the energetic production and the blackouts.



Rui.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here are some articles on coal pollution:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2002/tl_lownoxcombustors.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/
http://www.ceednet.org/cct_brochure/page03.asp
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=75

[enigma]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair.


I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint.


It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted (http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030822.asp) the Clean Air Act?


Yes. I'm furious with Bush, and the Clean Air Act is one of the many reasons why.


Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ? (http://www.greens.org/s-r/10/10-07.html)

I didn't know about that issue, but there are major issues with the health of coal miners as well.

However, anecdotal evidence does not prove a case. No data, no case. My mother had breast cancer as well, and she's never been anywhere near a Uranium mine.

[theroyprocess]

If this isn't premeditated murder...I don't know what is !

More to my point that the "invisibility" of radiation makes
the control and strict regulation of radiation a priority
above all else.

http://www.nirs.org/radrecycle/recycleupdate31303.htm

[enigma]

OH NO!!!!!!

You mean they're putting radioactive material into our consumer products!?!?!?!?!

You mean radioactive materials like CARBON-14!?!?!?!?!?!

Damn, that stuff is present in EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!

Better get started on the regulation of that stuff.

Ignorant knee-jerk reactionary babble is what your links are. Each and every one of them.

[enigma]

OHMIGOD, I forgot about that awful radiating sunlight!!!!!!

Sunlight causes more cancer each year than all the pollution ever caused by man. We need to get started with the regulation of that EVIL, EVIL, premeditated-murdering Sun.

If you are exposed to X (plus or minus 1%) amount of background radiation every single day of your life, then increasing that amount by X*10^-6 is not going to make one lick of difference. The definition of 'statistically insignificant'. You should learn some statistics. Seriously.

[enigma]

We need to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

That stuff is in everything... even our FOOD SUPPLY.

It causes frequent urination. It is a major component in acid rain. It is present in septic systems and they have no problem putting it in baby food.
It's possible to die from it if you are given too much of it.
Massive amounts have even been known to destroy the infrastructure of houses!
Certain isotopes of it are radioactive as well...

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

*sheesh*

[theroyprocess]

Back on topic....is nuclear power more dependable...
not in Japan.

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1928646

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RuiMonteiro
The New York blackout happened due to bad managment on the energetic network. The US does not have a good energetic network and a simple failure in a power plant is enought to put milions in the dark. Thats only the trigger. The root cause is that our power grid is very near maximum capacity. Windstorms and breaking tree branches happen all the time. The cascade failure is a result of one failure leaving the next piece of the grid underpowered. That piece goes offline to keep from damaging the equipment. Then the next piece has to carry the extra load and it goes offline to keep from damaging its equipment. Et cetera, et cetera. What you probably didn't read about unless you live near Philly is that the cascade was stopped by PECO - a control center in Southeastern PA saw the cascade coming and disconnected the umbilicals connecting PECO's section to the rest of the grid. Otherwise the cascade would have continued down the eastern seaboard.

Anyway, an overloaded grid is what keeps a cascade going. Heck, read it in the link theroyprocess just provided about Japan. The ministry, which oversees the electricity industry, is gearing up for a power shortage that could leave Tokyo facing unprecedented blackouts this summer, when demand for electricity reaches its peak. The reason: Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the world's largest private electricity company, had to close its 17 nuclear reactors... Think its bad now? Its only going to get worse unless we do something about it.

I'll find you the stats, but the demand for electricity virtually everywhere in the western world is growing faster than the generating capacity and has been for some time. The primary cause is the lack of new nuclear power plants. So, there would be around 250 nuclear plants. So the quantities of radioactive elements released to the environment would increase a lot Rui, "so small its not detectable above background radiation" - times 2.5 - is still "so small its not detectable above background radiation."

[Nereid]

Hey enigma (and theroyprocess, if she's listening),

You should also recommend that folk abandon Denver, ski resorts, and other high places and move into the New York subway (people in England, Paris, Shanghai, etc ... please choose your favourite underground rail system). There will be a reduction in the exposure of humans to ionising radiation - from cosmic rays - many million (billion?) times greater than that which would result from closing all nuclear power plants.

[HAVOC451]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The part of this issue that has me most upset is the 50% of the electricity in the US that comes from COAL. This is the leading cause of air pollution and the leading cause of those 70,000 deaths, not to mention global warming and all the other effects of air pollution.

As far as the Clean Air Act goes, we should immediately do some more sweeping things such as require MASSIVE reductions in emissions by coal plants. Such things are possible, but expensive.

Quite right. This leads directly to why I brought up the Clean Air Act in the first place. The law was changed specifically to exempt those coal burning powerplants from having to install the systems that would make them operate cleanly. Many of the monied interests that lobbied the government for changes in the Clean Air Act are the the very same interests "helping" Dick Cheny write the nations energy policy. Those interests would love to resurect their nuclear power divisions.

Originally posted by enigma
Yes. I'm furious with Bush, and the Clean Air Act is one of the many reasons why.

Kudos, I'm encouraged.

Originally posted by enigma
I didn't know about that issue, but there are major issues with the health of coal miners as well.

However, anecdotal evidence does not prove a case. No data, no case.

I didn't link that anecdote to prove the case, I only note that the case is there.
Coal miners have been taking it in the teeth (http://members.tripod.com/~RedRobin2/index-29.html) for a long time. In many ways the only group more marginalised and ignored than coal miners are native americans living down wind/stream from a uranium mine.

[Nereid]

HAVOC451 wrote: I didn't link that anecdote to prove the case, I only note that the case is there. While not exactly a group in the sense of coal miners and native Americans, have you considered those with particularly vulnerable respiratory systems? IIRC, there are a really nasty class of diesel emissions (very fine particulates) that Big Oil is trying to have everyone ignore. It'd be no surprise to learn there is legislation in many countries (not only the US) which exempts Big Oil (and Big Auto) from accepting responsibility for these emissions.

[theroyprocess]

If the Russians were dumping their nuclear waste into commercial
products like industry wants to here in the USA...we would smirk
at them and say "it could never happen here!". BUT IT IS!

Activists Make Nuclear Waste a Russian Election Issue

MOSCOW, Russia, November 18, 2003 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2003/2003-11-18-19.asp#anchor3

[flood deleted]

See also http://nucnews.net - NucNews Links and Archives

[HAVOC451]

Nereid,
I have.
I agree with you on this.
Diesel emissions have been exempted far too long. This is slowly beginning to changs.

[RuiMonteiro]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats only the trigger. The root cause is that our power grid is very near maximum capacity. Windstorms and breaking tree branches happen all the time. The cascade failure is a result of one failure leaving the next piece of the grid underpowered. That piece goes offline to keep from damaging the equipment. Then the next piece has to carry the extra load and it goes offline to keep from damaging its equipment. Et cetera, et cetera. What you probably didn't read about unless you live near Philly is that the cascade was stopped by PECO - a control center in Southeastern PA saw the cascade coming and disconnected the umbilicals connecting PECO's section to the rest of the grid. Otherwise the cascade would have continued down the eastern seaboard.

Anyway, an overloaded grid is what keeps a cascade going. Heck, read it in the link theroyprocess just provided about Japan. Think its bad now? Its only going to get worse unless we do something about it.



Exactly because there was a cascade failure it shows that the energetic network supply isn´t very good. When, for some reason, a power plant stops instantanly it should be enough (that is with the proper systems) that there wouldn´t happen a cascade failure. This is possible if a great number of power plants are interconnected in a way to prevent this, there are modern systems that can do this.

And by the way, what you probably didn´t read is that i don´t live near Philly or any other place in the US, i live in Portugal, you probably didn´t even read the entirity of my post...



Rui.

[Nereid]

IMHO, the root cause is bad regulation and wilful ignorance of economics. Behind that there is, without a doubt, the hand of Big Oil.

A good infrastructure should be able to isolate local failures, irrespective of how heavily loaded it is; it's surely not a very challenging technical problem.

A competitive market should be able to meet demand, unless the regulatory barriers are inefficient.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
A good infrastructure should be able to isolate local failures, irrespective of how heavily loaded it is; it's surely not a very challenging technical problem. The power grid actually presents an enormously complicated technical problem. There are a hundred or so suppliers, a thousand or so power plants, and around a billion services (est). And the resilience of the grid is directly related to the excess capacity.

Think about it - if you have a 96% load factor and 10 power plants of equal size, what happens if you lose a plant? Now you are 6% over capacity. The grid is designed so in this situation, you pull the extra power for the adjacent sections of the grid. But what happens if THEY are at 96% capacity? Now they don't have enough power either.

Thats a very conservative illustration of how our power grid works. The load factor is roughly correct, but the power plants - well, there are more of them, but the few nuclear power plants are what produce the vast majority of the power (in the northeast anyway). Trip a single line coming off of one plant and you're screwed. The grid will try to adjust and fail because it can't adjust fast enough. The laws of physics are against it - once you have detected the spike, its too late.

That said, there is a design issue there: when there is enough spare capacity, a grid system is a good thing - you CAN get power from elsewhere to cover your failure. Thats what its designed for. And thats the reason why major blackouts are so rare in the US. But load the grid to its limits and the grid works against itself - it causes the cascade failures we have seen recently and makes the rare power failure epic in scale.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The power grid actually presents an enormously complicated technical problem. There are a hundred or so suppliers, a thousand or so power plants, and around a billion services (est). And the resilience of the grid is directly related to the excess capacity.

Think about it - if you have a 96% load factor and 10 power plants of equal size, what happens if you lose a plant? Now you are 6% over capacity. The grid is designed so in this situation, you pull the extra power for the adjacent sections of the grid. But what happens if THEY are at 96% capacity? Now they don't have enough power either.

Thats a very conservative illustration of how our power grid works. The load factor is roughly correct, but the power plants - well, there are more of them, but the few nuclear power plants are what produce the vast majority of the power (in the northeast anyway). Trip a single line coming off of one plant and you're screwed. The grid will try to adjust and fail because it can't adjust fast enough. The laws of physics are against it - once you have detected the spike, its too late.

That said, there is a design issue there: when there is enough spare capacity, a grid system is a good thing - you CAN get power from elsewhere to cover your failure. Thats what its designed for. And thats the reason why major blackouts are so rare in the US. But load the grid to its limits and the grid works against itself - it causes the cascade failures we have seen recently and makes the rare power failure epic in scale. Been thinking about this a bit. A telecoms network is considerably more complex than a power grid, and subject to all kinds of nasty shocks. Yet a great deal has been done to make them very resilient. Of course, the analogy is quite imperfect at the direct-comparison level (there's no equivalent to IP in power grids, for example), but perhaps at a meta-level some lessons could be learned?

For example, to what extent are the key generators and main parts of the grid under constant surveillance by AI/neural network-based systems looking for incipient failure? IIRC, some US airline maintenance department built such a system for detecting failures in jet engines. After some time, they not only substantially reduced the amount of maintenance that needed to be done, but were able to turn the service into a profit centre, by offering it to other airlines.

Presumably planned shutdowns would cause considerably less disruption than unplanned ones; a good grid-wide fault management system may result in more planned shutdowns, but that'd be a small price to pay for avoidance of the kind of east coast disruption earlier this year. Indeed windstorms and tree branches are somewhat unpredictable, but if they constitute the majority of root causes, then remedial action (and proactive reduction of future likelihood) is pretty easy to characterise. After all, it's not as if we don't know where trees grow, or the seasonal distribution of wind strength (including variance), or the short-term (hours, minutes) likelihood of windstorms.

once you have detected the spike, its too late andWhat you probably didn't read about unless you live near Philly is that the cascade was stopped by PECO - a control center in Southeastern PA saw the cascade coming and disconnected the umbilicals connecting PECO's section to the rest of the grid. Otherwise the cascade would have continued down the eastern seaboard. If PECO (a.k.a. 'the white knight'?) saw it coming, why couldn't the same sort of control systems be installed elsewhere? How about building a more distributed type of control system, better able to make local disconnections?

If there's one thing engineers are good at it's solving problems, often very creatively. Russ, do you know if a tiger team of top engineers has been tasked to look at solving the 'grid failure' problem, with broad terms of reference?

[wimms]

Telecoms network is not comparison at all. It doesn't fail when there is lack of capacity, it just slows down. With overload, it just drops some of calls. With energy this doesn't work, some things just physically blow up if overloaded, and no way to selectively drop few electrons, if it goes, so goes whole branch.

And, telecoms solved their quality issues very straightforward - they design in at least 2 times overcapacity.

Actually, being somewhat from telecom industry (networking) and having seen issues that grids have to face, i can say that telecoms networks are completely piece of cake compared to issues grids have to face. It is SO much easier to deal with issues in telecom.

[Nereid]

I did say: Of course, the analogy is quite imperfect at the direct-comparison level (there's no equivalent to IP in power grids, for example), but perhaps at a meta-level some lessons could be learned? Just an example: what use of AI/neural networks is there in the fault/performance/assignment/configuration components of the grid companies' network management systems? AFAIK, that in IP network systems (e.g. from Cisco) is trivial compared with what's in a modern system from Lucent, MetaSolv, Telcordia ... even TTI, which were developed in an era of scarce resourses and much higher cost of failure than today's IP-based data networks.

You're right, the answer to unpredictable resource demand in IP networks is massive over-provisioning (how else could it be done, given the wildly unpredictable nature of the traffic?), and graceful degredation, with some serious work going into SLAs and contracts.

What, essentially, are the key differences between a telecoms network and an electricity grid, in terms of OOM greater difficulty re fault management?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
... and If PECO (a.k.a. 'the white knight'?) saw it coming, why couldn't the same sort of control systems be installed elsewhere? I had a conversation with my dad about this last weekend and I wasn't quite right on this. He's a utility cost consultant and just so happened to take a tour of the facility I was talking about. He said it was pretty cool - reminded him of what NORAD is supposed to look like: high security, underground, and set up like a war room with big displays in the front of a theater shaped control room.

The name escapes me right now and I can't find it on Google, but its not just PECO - its a joint effort of a number of power companies in PA - the PA power cooperative or something like that. Basically, it monitors a portion of the grid and allows the companies to transfer energy between them. Supposedly people from other countries (and the DOE) are studying it as a model for how to control a power grid.

In any case, yes, other people could have done the same thing as this control center did and pulled the plug on their sections of the grid. No one wants to do that though - if you're First Energy (the company that started the cascade) and you have a choice between blacking out your part of the grid and trying to get it from the adjacent parts, what are you going to do? It was too late for them either way, but in a failed effort to help themselves (and by others trying to help them), they let the failure spread. So maybe its just a matter of upgrading the decision making process (the people) to deal with that type of situation.If there's one thing engineers are good at it's solving problems, often very creatively. Russ, do you know if a tiger team of top engineers has been tasked to look at solving the 'grid failure' problem, with broad terms of reference? Doubt it. Certainly the government is looking at the issue, but we all know how effective they are. The thing in PA exists for economic reasons - it makes it easier for the companies to swap power. Its only a biproduct of that that it is such a good grid control station.

For that phone analogy, its the same and its not. For one thing, the phone system runs at a fraction of its capacity. And when it does get filled, they have the same sort of problems as the power grid has - calls don't go through, systems crash, etc. Usually though, its like wimms said - you just drop a few calls. And think about your cell phone: what kind of absolute reliability do you have, ie how often do you get a dropped call or call that doesn't go through. Imagine if the power grid had the same (lack of) reliability. It would be crippling. Despite things like the NY blackout, the reliability of power grids in the western world is absolutely extrordinary.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Nereid
AFAIK, that in IP network systems (e.g. from Cisco) is trivial compared with what's in a modern system from Lucent, MetaSolv, Trivial isn't necessarily bad/undeveloped. Its a sign that issues to be dealt with are much simpler.

You're right, the answer to unpredictable resource demand in IP networks is massive over-provisioning (how else could it be done, given the wildly unpredictable nature of the traffic?)Actually this isn't necessary answer. IP traffic can be very well oversubscribed and priotisation of traffic type is easy. Thus in case of network degradation, first to suffer would be least important traffic. Telecoms overprovision just to avoid the hassle, it makes life so much easier. Often, they are forced to due to completely unrelated issues, for eg. you can buy equipment and lines in specific bunches, and you need to make investments so that they can cope with growing traffic in few years aswell. 2 times overcapacity because they plan for loosing half of their capacity in case of major cable failure.

What, essentially, are the key differences between a telecoms network and an electricity grid, in terms of OOM greater difficulty re fault management?There is one essential key difference thats behind all others. When you switch on consumer device, power starts to flow, and grid has no control over it other than cutting off completely. In telecom, every single node can control exactly how much traffic, what traffic and when does it flow. It throttles back traffic. Thats the main reason why overloads are "soft" in telecom. Nothing really bad happens with overload. With power, every single overload is critical event, because you can't really limit power consumption, you can either attach another power source or shut down the branch (or face physical destruction). One can lead to cascade of overloads as Russ explained, another is basically blackout of area.

So, the only way to deal with overloads in grid is to AVOID the overload. That needs ideally complete knowledge of all main lines and their load, and is quite computationally intensive to make right decisions, that in addition has to be made damn fast. In IP networks, each node is independant and quite safe, capacity steering is merely a quality issue of monthly capacity planning, not critical survival issue.
In IP, you have huge network and rough estimates of capacity planning. In grid, you have even larger network, and requirement for instant and precise decisions.

I'm not sure, but isn't grid actually implemented after successful example of telecom networks?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wimms
So, the only way to deal with overloads in grid is to AVOID the overload. That needs ideally complete knowledge of all main lines and their load, and is quite computationally intensive to make right decisions, that in addition has to be made damn fast. Well, either that or what I said before: have enough excess capacity that you don't have to make those decisions and can handle a little hickup without taking any action. The drop in excess capacity is the key difference between the way the grid handles fluctuations today and the way it did 10 years ago. And the solution as I said before is obvious....

.....get back to nuclear power!!

[Nereid]

Russ, wimms,

Many thanks for your replies to my ignorant posts. I see now that introducing telecoms was, on balance, more of a distraction than a benefit.

Back to my original comment ("A good infrastructure should be able to isolate local failures, irrespective of how heavily loaded it is; it's surely not a very challenging technical problem."), and a (hopefully!) wiser re-casting of it.

this is a 0-th order take; many devils - a.k.a. details - are licking their lips in anticipation of ambushes on the road ahead

Demand varies seasonally (~100 days characteristic time), weekly (~10 days), daily, and hourly. A significant part of this demand is predictable; much detailed historical data is available to characterise variance about (modelled) means within all periods.

Broadly speaking, supply is available to meet all but peak hourly demand. However, there are unplanned supply failures, and the characteristic time for indications of incipient failure ranges from days ("that unit sure has been acting strange!") to milliseconds (or less). Further, a great deal of historical data is available to characterise the root causes, frequency, and 'phenomenology' of all failure modes.

Technology to detect, analyse, and transmit useful information about demand, supply, and failure already exists. As long as the response times are greater than 1 second, 'pre-canned' or algorithmically-based automatic response decisions can be implemented. These automatic decisions can, in principle, be optimised according to a wide range of equipment, supply, demand, down-stream impact, ... conditions. These optimisations can be performed both 'off-line' (independent of the particulars of the event) or 'on-line'.

... and that's as far as technology could take us, in a reactive sense.

Proactively, we could fairly accurately characterise future demand, supply, and improvements in failure detection and remediation capabilities. Through risk analyses (crudely, prioritisation by the 'impact' metric - probability of event x cost of event), main areas to be addressed can be confidently identified (and research investment targeted to improving the probability and cost estimates of the top 3 risks, say). Installing, testing, and refining equipment, maintenance schedules, operations proceedures, etc then follows, using standard QA methodologies.

Finally, the key dimension, economics. Crudely, economics is all about how to better match supply and demand, though price. In the case of grid-supplied electricity, IMHO, there is enormous opportunity for basic economic principles to be better applied. For example, as wimms said "When you switch on consumer device, power starts to flow, and grid has no control over it other than cutting off completely". Yet no (residential) consumer has ever been asked what price they would be prepared to pay for 99% (or four/five/six/seven 9s) availability. With today's technology, I would guess, a multi-tiered set of service contracts could be easily implemented - from 'el-cheapo' electricity (but can have supply cut for up to 10 hours with no notice), to guarranteed 99.9999% availability and 10 seconds restoration in the event of failure (for a VERY large fee).

This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I said "the root cause is bad regulation and wilful ignorance of economics. Behind that there is, without a doubt, the hand of Big Oil [...]
A competitive market should be able to meet demand, unless the regulatory barriers are inefficient."

[xeguy]

Interesting thread. I think the Germans are shooting themselves in the foot if they continue with this policy. The nuclear bogeyman looms large over everything thanks to the scaremongers. There's a reason why they dropped the "nuclear" from MRI!

Nuclear power = good. Let it power our space probes and homes.

Fusion will be here...eventually...

It's only a few years overdue. ;-)

[wimms]

Nereid,

what you described, looks good on paper, with 15 minutes of thought put into it. After you put about 1000 hours of thought into it, it would look like total nightmare to you. I don't think we can come up with something top people of energetics haven't thought of. Lets mean no disrespect to them. There are soo many things we can't even imagine _needs_ to be thought about.

Reality checks. Technology exists, on paper, but it doesn't think. People do. To program all that people can costs more than its worth. To install all the needed technology is too expensive, and consumer isn't willing to pay for it. Rare epic blackouts cost less. Economics? Case closed.

As to historical data, yeah, there is plenty of it. So plenty, that no blody mortal can make any sense of it anymore. For statistical analysis it isn't precise, structured nor standardised enough. Its best output is a "gut feeling" of experienced dudes.

No residental customer is ever asked because residental customer exists only because of regulation. As always, its business where money is, and it needs all the nines. To install residential cut-off switches is insane, and only adds to costs, because individual households matter nothing in any of the events, and ability to switch off zillions of homes as per individual sla isn't easy nor cheap. The "el-cheapo" electricity would cost more to electric companies than "el-normo" one. Guess why they aren't eager to offer choice?

For a VERY large fee, electricity providers are not needed. There are factories that build their own nuclear plants nearby and sell excess energy to the grid, and use grid as a backup. no ****. They have all the nines, and even get PAYED for it.

Well, yeah, looks like I'm arguing. Infact, basic idea is that the whole thing is too damn complex, that its cheaper to live with it than to fix it. And the cheapest way to fix it is to "take the larger hammer".

[Nereid]

Thanks wimms, these kinds of reality checks are very welcome! No residental customer is ever asked because residental customer exists only because of regulation. [...] To install residential cut-off switches is insane, and only adds to costs, because individual households matter nothing in any of the events, and ability to switch off zillions of homes as per individual sla isn't easy nor cheap. The "el-cheapo" electricity would cost more to electric companies than "el-normo" one. The sooner we get the regulations changed the better! Let's start charging 'residential' customers a fee that's closer to the marginal cost of producing the electricity they consume, and offer them choices. With the cost of technology decline (courtesy of Moore's law and globalisation), how long before it becomes cost effective? With entrepreneurial suppliers - perhaps 'virtual' - when will biz cases that offer differentiated residential services begin to make sense? With the extraordinary inefficiencies in the industry, re-regulation (soundely based in economics) would surely open a number of juicy niches to creative capitalists?As always, its business where money is, and it needs all the nines. Hmm, perhaps they need all the nines because they've never had any real choices? If there were a competitive supply market, with a rich range of nines/time-of-day/etc choices, how many CFOs would start suggesting to their CEOs that they seriously consider re-engineering their processes to take advantage of the cost-saving opportunities that have just opened up? Bet we'll never find out until the possibility becomes real enough [;)] Technology exists, on paper, but it doesn't think. People do. To program all that people can costs more than its worth. To install all the needed technology is too expensive, and consumer isn't willing to pay for it. Well, it has happened in airline reservations (when's the last time you spoke with a profitable travel agent?), banking, telecoms ([6)] ), quite a lot of B2B commerce, [8)] ... what is unique about the energy sector?Its best output is a "gut feeling" of experienced dudes. So let's you and I hire them as our technical advisors, once we have the VC funding to start VirtuEnergy [t)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
If there were a competitive supply market... Maybe I'm missing the context here, but in most states now there IS a competitive supply market as a result of "deregulation." I put "deregulation" in quotes because it requires new regulations of course. If done well (Pennsylvania), it leads to a small reduction in energy costs for customers. If done poorly (California) it leads to Enron, doubling of energy prices, and region-wide blackouts. Either way it makes electric power supply a pretty complicated issue for consumers - and thats a pretty lucrative thing for my dad...

[wimms]

Originally posted by Nereid
The sooner we get the regulations changed the better! Let's start charging 'residential' customers a fee that's closer to the marginal cost of producing the electricity they consume, and offer them choices. No problemo. They can offer you electricity closer to the marginal cost of producing it .. AT their plant. You are free to take it somehow and deliver it where you want, the way you want, at costs you want. If it hadn't occured to you yet, then crucial function of regulation is to force development and maintenance of distribution network, that means wires to your home, your town, your area, country, and protecting you from paying insane money to get your electricity to your home.

when will biz cases that offer differentiated residential services begin to make sense?When costs begin to relate to differentiated pricing. Already the case. To get the nines, you pay extra. What you have by default, is a free lunch, payed for by someone who needs the nines. No room for whining, be it down for a week if they like. Epic blackouts impact whole economy, thats why they get the front page.

Hmm, perhaps they need all the nines because they've never had any real choices? Have you ever owned UPS? They need all the nines because downtime costs them money, much more than all the nines they pay for. Please name one crucial business that can run without energy in todays world.

If there were a competitive supply market, with a rich range of nines/time-of-day/etc choices, how many CFOs would start suggesting to their CEOs that they seriously consider re-engineering their processes to take advantage of the cost-saving opportunities that have just opened up? Bet we'll never find out until the possibility becomes real enough How many CFOs today seriously consider building nuclear plant to SELL electricity instead of buying it? Who cares what it costs if its compensated? The only "CFOs" who will seriously consider re-engineering their processes are residential losers who will take advantage of the cost-saving choices to find more opportunities in whining about the choices. Perhaps also that it has damn rare major blackouts.

And, seems its not obvious to you that "nines" are not function of production of energy, but of reliable distribution of it. By competitive supply market, you are implying alternate distribution network, grid. You are welcome to build your own nationwide grid thats better, cheaper, more flexible. There are thousands of energy suppliers waiting for you.

Well, it has happened in airline reservations (when's the last time you spoke with a profitable travel agent?), banking, telecoms ([6)] ), quite a lot of B2B commerce, [8)] ... what is unique about the energy sector? Nothing has happened there. Planes are crashing, banks are robbed, telecoms have outages. Unique to energy sector is that every damn business stops without energy.

[russ_watters]

Nines?

[wimms]

99.9999% uptime guarantee - 6 nines

[Nereid]

Reading the lead News Scan article in the November 2003 Scientific American, I learned that:

-> a significant contributory factor in the August 14 blackout is likely to be the fact that degulation of the industry left transmission "lagg[ing] behind [generation systems] because of the patchwork of interstate regulations and jurisdictions. Many policy and grid experts say that in the short term, the [FEMC] should enact nationwide policies covering transmission systems operation, capacity and investment."

-> "Once the government decides how the grid should operate, 'we have the technology to implement it almost on the shelf or coming down the pipe,' says Paul Grant, science fellow at [EPRI] ..."

-> technologies mentioned include installation of more heat-resistant lines; better communication systems among power stations (e.g. dedicated fibre optics, and GPS-based time-stamps); faster, smarter switches; a master transmission control computer; and automatic, adaptive 'islanding'.

-> on the über-computer, the article notes "[p]ostmortem studies by the industry suggest that such a global view would have prevented about 95 percent of customers losing power during the 1996 blackouts in the western U.S."{I wonder who said this:} A good infrastructure should be able to isolate local failures, irrespective of how heavily loaded it is; it's surely not a very challenging technical problem.

A competitive market should be able to meet demand, unless the regulatory barriers are inefficient. The SciAm article did not mention a need to increase generating capacity.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
-> a significant contributory factor in the August 14 blackout is likely to be the fact that degulation of the industry left transmission "lagg[ing] behind [generation systems] because of the patchwork of interstate regulations and jurisdictions. Many policy and grid experts say that in the short term, the [FEMC] should enact nationwide policies covering transmission systems operation, capacity and investment."

The SciAm article did not mention a need to increase generating capacity. I guess the implicaton there is that regardless of the actual generation capacity, the transmission capacity isn't where it needs to be. So even IF there is enough generation capacity, the lack of adequate transmission capacity will prevent the power from getting where it needs to go.

Sounds like an interesting article - maybe they have it up on their website...

When I was discussing that command center with my dad a month or so ago, we also talked about transmission lines. Near as we can tell there are only 3 lines going from Limerick into Philadelphia and the surrounding counties (I've actually hit one of them several times with a golf ball as its strung over the 5th fairway of a course I frequent). A bad car accident could black out a million people just by knocking down one pole. And a guy with a handful of backpacks of C-4 could take down most of SE PA for a while.

[Nereid]

Sounds like an interesting article - maybe they have it up on their website... try this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000784B6-E5FB-1F86-9B8C83414B7FFE87

[Argentum Vulpes]

I'm slightly disappointed that I did not get on this thread before it turned into a power distribution network debate, so I'll play catch up and address some things that I think need to be added.

First briefly on the subject of coal, there is another reason to not want coal in this day in age. Besides the fact that it pumps CO2, NOx, SO2, and Hg into the atmosphere, one fact that is not discussed is it also puts uranium into the air. Now if we are going to get all huffy about Nuclear power because it uses uranium and might put some extra amount of it into the environment, could we please look at the entire power industry and judge it all by the same standards.


Give me the nuclear plant in my backyard over a coal plant any day.


I totaly agree with this statement

As for all of the talk of Chernobyl there remains a vary important fact about Chernobyl that everyone seems to overlook. This fact is that Chernobyl was a RBMK type of reactor, whos main purpose in life was to create bomb grade Pu. The fact that it produced electric power was a happy side-effect for its main mode of operation. This type of reactor would never be allowed to be open in the US, or for that fact most of the world because of its main purpose and its many deadly design flaws. Two of the flaws are that it operates with a positive void coefficient, and because the fuel needs to be constantly changed there is no secondary containment structure. This info came from www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html), and this also explains what a positive void coefficient is.

So this is my two cents on this debate. Hopefully if this debate will get back on track of the original post.

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

Argentum, i agree with you on everycount, the fact that Chernobyl was poorly maintained and that it used carbonfiber(which can overheat and cause damage and so on) and not HeavyWater as a moderater is a major design flaw, not counting it had no containment structure, he have learned on others mistakes and we have vastly improved the design and operation of Nuclear facilities. If only people weren't so quick to judge half of Canada would be Nuclear powered, Uranium is a source we have plenty of, and we are one of the leaders in nuclear powerplant technology, i'm sure mostly everyone has heard of Candu reactors, and they are currently designing a "next-generation" reactor, many of the Candus were sold all over the world(including *cough*korea*cough*)

but our reactors do produce Trinium, a big part of the hydrogen bomb is made out of trinium (for those reading this that dont know what trinium is, its an isotope of hydrogen) but there is a good side to that, we sell it to you guys for a pretty penny

[russ_watters]

Besides all that, there is the fact that as bad as Chernobyl was, it killed only about 40 people, most of them firefighters (that said, we wouldn't want to have to evacuate Pittsburgh).

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

which is why, to keep people content, and to keep it on the safe side, we put nuclear reactors in more desolate areas, well i guess the US cant really do that

[Morbius]

I'm slightly disappointed that I did not get on this thread before it turned into a power distribution network debate, so I'll play catch up and address some things that I think need to be added.

First briefly on the subject of coal, there is another reason to not want coal in this day in age. Besides the fact that it pumps CO2, NOx, SO2, and Hg into the atmosphere, one fact that is not discussed is it also puts uranium into the air. Now if we are going to get all huffy about Nuclear power because it uses uranium and might put some extra amount of it into the environment, could we please look at the entire power industry and judge it all by the same standards.



I totaly agree with this statement

As for all of the talk of Chernobyl there remains a vary important fact about Chernobyl that everyone seems to overlook. This fact is that Chernobyl was a RBMK type of reactor, whos main purpose in life was to create bomb grade Pu. The fact that it produced electric power was a happy side-effect for its main mode of operation. This type of reactor would never be allowed to be open in the US, or for that fact most of the world because of its main purpose and its many deadly design flaws. Two of the flaws are that it operates with a positive void coefficient, and because the fuel needs to be constantly changed there is no secondary containment structure. This info came from www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html), and this also explains what a positive void coefficient is.

So this is my two cents on this debate. Hopefully if this debate will get back on track of the original post.


Argentum Vulpe,

I also agree with you - and with enigma about the coal plants. See:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

from scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory who state,

"Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to
higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants
that meet government regulations".

and

"The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is
100 times that from nuclear plants."

The population receives more radiation exposure from coal plants
than nuclear plants because coal contains trace amounts of uranium
and thorium which gets tossed into the atmosphere when the coal is
burned.

Because the USA burns billions of tons of coal per year - the amount of
uranium and thorium tossed into the air amounts to a few thousand tons
per year.

As I stated in another post - the Chernobyl reactor is "over-moderated" -
it has too much moderator. When one removes water - either by heating
it so that it is less dense - or by boiling or "voiding" the water - one is
reducing the amount of moderator. Since the RBMK is over-moderated -
reducing the amount of moderator shifts the amount of moderator
closer to the optimal point - and the reactor GAINS reactivity - which
is the "positive void coefficient" that Argentum Vulpes speaks of.

Yes - many people get "bent out of shape" if someone were to suggest
siting a nuclear power plant next to them - but wouldn't mind a coal
plant as much - all because of a fear of radiation.

They are the ones that need to be informed that they get 100 times as
much radiation exposure from the coal plant than they would from the
nuclear power plant as the scientists from Oak Ridge point out.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist LLNL

[Argentum Vulpes]

Thanks for pointing out the web site Morbius. I couldn't find that again when I was typing up my last post (I had used it about ten years ago for a debate on energy production in the US). As for nuclear reactors out in the middle of no where there are plenty of areas in the US that count as that. Montana, The Dakotas, and Wyoming, this I will say for certain as I lived in Montana and traveled across the Dakotas and the north eastern part Wyoming several times.

[CharlesP]

A note of caution: Many power plants are situated on rivers to use their water for cooling. Rivers are populated areas. Some site out in the desert will have to use air cooling which is not as efficient-or cheap.

I saw the website of John McCarthy and it looks far fetched. Before the population is allowed to increase further, the rest of the world should be brought up to US living standards. Right now I see a rush to lower the US population to third world conditions.

I had a Motorola pager with six sigma reliability and it kept failing. A contact corrosion/ alignment problem, probably rare. Reliability is proved in the field.

What happened to all that talk about thresholds in radiation hazards below which the hazard was zero?

[Morbius]

What happened to all that talk about thresholds in radiation hazards below which the hazard was zero?

Charles,

Using the techniques and results of the Human Genome Project, biologists
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have conclusively
demonstrated the threshold effect.

In fact, they have found that low levels of radiation actually trigger a
cellular response to make the cells resistant to subsequent larger doses of
radiation. In effect, the response of the cell to low levels of radiation is
similar to the response to a vaccine. The vaccine inoculates the cell to
a larger onslaught of a pathogen. Similarly, low doses of radiation
induce a protective response in the cell. One can read about it here:

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[CharlesP]

Next question. Has anyone ever studied what happens if one tries to make a nuclear battery by putting a beta source on the head of a pin and surrounding it with a conducting sphere? I expect the current would be small but what mechanisms would prevent a high voltage? I suspect that there is no nice beta emitter that does not also produce gamma?

[hitssquad]

Has anyone ever studied what happens if one tries to make a nuclear battery by putting a beta source on the head of a pin and surrounding it with a conducting sphere?I believe a device like that may have been constructed using tritium as the beta emitter. The engineering/physics article databases should have write-ups of any experiments that have been done along those lines.



I suspect that there is no nice beta emitter that does not also produce gamma?Tritium does not emit gamma radiation.
http://www.triumf.ca/safety/rpt/rpt_8/node8.html

[mohamed helmy]

dear all. please i need help of expert prof .iam working in industrial dealing with machinery
installed with nucler head to do kind of quality check since 2001, ihave marreid in aprial 2006 idid not get chlidren up to now so my doctor asked me to do sperms analysis for sprems quantity the result was to bad its zero sperms so later i had to do operation to get some sperms to do ivf operation and iam luky because doctor found some sperms so please informe me if the nucler source which iam working with has effect or not in my case.
the source is isolated but i have got the power rate of this source its (843mbq) thanks alot

[daveb]

It depends on the source. An 843 MBq (~ 23 mCi) low energy gamma emitter (such as Tc-99m) is nothing compared to a high gamma energy 843 MBq Co-60 source. If it's Tc-99m, the activity is the activity of a standard diagnostic imaging procedure, so I doubt that would be the cause.

[katchum]

How much uranium/plutonium is there left in the world? I like nuclear energy, but is it sustainable for 100 years?

[Astronuc]

How much uranium/plutonium is there left in the world? I like nuclear energy, but is it sustainable for 100 years? Certainly 100 yrs. There is limited production of Pu, which essentially absent in nature due to it's relatively short (geologically speaking) half-life.

Nuclear energy is produced primarily from the fission of U-235, with fissioning of some Pu which is produced through transmutation reactions involving U-238 in the UO2-based fuel. Converting more U-238 to Pu-239/240/241 could extend the U-resources, and then there is Th-232, which can be transmuted to U-233, which is fissionable.

So there is potentially hundreds of years of energy resources based on fission.

One key issue is where to put all the fission products, which must be isolated from the biosphere.

[Azael]

For all practical purposes the ammounts of uranium is unlimited.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution

[James Carroll]

It seems to me that no one on here has really hit the main problem, and that is peak oil. Yes we have coal, yes it is dirty, yes it causes death, yes it releases more radioactive material than does nuclear plants... but what happens when we run out of oil? Of course we won't just run out, but eventually the oil that remains will become more and more difficult to get at, and therefore more and more expensive. People disagree about when this will happen, but it will happen. When it does there will be problems. Infrastructure will have to change to support electric cars, and that will be a nightmare in and of itself unless it happens gradually enough. But then where will all that electricity come from?

You have to realize that electricity demand will increase dramatically in the future, how near is again up for debate, but it is coming.

Now figure that into your discussion and it changes things doesn't it? Can we increase our electric needs sufficiently with coal only? Can we do it without producing enough pollutants that people don't begin to agree that enough is enough?

We will need nuclear. It is inevitable and will happen. One day the environmental wackos will flip on their light switch and nothing will happen... they will try to drive their car, and there will be no electricity and gas will be too expensive. One day. Then they will be yelling at us and asking us why we didn't build all those power plants back before it was too late... and we will look at them and say... THIS IS YOUR FAULT.

My father once did a back of the envilope calculation on solar power, and determined that to supply the US with power BACK IN THE 60'S, even if we could collect solar power 100% efficiently, we would have to turn the state of Arizona into a solar collector. (I would love to see one of you actually crunch those numbers and verify his results, remember that you need to include gas usage, not just electric) It won't work... give it up... Solar isn't the solution, we need Nuclear

On the other hand....

Given that it is inevitable, the question is, what should we do about it? My work is in Decision Theory, and I believe that the probability of a nuclear accident associated with Nuclear power is low... unfortunately the cost is high. Utility is the product of the probability * the cost. There is a good reason to be cautious about Nuclear power. I think that we need a balanced middle of the road approach. The "it's ok, there are no risks" or "the risks are so small" thing is not necessarily the best response. But the argument that the risks are lower than those of coal (as so many of you have nicely made) works better.

Furthermore research is needed to make those risks smaller. Thus it is my belief that research into safer Nuclear energy is the solution. We need to spend the bucks, and get it done. This research needs to focus on making the process safer and on dealing with the waste. We have done a lot on the first one, but can do more.

I truly believe that we can also do much better on the second one. We can find better ways of dealing with the waste that we have. Some have been discussed above but there are others. There is energy in that waste. Decays=energy... perhaps not very much, especially in the stuff that takes forever to decay, but it is in there, and there should be good ways of getting it out and making it useful instead of a scourge. Next we can find better ways of reprocessing (I know proliferation rears its ugly head) but there are ways of reprocessing that can be internationally monitored and where the reprocessed materials can be used immediately... or something... so we aren't stockpiling weapons grade materials. That's the point of research, we don't know what solutions will be found, but we should look for them. Finally we can produce reactors that produce less waste.

These are the research areas. Some solutions already exist in these areas, but we just can't use them for political reasons etc. Some better solutions are in the works, and some even better solutions are sure to come out of some good investments in research.

[russ_watters]

My father once did a back of the envilope calculation on solar power, and determined that to supply the US with power BACK IN THE 60'S, even if we could collect solar power 100% efficiently, we would have to turn the state of Arizona into a solar collector. (I would love to see one of you actually crunch those numbers and verify his results, remember that you need to include gas usage, not just electric) It won't work... give it up... Solar isn't the solution, we need Nuclear. Welcome to PF.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I believe that nuclear is going to make a dramatic comeback in the next 20 years because there simply is no other option (the fact that it is the best option, unfortunatly, isn't enough for today).

There may be a thread around here somewhere about it, but a few years ago, I did some calculations about solar and concluded that with good solar panels, we'd nee to cover an area of about 300 miles square - similar to your father's calculation of the entire state of Arizona.

Strictly speaking, area isn't the issue - money is. Right now, the per-watt cost of solar is far too high to make it viable. If it can drop by an order of magnitude, then it could be a real solution.

[vanesch]

Certainly 100 yrs. There is limited production of Pu, which essentially absent in nature due to it's relatively short (geologically speaking) half-life.

Nuclear energy is produced primarily from the fission of U-235, with fissioning of some Pu which is produced through transmutation reactions involving U-238 in the UO2-based fuel. Converting more U-238 to Pu-239/240/241 could extend the U-resources, and then there is Th-232, which can be transmuted to U-233, which is fissionable.

So there is potentially hundreds of years of energy resources based on fission.

One key issue is where to put all the fission products, which must be isolated from the biosphere.

I would like to add to this. Current thermal-spectrum reactors use MAINLY U-235 in the power production. U-235 is 0.7% of the natural content of uranium on earth. In fact, at high burnup, SOME U-238 (the 99.3% remaining if we neglect some traces) is converted into Pu-239 and is burned up ; about 30% of the energy that is extracted in a reactor comes from this Pu-burning, and 70% comes from the original U-235 burning.

So that means that currently, we use effectively ONE PERCENT of the energetic content of the uranium that has been extracted.

In a fast reactor, we can use ALL of it, because U-238, through conversion in Pu-239, can become a nuclear fuel. We can use all the U-238 that we already DUG UP, and partially discarded (in the "enrichment" of uranium, which is nothing else but removing 3/4 of the U-238 from the original ore), and MOST of the "burned fuel" which consists mainly of passive U-238.

So, by switching to fast breeders, we can extract in principle ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE ENERGY from the EXISTING waste than we already extracted. In principle without any more uranium input. Just by using the "waste" correctly.

If some powerplants have been working for 30 years, this means, in principle, that we can extract the same power for another 3000 years, just by using its "waste".

[vanesch]

On the other hand....

Given that it is inevitable, the question is, what should we do about it? My work is in Decision Theory, and I believe that the probability of a nuclear accident associated with Nuclear power is low... unfortunately the cost is high. Utility is the product of the probability * the cost. There is a good reason to be cautious about Nuclear power. I think that we need a balanced middle of the road approach. The "it's ok, there are no risks" or "the risks are so small" thing is not necessarily the best response. But the argument that the risks are lower than those of coal (as so many of you have nicely made) works better.



The point really is that the risks ARE already really small in the West. The objective risk (as you point out: risk = probability x cost(lives, land...) ) of nuclear activities is about a million times lower than driving cars, and even lower than making shoes (just by comparing the number of yearly dead). The "maximum disaster" is Chernobyl, which is a serious catastrophy, but much less so than many accidents in other branches of human activity (for instance, the Chernobyl disaster is way less terrible than the Bhopal disaster, and a Chernobyl accident in the west is way way way less likely - for fundamental reasons - than another Bhopal).


Furthermore research is needed to make those risks smaller. Thus it is my belief that research into safer Nuclear energy is the solution. We need to spend the bucks, and get it done. This research needs to focus on making the process safer and on dealing with the waste. We have done a lot on the first one, but can do more.


There are good solutions for the waste. It is not as catastrophic as eco wackos want us to believe. There are in fact 3 timescales in nuclear waste:

- fission products: about harmless after 300 years
- minor actinides: about harmless after 10 000 years
- plutonium: about harmless after 100 000 years.

Now, reprocessing can remove the plutonium (to be re-used as fuel!), and there's a lot of work going on - and prototype processes such as DIAMEX have been set up - to remove also the minor actinides. This leaves us with the main ash from nuclear power: the inevitable fission products. Well, there life time is of the order of 300 years.
That's not the "millions of years" that is usually talked about.

The minor actinides can be considered as waste, but they can also be burned in fast reactors. There are experiments under way to burn them in subcritical accelerator-driven reactors, but I think that this is overkill. Even considering them as waste is not such a problem, because geological storage can be made secure for 10 000 years with high reliability. Also, if there's a leak after, say, 1000 years, that's not a major disaster. There will be a minor polution of a relatively local area, much less of a danger than most waste storages of today.


I truly believe that we can also do much better on the second one. We can find better ways of dealing with the waste that we have. Some have been discussed above but there are others. There is energy in that waste. Decays=energy... perhaps not very much, especially in the stuff that takes forever to decay, but it is in there, and there should be good ways of getting it out and making it useful instead of a scourge. Next we can find better ways of reprocessing (I know proliferation rears its ugly head) but there are ways of reprocessing that can be internationally monitored and where the reprocessed materials can be used immediately... or something... so we aren't stockpiling weapons grade materials. That's the point of research, we don't know what solutions will be found, but we should look for them. Finally we can produce reactors that produce less waste.


Most of this is already well-studied. There have been 18 fast breeder reactors active in the world ; only two of them are still working, most of them were closed down for political reasons. So this is not a dream on paper. Prototypes have been build and made working. One just needs to improve a bit on the engineering to optimise the design. There are no known difficulties of principle. This stuff has been working before.


These are the research areas. Some solutions already exist in these areas, but we just can't use them for political reasons etc. Some better solutions are in the works, and some even better solutions are sure to come out of some good investments in research.

In fact, France has the ambition to put its first Gen-IV reactor, with closed fuel cycle, up and running by about 2020. If the green party didn't ask for drilling a hole in the reactor vessel of super-phenix in 1998 or so, it would probably already be up and running.

[Astronuc]

Re: Fast Reactors - this would be of interest.

The status of Fast Reactors programme in France in 2005
http://www-ist.cea.fr/publicea/exl-doc/200600003924.pdf

I attended a lecture by the program manager of the US fast reactor program 25 years ago. At the time, he had just dismissed 300 people from the program! He likened a fast reactor to building a supersonic aircraft out of balsa wood. My colleagues and I were rather shocked at the statement.

Fast reactor technology has been rather problematic, not so much from the standpoint of the nuclear physics and fuel design, but from the aspect of balance of plant and operational issues. FR's are complicated because the fuel handling has to be done under liquid sodium. Traditionally, electrical generation has been accomplished by large steam turbines, but the problem there would be the basic incompatibility of water and sodium.

Superphenix was plagued with problems, and the Japanese MONJU had its own set of problems, including some deficiencies in design.

Perhaps the better alternative is a gas-cooled fast reactor.

I'm not arguing that fast reactor technology is impossible, but rather, it is not so easy.

[vanesch]

I attended a lecture by the program manager of the US fast reactor program 25 years ago. At the time, he had just dismissed 300 people from the program! He likened a fast reactor to building a supersonic aircraft out of balsa wood. My colleagues and I were rather shocked at the statement.


This is more kind of emotional rethoric than based upon any technological assessment. I attended a lot of seminars in Karlsruhe a few months ago, and had the opportunity to have a dinner with one of the CEA responsibles for the former Superphenix programme, which seemed to claim exactly the opposite: that liquid sodium cooling is technologically mastered and that the closedown of it was purely political. It is true that Superphenix had a lot of problems in its first years, but in its last years it ran without many troubles, and it was also a prototype: you expect difficulties in a prototype.
Let's not forget that Phenix has been running for over 30 years without problems.
So according to him, one can always improve upon robustness and one can always improve upon engineering, but there wasn't any fundamental objective technological obstacle to building liquid sodium cooled reactors.


Fast reactor technology has been rather problematic, not so much from the standpoint of the nuclear physics and fuel design, but from the aspect of balance of plant and operational issues. FR's are complicated because the fuel handling has to be done under liquid sodium. Traditionally, electrical generation has been accomplished by large steam turbines, but the problem there would be the basic incompatibility of water and sodium.


Nobody will deny that a FR is a bit more complicated than a LWR, but that's more because a LWR is *extremely simple*. The problem with steam turbines - in as much as that is a problem - is the low Carnot efficiency, because you cannot use steam much above 400 degrees Celcius (critical point of water). It would of course be dangerous to have a direct Sodium/water heat exchanger, but nothing stops you from having an intermediate fluid which is compatible with both.


Superphenix was plagued with problems, and the Japanese MONJU had its own set of problems, including some deficiencies in design.


Sure, but these are prototypes, exactly to learn from. If one would have built a few tens of prototypes, the experience gathered would make this technology probably just as robust as LWR are now.


Perhaps the better alternative is a gas-cooled fast reactor.

I'm not arguing that fast reactor technology is impossible, but rather, it is not so easy.

There are essentially 4 types of fast reactors:
- liquid sodium
- liquid lead
- gas
- salt

Sodium makes people nervous because of its reactivity with water, but all the other properties of sodium are OK, which makes it less of a problem than people think. For instance, a liquid sodium reactor is NOT under pressure, which relieves a lot of safety, materials and mechanics issues. In that respect, a liquid sodium reactor is "easier" than a LWR which is under high pressure. Also, one can, as with the IFR, use a "buffer bath" of sodium to make the reactor entirely passively safe. The only true engineering challenge is to keep the water out in all circumstances.

Liquid lead seems to address this, but is actually worse. Yes, liquid lead is less reactive towards water, but: 1) it is very corrosive, which puts a strong materials engineering challenge - which isn't the case for sodium and 2) you generate radioisotopes such as polonium.

Gas cooled reactors seem better in this respect, but, again, they are under pressure, and they are difficult to make passively safe. A loss of pressure for instance means a big challenge to restore the cooling.

Salt cooled reactors seem to address many issues, and are very promising. Only difficulty: almost no experience with it!

So, everything in a row, technologically, sodium cooled reactors are "closest to operational commercially". If we are serious in installing MANY production FR by 2030, we better start with a technology where experience exists.

[Astronuc]

With respect to fast reactor technology, this might be of interest -

Fast Reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems Knowledge Base
Working Materials of the Technical Working Group on Fast Reactors
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/twgfr/working_materials.html

and - http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/frdb/index.html


Phenix has had its problems - e.g. shutdown between 1998 to 2003, which is similar to long shutdowns seen at some US LWRs. I think the problems with Superphenix were related to scaling up the technology. The fact that Phenix was shutdown for upgrades didn't help the cause.

French nuclear safety authority has granted permission to restart the Phenix breeder reactor. Phenix, a 250 MW fast reactor using liquid sodium as coolant, has been idle since 1998 for inspection, repairs and safety upgrades. All work is expected to be completed by March, 2003 when the reactor is scheduled for restart.

In addition to its work as a prototype fast reactor, Phenix is also to be instrumental for study on the potential for transmutation of nuclear wastes. Phenix first started up in 1973.

Last year, I attended a conference on Gen VI materials, and I'll be involved with the next one coming up next year. While there has been much research with a broad range of materials, and there are some promising ones, none of the presentations and literature addressed the performance of these materials in a radiation environment nor for any time close to intended service life. I'm not cynical (except in a few cases such as molten lead systems), just very cautious when it comes to claims regarding nuclear energy and technology.

BTW, there is a concept for a superheated water reactor.

[daveb]

Salt cooled reactors seem to address many issues, and are very promising. Only difficulty: almost no experience with it!

In our reactor design class ( a team based design course) we continued work that the previous classes had done with regards to the lquid fluoride reactor (using a 2 salt FLiBe material) originally developed by ORNL. I imagine the next several years' classes will build upon our work, so maybe in several years' time there may be some experience.

[Astronuc]

One of the former ANS presidents recommended this site for topics on Nuclear Energy and Power Systems.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AEI_Topics.html

[gdsandkes]

The Duke Energy plant near Charlotte NC was in trouble during the recent drought due to unprecedented low water levels, and came very close to shutting down because of a lack of cooling water from the intake pipe. The sun is available with no lingering waste or pollution. Thermal solar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IMRLi8HdY
can be scaled to work with current mature technology large scale turbine generators and water can be split effeciently with this MIT catalyst.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

If we are to go nuclear we need to have a plan to deal with the 55,000 tons of radioactive material already on hand. We currently use only 5 percent of the energy available in the stored material. Let's reproccess the available material, as the French do, and use 95 percent of the available energy.

[vanesch]

The Duke Energy plant near Charlotte NC was in trouble during the recent drought due to unprecedented low water levels, and came very close to shutting down because of a lack of cooling water from the intake pipe. The sun is available with no lingering waste or pollution. Thermal solar ...


Every thermal-to-electricity conversion will need external cooling, that's Carnot who dictates that. So there's no point in pointing out "lack of cooling" with a nuclear power plant, and propose any other thermal process in its place (thermal solar, biofuels, coal, gas,....) They all need a heat sink in the environment. It's elementary thermodynamics.

It is only wind, hydro, photovoltaic, and tidal sources that don't need any thermal dump.


If we are to go nuclear we need to have a plan to deal with the 55,000 tons of radioactive material already on hand. We currently use only 5 percent of the energy available in the stored material. Let's reproccess the available material, as the French do, and use 95 percent of the available energy.

There is a simple plan to deal with the waste. Compare 55 000 tons (world-wide some 170 000 tons I think) of waste accumulated over 30 years or more with the 2.8 MILLION tons of coal a single 1 GWe coal fired plant needs in one year, and you will see the smallness of the actual amount of waste. I'm not talking about its toxicity, I'm talking about its amount. If it is possible to mine tens of millions of tons of coal, then it is also possible to burry 55 000 tons of high level waste, which looses its "high level" status after a few centuries. We can also sit on it for as long as we want to as the total quantity is small. If we need to keep it as of yet some 50 more years to find out whether really there is not any problem with burying it, then that's no big deal. It is a few acres of land storage for the waste of a whole continent, for several decades. To bury it deeply under the surface is very feasible, given the smallness of the quantity compared to what one digs up from deep within the earth. So really, the waste is a non-issue. It is a small amount, and one knows what to do with it, and it is feasible.

Reprocessing is also a good idea as it separates the inert and useful (U and to a lesser extend, Pu) from the radioactive (fission products and minor actinides). The active part only represents 5% of the total spend fuel, so as a matter of volume (but not of activity and toxicity) it is a good idea to reprocess. It diminishes the volume of the waste to be buried and hence optimizes the use of the final repository.

However, it is a misunderstanding that - right at this moment - one can re-use the inert part. In thermal reactors such as light-water reactors, the plutonium can only be re-used once (MOX), because it gets a worse and worse isotopic composition, and the conversion of uranium into plutonium is only marginal. What is really needed, are fast (breeder) reactors, which can use *all* the plutonium, which can convert *all* the uranium and which can even burn all the minor actinides and don't produce many of them.

While it is true that LWR currently burn about 5% of the *enriched* uranium, that corresponds to about 0.5% of the natural uranium from which this enriched uranium was made. So overall, we only use about 0.5% of the energetic potential of natural uranium. With fast reactors, this can be in principle 100% (although in practice probably lower). That means a gain of about 50-100 in fuel efficiency.

Or, put differently: if you have the "waste" of 30 years of LWR operation, you can re-use this for about 1500 - 3000 years of equivalent energy output with fast reactors. Without any new natural uranium. Just by reprocessing the current waste and using the depleted uranium.

But all this is only possible in fast reactors. Not in LWR.

[Astronuc]

U.S. Decides One Nuclear Dump Is Enough
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/washington/07yucca.html
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will recommend that Congress give up the idea of a second nuclear waste dump, dropping a grand bargain struck in the 1980s, and instead vote to enlarge the repository now proposed in Nevada, the director of the Energy Department’s civilian radioactive waste management program said on Thursday.

The director, Edward F. Sproat III, who is in charge of work on the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, said that the process of trying to open one repository had been so slow and expensive that this was not a good time to start looking for another.

The future of the entire repository program may be in flux anyway because President-elect Barack Obama has called for finding another solution. But Mr. Sproat noted that the law called for his department to pursue the opening of the Yucca site.

Originally, the government promised utility companies that it would begin accepting nuclear waste in 1998 and began accepting payments from them of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour generated at their reactors. The government now predicts that a waste repository will open by 2020 at the earliest, and clearing the backlog could take many decades. Because of the delay, the government will owe commercial damages to the utilities of $11 billion or more.

When Congress sent the Energy Department to look for places to bury waste from civilian reactors and the nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, the idea was for two repositories, one in the West and one in the East, and the Energy Department listed a dozen sites in seven states, ranging from Maine to Minnesota and Mississippi. Congress eventually ordered the department to focus on Yucca Mountain, but set a limit of 70,000 metric tons of uranium and plutonium wastes, and to report back if another was needed.

Mr. Sproat, who spoke Thursday at a conference on nuclear waste held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, said that the inventory of waste would reach 70,000 tons by 2010.

. . . . It certainly keeps changing.

[Astronuc]

FYI,

Nuclear Energy Papers/Presentations (https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=3052&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=25&mode=2&in_hi_userid=200&cached=true)

EBR-II (https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_200_3005_257_2460_43/http%3B/inlpublisher%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/communities/inl_gov/newsroom/publicationsarchive/ebr_ii.pdf) (link to pdf - use 'save target as')

[Astronuc]

Can Nuclear Power Compete?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-nuclear-power-compete
Newly approved reactor designs could reduce global warming and fossil-fuel dependence, but utilities are grappling with whether better nukes make market sense
By Matthew L. Wald (Science Writer at NYTimes)

. . . . Wallace announced that his company, UniStar Nuclear Energy, a partnership between Constellation Energy and the European nuclear consortium Areva, was looking to build a new kind of nuclear power plant in the U.S. and elsewhere. “I’m pleased to say I played a role in the last round of nuclear power plant development, and I’m really pleased to be involved,” the chairman said, calling to mind a graying astronaut who walked on the moon years ago and now wanted to do it again.

That was in 2006. Since then, Wallace has intermittently made new announcements about incremental progress toward building a new reactor about 45 miles south of Washington, which could be the first U.S. nuclear plant put on order and built since 1973. Wallace’s original feat was leading the start-up of two of the nation’s last big nuclear plants, completed in 1987 in Illinois. Like another moon shot, the launch of new reactors after a 35-year hiatus in orders is certainly possible, though not a sure bet. It would be easier this time, the experts say, because of technological progress over the intervening decades. But as with a project as large as a moon landing, there is another question: Would it be worthwhile?

A variety of companies, including Wallace’s, say the answer may be yes. Manufacturers have submitted new designs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety engineers, and that agency has already approved some as ready for construction, if they are built on a previously approved site. Utilities, reactor manufacturers and architecture/engineering firms have formed partnerships to build plants, pending final approvals. Swarms of students are enrolling in college-level nuclear engineering programs. And rosy *projections from industry and government predict a surge in construction.

. . . .

Sciam produced several articles on the current and future trends of nuclear power.
http://www.sciam.com/report.cfm?id=nuclear-future

[Sriram.S]

Is it possible to recreate the happenings on the sun on earth? Well, what is happening in the sun is fusion and there still isn't a solution to controlled fusion, but why not uncontrolled fusion by supplying extremely little fuel(i.e, what is going to fuse, for example hydrogen and helium in the sun).

Sriram

[Vals509]

i feel that people shoul install breeder nuclear reactors as they can re use fuel instead of the conventional reactors. i know that congress has banned/blocked the building of such a source but believe that it is a viable alternative and that it should be brought up again.

another thing is that the only thing scaring people to death about nuclear reactors are accidents like chernobyl. what needs to be done is informing people of the latest safety features of current reactors and we must remember is that chernobyl occured because of several stupid mistakes. sure stupid mistakes can still happed but we are a lot more educated to respond to such accidents.

finally research into fusion rather than fission reactors must be accelerated. i know that it is still taking place but more attention must be given to it. also reactors need to be built in areas with a cordoned off area of whatever kilometeres needed and people around should be trained to respond in emergency.

or the simplest solution is to invest into other sources of energy like solar and wind???????

[Vals509]

Is it possible to recreate the happenings on the sun on earth? Well, what is happening in the sun is fusion and there still isn't a solution to controlled fusion, but why not uncontrolled fusion by supplying extremely little fuel(i.e, what is going to fuse, for example hydrogen and helium in the sun).

Sriram

well fusion reactions can take place and they are controlled but however they are theoretically possible. examples like the TOKAMAK have i believe achieved fusion but are financially bad.

[Astronuc]

The Westinghouse AP-1000 is one of the modern Gen 3+ plants that are proposed near future NPPs.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/AP1000_Plant_Description.pdf

Other plants under consideration:

US APWR - Mitsubishi
AP600 - Westinghouse
System 80+ - Westinghouse
AP600 - Westinghouse
EPR - AREVA

ABWR - GE/Hitachi
ESBWR - GE

GT-MHR - General Atomics
ACR - AECL
PMBR - Westinghouse/ESKOM
4S - Toshiba
IRIS - Westinghouse


EPRI has established the Advanced Nuclear Technology program regarding the new NPP designs.
www.epri.com/ant

[Astronuc]

The Future of Nuclear Power - An interdisciplinary study by MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

The original study was completed in 2003, and the situation has changed. There is a large (~29 MB pdf file).

There is an update for 2009.

[sloughter]

I met a nuclear physicist/engineer who was the go to guy for Army Intelligcnce when Chernoble went south. He was asked to give his opinion of impending casualties. He told the Army brass, "You are going to lose some firefighers and some of the helicopter pilots who flew through the radioactive plume. That should be about 35-40 people. That's it" A recent World Health Organization Report came out indicating 23 years later that 40 people had died because of Chernoble, just as the nuclear expert predicted.

What is not appreciated in the American public is that equating American Nuclear Plants to Chernoble is comparable to comparing the safety features of a Lexus to a Model T. Chernoble consisted of vertical concrete walls 2-3 feet thick with a tarpaper roof. We have reactor domes over a foot thick with rebar.

When the radioactive cloud took off, the vertical walls acted like a chimney and the cloud rose vertically, traveled about 30 miles and then descended into an unpopulated area. Unfortunately, the Russian Government forgot to tell the peasants not to drink milk from cows eating grass tainted with radioactive iodine (Only the volatiles, radioactive cesium and iodine were released when the reactor burned, and some of the peasants came down with thyroid cancer---they also used graphite as a moderator which also burns).

Don't eat striped bass from the Hudson River unless you like the taste of PCB's. Don't eat predatory fish from the Atlantic three times a day, unless you like mercury-induced insanity. Don't drink milk from cows eating radioactive grass. Duh.

The studies relating low levels of exposure to radiation used to predict thousands of casualites at Chernoble are based on bogus extrapolation of high doses of radiation to low doses (I was exposed to more radiation digging for pyrite nodules in black shales than most Cheronobleites were exposed to from the radioactive cloud.)

If I eat 1000 aspirin at once and die, does this mean if 1,000,000 people eat one aspirin/day for a year that 1000 will die of aspirin poisoning? This is great science if you want to start a new industry getting radon out of the basements of people's homes, but it is low quality science. Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists are little more than scare mongers. If they wished to do something useful, they should try to get kids not to start smoking or drinking and driving, they'd save a lot more lives, but it is not nearly as exciting as being in an organization going after those big bad nuclear power plants.

As far as nuclear research, check out the websites by George S. Stanford and Charles E. Till on the Integral Fast Reactor. It promises to provide clean, safe, proliferation-resistant, weapons-incompatible fast breeder technology. It was shut down by Senator John Kerry in 1994 presumably because it competed with MIT's hot fusion program (The research was about to be completed within three years; completing the research cost no more than shutting it down. Commercial viability was inevitable and MIT stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants if the program was completed.I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum HERE (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370) where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so HERE (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html) is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

[sloughter]

Financially bad is an understatement. If you consider Inertial Confinement Fusion at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, you are probably talking electricity at over $10/kWh. Here's why. For openers, we are told that they must detonate at least the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline/sec. with a repetition rate of one repetition/sec i.e. not over multiple chambers (as presented in a cartoon on Charlie Gibson).

Let me get this straight hmm 100,000,000 degrees C (The temperature of implosion fusion by lasers) going to -260 degrees C in less than one second (the temperature of a deuterium/tritium sand grain). Sounds realistic doesn't it?

Let's take that measly one gallon of gasoline/sec. For openers, a big coal fired plant may need as much as 17,000 tons of coal/day. That works out to 400 pounds/sec. Sounds like a lot more energy than a gallon of gasoline, so that gallon of gasoline/sec. is a pretty small base load plant. As for the gallon of gasoline: One pound of gasoline has the explosive equivalent of 15 pounds of dynamite. So a gallon of gasoline going off every second is the explosive equivalent of 100 pounds of dynamite going off every second.

How do we capture the explosive power of 100 pounds of dynamite going off every second? Here are the steps: 1)Input, 2)Compression, 3)Ignition, 4)Exhaust. Doesn't this sound like an internal combusion engine?

Now for the engineering details conveniently omitted by the LLNL people. How do you isolate the lasers from the force of a 100 pound stick of dynamite going off a few feet away? Suppose the laser zigs when it should zag and the implosion front of the pellet is all screwed up. One second it is a 100 pound stick of dynamite, the next a 10 pound stick of dynamite. This would require going to some kind of 1000 ton + flywheel to even out the detonations just like on a John Deere tractor.

The next thing that is required is that you will need Star Wars in a bottle. How do you get a particle the size of a sand grain into the chamber, then lock onto a moving target and detonate it with 196 lasers simultaneously? We can't even hit something as big as a missile yet we can lock onto a moving sand grain and hit it synchronously with 196 lasers!

Each chamber will need at least a minute to cool off and the need to damp the lasers motion, so that the sand grain doesn't vaporize upon entering the chamber. This means that there will need to be at least 60 times the numbers of lasers and chambers suggested by LLNL.

Toroidal fusion will never be practical because it requires enormously expensive, incredibly complicated machinery (Murphy's Law considerations) that requires fuel so expensive that it is cheaper to burn one carat diamonds in the reactor with enormous numbers of cooling towers. This competes with simple, rapidly improving technology with free fuel and no cooling towers (Wind, solar and geothermal---bio fuels are cheap and the Integral Fast Reactor is far more competitive).

After 30 years, they can barely sustain the plasma and they still haven't reached break ever when the energy of the magnets is considered. News Flash! They don't know how to deal with the exhaust from the plasma fusion products!

Did the Department Of Energy do a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact Statement when they decided to fund the hot fusion program at MIT as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969?

Who wanted the hot fusion program? As a geologist, I'd love to spend billions of dollars putting a geothermal system in every single family residence having over 1/2 acre. This would put a whole lot of geologists to work. If I was a chemist, I'd like to build better batteries, more fuel efficient cars, better insulation, high temperature superconductivity and such things as better insulators, semiconductors, etc. If I was a biologist, I'd love to build cellulose bio fuel plants all over the US and have thousands of ponds producing hydrogen-producing algae. If I was an atmospheric scientist, I'd love to put wind mills everywhere.

Did the DOE get input from other branches of the sciences when they decided to fund the hot fusion program at MIT?

So why do we have a hot fusion program? Because the gool 'ole boys network at DOE decided to provide the underfunded physicists at MIT with a gravy train lasting 35 years with another 35 years in the offing (Ask any hot fusion scientist when hot fusion will be commericially viable, it is always, "Thirty years from now."well fusion reactions can take place and they are controlled but however they are theoretically possible. examples like the TOKAMAK have i believe achieved fusion but are financially bad.

[Astronuc]

Archive of Previous Symposia
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/subindex.htm

The papers are fairly general and deal with the industry, trends, fuel cycle issues, waste and other related topics.

[Astronuc]

If one is studying nuclear engineering, or is planning to do so, or planning a career in nuclear engineering, then this is relevant.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_NEFutureRequiredRDCapabilities_Sep2008.pdf

Lot's of other good reports here - http://www.ne.doe.gov/


An overview of new and proposed NPPs
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

[oldsloguy]

I would like to add to this. Current thermal-spectrum reactors use MAINLY U-235 in the power production. U-235 is 0.7% of the natural content of uranium on earth. In fact, at high burnup, SOME U-238 (the 99.3% remaining if we neglect some traces) is converted into Pu-239 and is burned up ; about 30% of the energy that is extracted in a reactor comes from this Pu-burning, and 70% comes from the original U-235 burning.

So that means that currently, we use effectively ONE PERCENT of the energetic content of the uranium that has been extracted.

In a fast reactor, we can use ALL of it, because U-238, through conversion in Pu-239, can become a nuclear fuel. We can use all the U-238 that we already DUG UP, and partially discarded (in the "enrichment" of uranium, which is nothing else but removing 3/4 of the U-238 from the original ore), and MOST of the "burned fuel" which consists mainly of passive U-238.

So, by switching to fast breeders, we can extract in principle ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE ENERGY from the EXISTING waste than we already extracted. In principle without any more uranium input. Just by using the "waste" correctly.

If some powerplants have been working for 30 years, this means, in principle, that we can extract the same power for another 3000 years, just by using its "waste".

Yes, and you have not even mentioned thorium which I understand is 3 to 5 times more plentiful in the earths crust than uranium. Is there some reason that you did not mention thorium or were you just addressing uranium issues only!

[oldsloguy]

Sodium makes people nervous because of its reactivity with water, but all the other properties of sodium are OK, which makes it less of a problem than people think. For instance, a liquid sodium reactor is NOT under pressure, which relieves a lot of safety, materials and mechanics issues. In that respect, a liquid sodium reactor is "easier" than a LWR which is under high pressure. Also, one can, as with the IFR, use a "buffer bath" of sodium to make the reactor entirely passively safe. The only true engineering challenge is to keep the water out in all circumstances.

I’m not very familiar with hot liquid sodium, but you seem really comfortable with the idea of handling hot liquid sodium in and accident which might expose it to air. Does it not burn very vigorously or is it easily controlled?

[oldsloguy]

I believe that the probability of a nuclear accident associated with Nuclear power is low... unfortunately the cost is high. Utility is the product of the probability * the cost. There is a good reason to be cautious about Nuclear power.

I remember reading somewhere in the past that the cost of cleaning and decommissioning TMI was about 900 million dollars and that the initial construction cost was about 4 billion dollars. I'm not sure if those cost were adjusted for inflation over the intervening time differential between them or not, but I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion.

It seems to me that TMI is about the worst possible accident that can happen to a modern LWR. Am I correct in that or can anyone reasonably postulate a worse accident?

If so, agreed that the risk is low, but when you have over 100 commercial plants operating 30+ years each and the worst case accident, which occurs only once over that period, is ¼ the value of one plant, how can you argue that “unfortunately the cost is high”?

[joelupchurch]

I remember reading somewhere in the past that the cost of cleaning and decommissioning TMI was about 900 million dollars and that the initial construction cost was about 4 billion dollars. I'm not sure if those cost were adjusted for inflation over the intervening time differential between them or not, but I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion.

It seems to me that TMI is about the worst possible accident that can happen to a modern LWR. Am I correct in that or can anyone reasonably postulate a worse accident?

If so, agreed that the risk is low, but when you have over 100 commercial plants operating 30+ years each and the worst case accident, which occurs only once over that period, is ¼ the value of one plant, how can you argue that “unfortunately the cost is high”?

The construction cost on TMI-2 was 800 million in 1978, which is 2.5 billion in 2007 dollars. Here is a table with construction costs of various reactors adjusted to 2007 dollars:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/#more-2748

Also you should note that the Probabilistic Risk Assessment on the new Westinghouse Ap1000 is hundred times less likely to have a core meltdown than a 2nd generation plant.
http://www.asmeconferences.org/ICONE16/pdfs/NewPlantsBeBuilt.pdf
The PRA starts on page 23.

[oldsloguy]

The construction cost on TMI-2 was 800 million in 1978, which is 2.5 billion in 2007 dollars. Here is a table with construction costs of various reactors adjusted to 2007 dollars:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/#more-2748

Also you should note that the Probabilistic Risk Assessment on the new Westinghouse Ap1000 is hundred times less likely to have a core meltdown than a 2nd generation plant.
http://www.asmeconferences.org/ICONE16/pdfs/NewPlantsBeBuilt.pdf
The PRA starts on page 23.

Thanks, that is an interesting. TMI-I cost the 400 million dollars and TMI-2 800 million dollars. So, doing the correction more accurately would yield:

Assumptions, using 2007 $:
Cost TMI-2 = 2544 million $
Cost of clean up = $973, over 12 years, use 1985 for adjustment
http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/cleanup.html
Inflation adjustment from 1985 = 1.93
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Clean-up of TMI-2 as a fraction of plant cost = 973*1.93/2544 = 0.74

So, restating my earlier post:

If so, agreed that the risk is low, but when you have over 100 commercial plants operating 30+ years each and the worst case accident, which occurs only once over that period, is 3/4 the value of one plant, how can you argue that “unfortunately the cost is high”?

And as you point out, and my gut feeling is, even that small overhead loss is way over stated.

[vanesch]

I’m not very familiar with hot liquid sodium, but you seem really comfortable with the idea of handling hot liquid sodium in and accident which might expose it to air. Does it not burn very vigorously or is it easily controlled?

I think it is the main worry: the confinement has to be double. In a thermal reactor, you want the stuff not to get out in any case, and in a sodium-cooled reactor, on top of that, you don't want water or air to get in in any case. That's why people look into other types of coolant such as liquid lead or gas. But most experience is nevertheless with sodium (and yes, there have been minor problems with it). I think it is the main challenge in the design of a fast reactor. But it is not necessarily so terribly more difficult than a PWR, because there's no pressure.

[mheslep]

Special section on in the Sept 8 edition titled "The New Nukes"
Temp link: (http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970204409 904574350342705855178-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB1000142405297020440 9904574350342705855178-lMyQjAxMDA5MDAwODEwNDgyWj.html)

The article is lengthy, covering many of the topics up thread. To start, I wanted to summarize the various cost figures cited through the article:


Gen III plants in general, i.e. all designs: $4k to $6.5k per kw
Small, modular nuclear, i.e. Hyperion or B&W: $3.5k to $5k per kw, add $50 to $100m licensing costs per site.
Gen IV Ge-Hatachi Prism design: $10k per kw (small size ~300 MW)


Summary of experts quoted in the article:
Revis James, EPRI
Ronaldo Szilard, Idaho National labs
Amir Shakarami, Exelon VP
Tom Cochrane, NRDC

[joelupchurch]

Special section on in the Sept 8 edition titled "The New Nukes"
Temp link: (http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970204409 904574350342705855178-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB1000142405297020440 9904574350342705855178-lMyQjAxMDA5MDAwODEwNDgyWj.html)

The article is lengthy, covering many of the topics up thread. To start, I wanted to summarize the various cost figures cited through the article:


Gen III plants in general, i.e. all designs: $4k to $6.5k per kw
Small, modular nuclear, i.e. Hyperion or B&W: $3.5k to $5k per kw, add $50 to $100m licensing costs per site.
Gen IV Ge-Hatachi Prism design: $10k per kw (small size ~300 MW)


Summary of experts quoted in the article:
Revis James, EPRI
Ronaldo Szilard, Idaho National labs
Amir Shakarami, Exelon VP
Tom Cochrane, NRDC

I read the article and it was pretty good except for the comments by Tom Cochrane. My biggest disagreement would be with implicit assumption that US construction costs are facts of nature rather than products of our regulatory environment. The Chinese are building AP1000 reactors for about $2K per KWh. The World Nuclear Association has better information. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

I have been very pleased with the construction updates I've seen from Sanmen. I was inclined to write off the modular design stuff as Westinghouse marketing hype, but the actual results are impressive. As I recall, one of the pictures I saw was the whole control room being lifted in place as a single module. By the time we start building our AP1000s, we will be dealing with a proven design and not have to deal with FOAK issues.

[Astronuc]

I read the article and it was pretty good except for the comments by Tom Cochrane. My biggest disagreement would be with implicit assumption that US construction costs are facts of nature rather than products of our regulatory environment. The Chinese are building AP1000 reactors for about $2K per KWh. The World Nuclear Association has better information. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html The Chinese didn't have to pay the development costs that Westinghouse did. Westinghouse sold an essentially off-the-shelf design at a relatively huge discount. The Chinese did however buy the first 4 which are now under various stages of construction.

I have been very pleased with the construction updates I've seen from Sanmen. I was inclined to write off the modular design stuff as Westinghouse marketing hype, but the actual results are impressive. As I recall, one of the pictures I saw was the whole control room being lifted in place as a single module. By the time we start building our AP1000s, we will be dealing with a proven design and not have to deal with FOAK issues. Modular construction is relatively new. Designs like the AP1000 were on the drawing boards before modular construction techniques has matured.

The cost of concrete and steel is a big factor in current capital costs, as well as labor, as is interest. The Chinese government would certainly be more inclined to subsidize NPPs than would the US government.

[mheslep]

The Chinese didn't have to pay the development costs that Westinghouse did. Westinghouse sold an essentially off-the-shelf design at a relatively huge discount...Any idea why Westinghouse would do that? To what end? Are you suggesting that the several AP1000 sites on the NRC proposal list would enjoy Chinese construction costs?

[Astronuc]

Any idea why Westinghouse would do that? To what end? Are you suggesting that the several AP1000 sites on the NRC proposal list would enjoy Chinese construction costs? Money. Short term gain. After W assumed CBS, the nuclear (WN) part got sold to BNFL, who in turn sold WN to a partnership with Toshiba (majority) and Shaw (minority), and some others, IIRC.

The nuclear industry is very competitive, but it is very expensive and the margins are often thin.

[mheslep]

Money. Short term gain. ...I'm referring to your statement "at a relatively huge discount", implying they did it for any other reason but short term money. So 1. Why the huge discount? 2. Can the US get the same deal?

[Astronuc]

I'm referring to your statement "at a relatively huge discount", implying they did it for any other reason but short term money. So 1. Why the huge discount? 2. Can the US get the same deal? From a relative who negotiates gas contracts in China, the Chinese are tough negotiators - and the market is competitive. W competes with AREVA and others in the Chinese market. The W deal also involved technology transfer.

The US market is different. I don't see the same deals being done in the US, because W, AREVA and Mitsuibishi are the primary PWR suppliers - and they can't afford to lose money here.

Besides the US DOE (Uncle Sam) is supposed to kick in some subsidies (direct and indirect).

[joelupchurch]

The cost of concrete and steel is a big factor in current capital costs, as well as labor, as is interest. The Chinese government would certainly be more inclined to subsidize NPPs than would the US government.

Actually Westinghouse is also claiming the AP1000 uses a lot less concrete and steel than other designs also. They are claiming 100,000 cubic meters of concrete compared to 520,000 for the Sizewell B reactor. I assume Sizewell B must be a bad design, but they are showing a very small footprint even compared to their own 2nd generation plants. (Page 30-31)

http://amgroupes.fr/admin/compte_rendus/195_compte_rendu.pdf (http://amgroupes.fr/admin/compte_rendus/195_compte_rendu.pdf)

The reason that the Chinese got a good deal on the AP1000 is that they ordered a 100 of them. The most any US utility company ordered is 2. I've suggested on my blog that Congress change the charter of the TVA so they can build nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States. Maybe they could get some economies of scale also.

BTW on the question of what government is providing loan guarantees for these reactors, the answer is the United States.

http://www.world-nuclear.org
/info/inf63.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html)

The US, French and Russian governments were reported to be giving firm support as finance and support arrangements were put in place. The US Export-Import bank approved $5 billion in loan guarantees for the Westinghouse bid

[mheslep]

Actually Westinghouse is also claiming the AP1000 uses a lot less concrete and steel than other designs also. They are claiming 100,000 cubic meters of concrete compared to 520,000 for the Sizewell B reactor. I assume Sizewell B must be a bad design, but they are showing a very small footprint even compared to their own 2nd generation plants. (Page 30-31)

http://amgroupes.fr/admin/compte_rendus/195_compte_rendu.pdf (http://amgroupes.fr/admin/compte_rendus/195_compte_rendu.pdf)

The reason that the Chinese got a good deal on the AP1000 is that they ordered a 100 of them. The most any US utility company ordered is 2.
I don't think 'ordered' is the correct word, as the implies a contract to build, and I'm unaware of a final go ahead on any US nuclear units. Design and services contracts have no doubt been placed.

Where did you get the number 100 for China?

[Astronuc]

The reason that the Chinese got a good deal on the AP1000 is that they ordered a 100 of them. The most any US utility company ordered is 2. I've suggested on my blog that Congress change the charter of the TVA so they can build nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States. Maybe they could get some economies of scale also. Please cite sources. Checking the World Nuclear link - China has plans for about 100 1 GWe units - not all of which are AP1000. And China negotiated a technology transfer program, so after the first 4, CNNC (and perhaps CGNPC and China Power Investment Corporation (CPI)) will likely build most of them. They are also contemplating CPR-1000 and EPRs.

Sizewell B was based on standard 4-loop Westinghouse design like Wolf Creek or Callaway. The essentially used the requirements of the time, given the limited experience (less than 20 years.) Now with 40+ years experience, the plant and reactor designs can be optimized.

[joelupchurch]

I don't think 'ordered' is the correct word, as the implies a contract to build, and I'm unaware of a final go ahead on any US nuclear units. Design and services contracts have no doubt been placed.

Where did you get the number 100 for China?

That is what it says in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

I checked the reference and the Westinghouse CEO did say that:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_575073.html

I also found an article repeating what Wikipedia said about the AP1000 being the standard for Inland nuclear power plants.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053048

I would interpret that to mean that they will use something else for plants that don't require a cooling tower.

US AP1000 Orders.

http://www.nucpros.com/?q=node/4313
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=24250

[Astronuc]

The AP-1000 is a simplified design with a simplified ECCS. It will require cooling towers in some areas where the site would not have adequate river or ocean volumes.

See also
Westinghouse, Shaw to provide four reactors to China
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2046380

from the Candris article:
Last year the company beat out French rival Areva to win a $5.3 billion contract to build four AP1000s in China. Although Westinghouse will transfer the technology to Chinese licensees over the next few years, Candris said, it will build several additional plants with partner The Shaw Group, of Baton Rouge, La. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_575073.html

The AP1000 has a core size of 157 17x17 assemblies with a 14-ft (4.27 m) active fuel length (core height) with a thermal output of ~3400 MWt, which is about the same thermal output from a standard 4-loop 193-assembly core with a core height of 12 ft (3.66 m) before they were uprated. The fuel rods in the AP-1000 uses a 9.5 mm cladding OD.

[mheslep]

I checked the reference and the Westinghouse CEO did say that:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_575073.html..I only check this reference - it says China wants 100, not bought. I've never gotten a volume discount for wanting anything (so far)

Regards the US plants, even Vogle in Georgia is bit early to call an order. The utility and the state utility commission have given the go ahead, but the NRC doesn't give final signoff until 2011, if then. So ground breaking is several years away, if if happens.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html
I hope it does go ahead, but I expect this administration won't let it happen - not in 2011 anyway.

[joelupchurch]

I only check this reference - it says China wants 100, not bought. I've never gotten a volume discount for wanting anything (so far)

Regards the US plants, even Vogle in Georgia is bit early to call an order. The utility and the state utility commission have given the go ahead, but the NRC doesn't give final signoff until 2011, if then. So ground breaking is several years away, if if happens.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html
I hope it does go ahead, but I expect this administration won't let it happen - not in 2011 anyway.

If the Chinese build 100 AP1000 plants, I'm not sure if Westinghouse cares if they see much money from them. There is a whole international supply chain being built for the AP1000. This gives them a lot of leverage when they are bidding against Areva and GE. That's assuming that Westinghouse only licensed the design for construction in China.

The second point is probably valid. The NRC just announced a delay in licensing the AP1000 because Westinghouse hadn't answered all their questions about the sump design.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/a-nuclear-renaissance-stumbles-forward/

[Equate]

DOE Has $40M for Design and Development of Next Gen Nuclear Plants

The $40 million funding announcement made today will support phase one activities including the development of cost-shared conceptual designs, cost and schedule estimates and a business plan for integrating Phase 2 activities. The data gathered in Phase 1 will be used to determine if Phase 2 should continue. Applications for receiving funds from the $40 million are due by November 16 and the DOE expects to make two awards in February 2010 with each supporting a unique reactor concept.

A demonstration plant is expected to be produced by 2021.

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16304

$40 million to be split in half for two separate research projects? They are spending billions to bail out dubious investors and then they are giving out jump change for the development of NGNPs?

That's a slap in the face...

[tmyer2107]

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on gas turbine modular helium reactors (GT-MHR). I recently came across the technology and found it very interesting but wasn't able to find many details on it. Some details can be found here, http://gt-mhr.ga.com/. How does this technology compare to AP1000 reactors?

[Astronuc]

Some info on GA's MHR.

http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/MISCONF06/A25381.pdf


Some info on GT-MHR:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/0863E2E6-0F70-4843-B2C0-541EC6CD8F59/0/gtmhr.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/labar.htm

ASSESSMENT OF PASSIVE DECAY HEAT REMOVAL IN THE GENERAL ATOMIC MODULAR HELIUM REACTOR (http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969/1531/etd-tamu-2004C-NUEN-Cocheme.pdf?sequence=1) (particulars on core and fuel are on pages 38-46)


Operational Parameters on the Gen IV Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor

Reactor power 600 MWth
Net plant efficiency 48% (direct cycle helium)

Coolant inlet/outlet temperature 490°C/850°C
and pressure 90 bar
Average power density 100 MWth/m3
Reference fuel compound UPuC/SiC (70/30%)
with about 20% Pu content
Volume fraction,Fuel/Gas/SiC 50/40/10%
Conversion ratio Self-sufficient
Burnup, Damage 5% FIMA; 60 dpa

Ref: http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
5% FIMA is about 51-52 GWd/tHM, which is comparable to discharge burnups in modern LWRs.

Fast reactors can achieve much higher burnup ~100 GWd/tHM, or about 10% FIMA.

The GT-MHR unit would produce 288 MWe based on 0.48 * 600 MWt.


In contrast, the AP-1000 produces ~3400 MWt (~1100 MWe) using 157 fuel assemblies. The fuel is a 14-ft (4.27 m) 17x17 fuel design, which is typical of STNP or French REP1300 or N4 reactor fuel designs.

The AP-1000 produces approximately the same power (~3411 MWt, without uprate) as a standard Westinghouse 4-loop 17x17 plant with a 12-ft core of 193 assemblies.

[mheslep]

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on gas turbine modular helium reactors (GT-MHR). I recently came across the technology and found it very interesting but wasn't able to find many details on it. Some details can be found here, http://gt-mhr.ga.com/. How does this technology compare to AP1000 reactors?Reading the GA material suggests the major difference is simply the He cooling instead of water, which provides:
o high temperature operation and a Brayton cycle
o no corrosion potential from the coolant
o no phase change (water - steam - water) complications, reducing the size/cost of the balance of plant.
I can't find a reference, but I expect the fuel is still enriched U. Graphite encased.

[mike232]

Just to add this, I don't know if it is true but I heard that France was working on a way to reactivate, and reuse the nuclear waste that is produced by the nclear plants.

[mheslep]

Just to add this, I don't know if it is true but I heard that France was working on a way to reactivate, and reuse the nuclear waste that is produced by the nclear plants.Not working-on, but have-been-doing - as a major operation, the largest in the world since 1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

[Astronuc]

Forbes - Where The Jobs Are: Nuclear Plant Work

Atomic power is coming back, and so are the jobs to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/12/nuclear-power-jobs-leadership-careers-employment.html

America hasn't built a new nuclear plant in three decades. That's about to change. With 28 license applications pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and construction likely to begin on at least four plants within the next five years, companies like Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Areva, URS and the Shaw Group are staffing up, according to Edward Quinn, a past president of the American Nuclear Society, a nuclear power industry group.

The jobs aren't just for nuclear engineers. In fact, only 5% to 10% of the employees who work on a plant hold a nuclear engineering degree, says Quinn. Those specialists work on the core, which uses nuclear technology. There are plenty of other types of engineers employed at nuclear plants and the companies that service, design and construct them, including civil, mechanical and electrical engineers. Beyond engineers, there are a slew of jobs for workers in the construction trades, from welders to grinders. There's also plenty to do for electricians, pipe fitters, iron workers, carpenters and boiler makers.

. . . .

[mheslep]

Forbes - Where The Jobs Are: Nuclear Plant Work

Atomic power is coming back, and so are the jobs to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/12/nuclear-power-jobs-leadership-careers-employment.html

Yes pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for several years now, and pending, and pending. I've yet to see anything indicating the NRC's Jaczko is going to actually give a go ahead on any of them.

[Astronuc]

The NRC is waiting on utilities.

The ABWR and AP1000 are certified although there are some open issues.

[mheslep]

The NRC is waiting on utilities.
Eh? Waiting on them for what? The power companies submitted the applications for the 17 of these plants years ago.

[Astronuc]

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html
Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.
. . . .
"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.

He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.
. . . .

[mheslep]

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.htmlTh e small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.

The B&W reactor would be built at the factory by one company, so the NRC can focus its attention there, and pay less attention to the construction process of every site contractor as there is at the large reactor projects.
It is underground. I forget at the moment, but decades ago one of the icons of nuclear physics said commercial reactors should probably be buried. Finally. Burial should reduce the requirements of the containment structure, and ease public fears.
On site, inside the containment structure storage of waste and new fuel reduces maintenance, and reduces much of the to/from transport of fuel/waste. Relieves the pressure of the waste issue until better approaches are found.
Small size equals smaller cost, so no more bankrupt nuclear utilities leaving the public holding the bag.
No water supply required.


I certainly hope it receives due attention.

[DnD Addict]

If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas? I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people.

What kind of mining practices are needed to mine thorium? I did a quik google search but didn't come up with anything.

[russ_watters]

If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas? Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution. I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people. I'm not sure what overlap you're seeing, but it may just be a biproduct of radical environmentalists being the most prominent opponents of nuclear power (that's basically by definition) and essentially all radical environmentalists are AGW proponents. For the rest of the population, I'd be surprised if there is much of a corellation.

[edit] Meh, the logic may be even more basic: AGW=bad for the environment, nuclear power is perceived as bad for the environment, therefore opponents of nuclear power will tend to be proponents of AGW theory.

[russ_watters]

The small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.

I certainly hope it receives due attention. The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis, so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.

[DnD Addict]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

[Astronuc]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants? Gas plants are primarily peaking units. When the price of gas surged a few years ago, they actually became uneconomical to operate.

Most BWRs in the US have gone to 24 month cycles and are generally run as baseload, and many have been uprated on the order of 15-20% of the last two decades. Large capacity units are most economical as baseload - high capacity factor.

Nuclear plants compete primarily with coal. Natural gas plants generally are more competitive in terms of capital cost, and getting them online.

[DnD Addict]

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways?

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ?

[Astronuc]

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways? Part of that is the fuel costs, and O&M. The new Gen 3+ plants, at least the AP1000, is supposed to have less piping and wiring, and a smaller footprint. On the other hand, cost of steel and concrete has driven up capital costs. The thing about coal is the ash-waste with its heavy metal content. In some cases, the material is just dumped rather disposed of as hazardous waste.

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ? In some Gen-IV systems, they are looking at process heat/energy, e.g., for producing hydrogen. The higher the operating temperature, the more deleterious the environment is on materials. I certainly question the 'realism' behind Gen-IV.

[mheslep]

The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis,
Agreed.
so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.Perhaps, but doesn't necessarily follow. It may be that people will much more readily accept a small reactor that is buried out of sight, couldn't do as much damage even given some fantastic failure scheme, only has to have fuel or waste transport once every 60 years (if ever after startup), and doesn't need to be sited on some prime river or lake front property. Also since the small reactor construction time is so much faster (built off site) there's less time for mischief law suits and mauling in the agenda press.

[mheslep]

Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution...Well in the US at least. Overseas (Asia) nuclear has been much less expensive, highlighting the political cost attached nuclear in the US. Wind power in the wind belt is more or less competitive with natural gas.

[gmax137]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

The reason units (of any type) are operated as base load is because they are the cheapest to operate at that time. Nuclear units are perfectly capable of daily load following, but the Utility companies don't operate them that way - because at any time of day or night, they are the cheapest to run (once the company has made the significant investment required to build the unit). What makes the most sense at any given moment is the operating cost, not the capital cost, which has already been spent. The reason the nuclear units have a low operating cost is that the fuel is practically free. Compared to coal or gas, the uranium fuel is very inexpensive (and cheep to transport due to the limited amount of fuel required, relative to fossil fuels). There is a factor of approximately one million there, between the energy in a pound of uranium and the energy in a pound of coal. The only fuel cheaper than uranium is the wind - and it isn't really that much cheaper.

Gas fired plants aren't run for base load - for the same reason: They are the most expensive to operate, because their fuel is so pricey. So the Utility companies turn them on last and turn them off first (that's what it means to be a peaking unit.

BWR or PWR really doesn't matter in this context.

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc.,

Where did you get that idea? Nuclear units produce 1/5 of our electricity in the US; in fact, nuclear units are the only competition that the coal plants have (and the coal plants have traditionally been given a free pass on their external costs).

[Astronuc]

Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.

[mheslep]

Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better.

[Astronuc]

Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better. Unfortunately not. I took that off a presentation. I'll look to see if I can find a larger one.

[Astronuc]

Regulatory History Package on Design Certification
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML003761550

[gmax137]

Regulatory History Package on Design Certification
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML003761550

That's nice - how did you do that? It looks like a search on 'design certification' I didn't know there were 'saved' searches in ADAMS. Are there others like that (say, on other subjects)?

Thanks for the link !

[Astronuc]

That's nice - how did you do that? It looks like a search on 'design certification' I didn't know there were 'saved' searches in ADAMS. Are there others like that (say, on other subjects)?

Thanks for the link ! I was slogging through 10 CFR, NUREG 0800, and Reg. Guides, trying better to understand the DCD (and Tier 1 and 2) requirements. I came across, SECY-92-053, "Use of Design Acceptance Criteria During 10 CFR Part 52 Design Certification Reviews", and did a search on Google for that SECY. One of the links just happened to be that page I cited. Those documents are the whole basis behind the design certification and COL process and 10 CFR 52.

There may be other saved searches, but I'm not sure how to find a specific one. It was purely fortuitous and serendipitous to find the one I did.

[Astronuc]

Japan Steel Works takes a lead in large forgings.

Japan Steel Works (JSW) has completed its second press for ultra-large nuclear forgings, while Rolls-Royce and Larsen & Toubro will collaborate on instrumentation.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Links_for_the_supply_chain_0104101.html

WNA list of large forging shops.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html

[Astronuc]

Looking down into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) of a PWR during a refueling. The core is about 10 m (33 ft) underwater, and the glow is the Cerenkov radiation.

Now imagine trying to do measurements and inspections at 10 m. Nowadays, rad-hardened digital cameras are used. Measurements are done in the spent fuel pool with the fuel also under about 10 m of water.

A ring of studs or bolts sorrounds the opening of the PV. The tall posts are alignment posts. The upper head has to precisely align within a few mils (~ 1 mm) in order for the control elements and control rod drives to be directly over their respective fuel assemblies.

[alcurad]

so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?

[gmax137]

so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?

Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

Finally, the temperatures in the LWR design (reactor coolant at say 600 F in a PWR) are low by comparison to the gas temperatures in a coal fired unit or in a gas turbine, so you're not going to see anything other than a water-based Rankine cycle used. But then, that may be arguing in a circle (since the operating temperatures are selected to match the steam cycle).

[alcurad]

thanks, that explains a lot.

But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

[QuantumPion]

thanks, that explains a lot.



so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).

[mheslep]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:
Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.True, but all existing commercial reactors in the US at least use rankine steam for the primary cycle.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story. Per a seminar run by the CEO of nuclear operator I once attended, the number one thing utilities want to do, or rather avoid, is they do not want to build more power plants, certainly not the expensive, capital intensive plants. They want to run the ones they have as near to maximum capacity as possible. Seen this way, reliability and efficiency are both important. If a utility were to choose a fleet of inefficient plants, they will simply have to build more of them to meet demand.

[mheslep]

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).Er, more specifically reactor down time trumps fuel costs by a large margin, since there's no $/kWh coming in when its down, and the utility may have to pay huge penalties for failure to provide promised supply in some states.

[Astronuc]

KAERI - Nuclear Power Reactor Technology
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/

Fuel Design and Fabrication
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/module2/module2_4/2_4.htm

Enjoy! :tongue2:

[gmax137]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:
...
Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

Well, I'm not here to defend the NRC, but I do wonder, which designs have been proposed by any of the utility companies that were denied approval by the NRC? Actually, I'm not aware of any (and I would be interested to learn about any that were).

True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story.

I said, efficiency isn't as important as you might think, not "reliability trumps efficiency, end of story."

[mheslep]

Well, I'm not here to defend the NRC, but I do wonder, which designs have been proposed by any of the utility companies that were denied approval by the NRC? Actually, I'm not aware of any (and I would be interested to learn about any that were)....There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections.

[gmax137]

I'd still like to see a list of Construction Permits and (now) Combined Operating Licenses that were denied or disapproved by the NRC and AEC. Anyone know how to find such a list?

I think that's really a separate issue from the review fees, and other ways the agency may not favor small plants.

[Astronuc]

There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections. SMRs are getting attention from the NRC. New reactors based on non-standard or new technology are on the back burner.

The NRC will only seriously consider a reactor that has support from at least one utility.

If one looks at the post (#168 of this thread) on "Regulatory History Package on Design Certification", one will see the emphasis on standardization.

New concepts need to be proven at a higher level before the NRC would consider them.

Both thermal efficiency and capacity factor are important, and perhaps CF more so.

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/Vogtle_3_4.pdf

[mheslep]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/Vogtle_3_4.pdf
Vogtle is an expansion of an existing site, minimizing infrastructure and changes to an existing community. So I'm surprised at some of the facts in the brochure:
New units are under construction at Plant Vogtle. Construction began in April 2009 and will continue through 20172017? Eight years of construction for a pre-existing site?

In August 2009, Southern Nuclear received an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the units. The ESP is one step in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process for new units. Completion of the ESP process resolves many site safety and environmental issues and determines the site is suitable to build a nuclear energy plant. Southern Nuclear’s ESP was issued with a Limited Work Authorization that allows limited safety construction to begin prior to receiving a license to construct and operate the plant.
How is it possible to begin a construction project this way, or to secure reasonable financing when they still don't have a license to construct, meaning it might be denied?

[mheslep]

As an aside, I note from the brochure the Vogtle project uses 3147 acres. If that same acreage was used as for a solar farm (thermal or PV) the site would produce at a daily average rate of perhaps 400MWe (2.4 GWe peak*), starting after a construction time of ~12 months and obviously without requiring the complicated blessing of the NRC. A solar farm would not help Georgia much with base load, none the less the solar farm would have produced 3.2 billion kWh a year (or $320 million a year @10cents/kWh) for seven years before completion of these new nuclear plants.

*12e6 M^2 x 200We-peak/M^2, 4 peak equivalent hours per day.

[Astronuc]

The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.

The utilities are counting on Uncle Sam to guarantee their investments, more or less.

[mheslep]

The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.I have seen that same build time estimate. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will not sell any electricity from reactors 3,4 before 2017.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.
No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on.

[Astronuc]

I'd see that prediction too. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will sell electricity from 3,4 before 2017.

No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on. I don't know all the details, but they do benefit from the fact that it's adjacent or included in keys areas of the current site.

Most of the new NPPs being planned by existing nuclear utilities have been sited at existing sites, many of which had been originally designed for 2, 3 or 4 units (STNP, Comanche Peak, Grand Gulf, River Bend, North Anna, . . . .). Others, e.g. Amarillo, are looking at entirely new sites.

[mheslep]

Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."
http://www.technologyreview.com/files/39981/0510-Photo-Essay-Ax600.jpg
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f

[QuantumPion]

Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."
http://www.technologyreview.com/files/39981/0510-Photo-Essay-Ax600.jpg
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f

Hm, good name for a plant. :tongue2:

[Astronuc]

Japan gets organised for nuclear exports (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=27662&jmid=18699&j=247171936&utm_source=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=WNN+Daily%3A+Another+drop+in+nuclear+ generation+%28247171936%29&utm_content=dion%40anatech%2Ecom)
05 May 2010
A new company should be formed later this year to support Japanese exports of nuclear power technology and knowledge. The Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Meti) has agreed to set up the firm with involvement from utilities the Tokyo, Chubu and Kansai electric power companies as well as with reactor vendors Toshiba, Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The Innovation Network of Japan - a joint venture of government and industry - may also join. The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia.

Source: World Nuclear News

[gmax137]

"The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia."

Maybe Toshiba (/ Westinghouse / ABB / CE) should have tried marketing their System 80+ design themselves.

I wonder if they have any scope of supply in the Korean version to be supplied to UAE.

[Astronuc]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).

[QuantumPion]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).

Heh, I called it! :wink:

We haven't decided to build it yet though, only selected the type if we do.

[Astronuc]

Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-1105108.html

Colin Smith, Rolls-Royce's director of engineering and technology, attended opening ceremonies at both institutions, which he described as proven centres of excellence for nuclear science. "Rolls-Royce is well placed to deliver world-class engineering and manufacturing capability to support the delivery of global nuclear power programs and we are delighted that these new UTC collaborations will help us remain at the cutting edge of technology," he said.

U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/

[mheslep]

Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-1105108.html



U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that Ive seen.

[Astronuc]

Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that I've seen.

EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm
The next generation of nuclear generators will most likely be built on existing sites owned by British Energy.

Dungeness in Kent, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset are among the most likely sites for new-build, according to industry insiders. Possibly 4 EPRs.

[mheslep]

EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm
Possibly 4 EPRs.

after the government gave the go-ahead for the rebirth of the nuclear industry early this year.Really? I'd missed that. I had thought one of the reasons behind the UK's expensive offshore wind push was because more nuclear was not on the table.

[mheslep]

Same article - disconcerting waste handling behavior in France

[...]A couple of recent incidents in France have made such concerns pertinent.

In July, 100 workers at EDF's Tricastin power plant in Bollene, southern France, were contaminated as waste particles escaped from a pipe during maintenance work.

Medical checks found the workers were all fine as the contamination was mild, but it nevertheless pointed to a lack of control.

And only a few weeks earlier, an adjacent Areva subsidiary failed to notify the locals until late in the afternoon the day after some 75kg of liquid containing unenriched uranium leaked into the ground water.

The leak was taken seriously. Locals were told to stop drinking tap water; swimming pools were covered up; farmers and gardeners stopped watering their crops.

[Astronuc]

Really? I'd missed that. I had thought one of the reasons behind the UK's expensive offshore wind push was because more nuclear was not on the table. Well - there are various plans. What path those plans will actually take is anyone's guess. At the moment, the UK needs to establish a new and hopefully functional government.

[Astronuc]

Construction work delayed at Levy as costs rise
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_work_delayed_at_Levy_as_costs_rise-0705105.htm
07 May 2010
Progress Energy has announced that it has postponed major construction activities at the proposed Levy nuclear power plant in Florida until it has received a licence for the plant. At the same time, the estimated cost for the project has increased by up to $5 billion.

The company said that it has delayed work on the Levy project for several reasons, including: the need to reduce capital spending to avoid short term rate increases; a recent downgrading to Progress Energy Florida's credit ratings; a delay in the licensing timeline; the current economic climate; and continued uncertainty about federal and state energy policies, including carbon regulation.

Progress says that, according to the current schedule, it expects the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue the combined construction and operating licence (COL) for Levy in late 2012. The company said that at that time it will "update its assessment of the project and schedule to ensure that it continues to be in the best interests of customers and shareholders."
. . . . Escalating costs will likely delay/slow the renaissance.

[mheslep]

Construction work delayed at Levy as costs rise
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_work_delayed_at_Levy_as_costs_rise-0705105.htm
07 May 2010
Escalating costs will likely delay/slow the renaissance.

Meanwhile, Progress said that its current estimate for the cost of the proposed Levy plant is between $17.2 billion and $22.5 billion.

$22.5 billion for one 2.2 GWe plant + transmission? Begin operation in 2019? What the hell? Forget new big-plant nuclear, at least how it's done now in the US, with that price level and schedule.

[minerva]

Same article - disconcerting waste handling behavior in France

It's much of the usual beat up crap I think.

As usual, let's answer the questions you never see in the press.

Was there any off-site impact?
Was there any impact on anybody's health, either plant workers or off-site persons?
What quantitative radiation doses did plant employees receive?


so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

Absolutely. Nuclear fuel is very, very inexpensive per unit of energy content.

[Astronuc]

PSEG submits ESP application
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-PSEG_submits_ESP_application-2605104.html
Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) has submitted an early site permit (ESP) application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a proposed new nuclear power plant in New Jersey.

The preferred location for a potential new plant would be adjacent to PSEG's Salem and Hope Creek plants. The two plants are located on a 740 acre (300 hectare) site in Salem County, New Jersey.
. . . .
PSEG already has three operating reactors (PWRs) at the same New Jersey site - the two pressurised water reactor (PWR) Salem units, plus the single Hope Creek boiling water reactor (BWR) - and has applied for licence extensions for all three. PSEG owns 100% of Hope Creek and 57% of Salem. It also holds a 50% interest in the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.

So far, the NRC has issued four ESPs: for Exelon's Clinton site in Illinois; Entergy's Grand Gulf site in Mississippi; Dominion's North Anna site in Virginia; and Southern's Vogtle site in Georgia. It is also currently reviewing an ESP application from Exelon for its proposed plant in Victoria County, Texas. Original plans at the site called for 2 Hope Creek units, but only one was completed. Hope Creek 2 was not even started.

[Astronuc]

Nuclear R&D funding announced
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_research_funding_announced-2605105.html

There have been recent announcements in both the USA and UK of investments into university-led research projects designed to improve the prospects of a next generation of nuclear power plants.

In the USA, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced on 20 May the latest round of funding allocations for research and development projects under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP).

In total $38 million has been awarded to 42 projects covering four main research areas, including fuel cycle research and development, 13 projects, $11.82 million; Generation IV reactor research and development, 20 projects, $19.86 million; light water reactor sustainability, 2 projects, $764,000; mission-relevant investigator-initiated research, 7 projects, $5.56 million. . . . .

Meanwhile in the UK - the Open University is leading a consortium of six universities - including Imperial College, the University of Bristol, Loughborough, Manchester and Oxford - in a project designed to increase levels of understanding on the performance of materials suitable for fourth generation reactors.

A particular focus will be the performance of materials suitable for high temperature reactors and long lifetimes, both factors which affect the economic viability of future nuclear power plants.

[Astronuc]

Alstom expands turbine production
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Alstom_expands_turbine_production-2506104.html
25 June 2010
France's Alstom has opened a new $300 million turbine manufacturing facility in Tennessee to supply turbines for use in North American power plants. The company is also reported to be close to a joint venture agreement with Indian partners.

The new US facility, in Chattanooga, will supply steam turbines, gas turbines, large turbo generators and related equipment for fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. In addition, it will contribute to retrofit jobs to improve performance of existing turbines.
. . .

[Astronuc]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_DoE_told_to_finish_the_job_at_Yucca_Mountain_30 06101.html
30 June 2010

The Yucca Mountain project looks close to resurrection after the Department of Energy (DoE) was told that it must follow through on the waste disposal plan as specified by Congress.
. . . .
Now, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has told the DoE it had no right to substitute its own ideas in place of those legislated by Congress. The DoE and the NRC are bound by law to complete their work at Yucca Mountain unless Congress acts to supercede the previous legislation. The DoE move to withdraw the application was rejected by the ASLB. "Unless Congress directs otherwise, the DoE may not single-handedly derail the legislated decisionmaking process by withdrawing the application. The DoE's motion must therefore be denied."

The move would be welcomed by those that petitioned against the DoE's move to withdraw: the states of Washington and South Carolina, Aiken County, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute and six counties in Nevada.

The ALSB noted that the 1982 act had deliberately put ultimate siting authority with Congress and not with the President or the DoE. Furthermore: "When Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site over Nevada's objection in 2002, it reinforced the expectation in the 1982 act that the project would be removed from the political process and that the NRC would complete an evaluation of [its] technical merits."
. . . It will be interesting to see where that goes.

[mheslep]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_DoE_told_to_finish_the_job_at_Yucca_Mountain_30 06101.html
30 June 2010

It will be interesting to see where that goes.That's huge! I imagine Senator Reid has had a few phone calls into the NRC chair, Jaczko. Jaczko must really feel he's obligated by the existing law.

[Astronuc]

I thought it interesting that 6 counties in Nevada petitioned against the DOE withdrawal. I'm sure they want the work and income. DOE has spent $billions in NV.
The move would be welcomed by those that petitioned against the DoE's move to withdraw: the states of Washington and South Carolina, Aiken County, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute and six counties in Nevada. So whose interest is Reid supposedly protecting?

There is still the matter of reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused U and Pu, or staying direct diposal. The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.

[mheslep]

I thought it interesting that 6 counties in Nevada petitioned against the DOE withdrawal. I'm sure they want the work and income. DOE has spent $billions in NV.
So whose interest is Reid supposedly protecting?

There is still the matter of reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused U and Pu, or staying direct diposal. The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.The vast majority of the population must be in Vegas and Reno, i.e. Clark and Washoe counties. I expect they are not included in the six. (16 total) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Nevada). Yucca itself is in Nye county, and so is the old nuclear weapons testing site, the Nevada Proving Grounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site). Good bet that residents of Nye are very comfortable with the nuclear industry and that Nye is one of the six counties in favor of activating Yucca.

[minerva]

The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.

I don't think utilities really care about getting the fuel off-site. What annoys the utilities, though, is that they have been required to pay the money into the Nuclear Waste Fund, but nothing has ever happened. They're paying for nothing. Why should they have to keep paying for the nuclear waste fund?

In practice, dry cask storage at utility sites can be sustained perfectly well for decades - or we could reprocess. This material really isn't a big problem, and it really doesn't take up a large volume.

If the utilities were allowed to take the money back from the nuclear waste fund to fund their own dry cask storage on site, at least for a while, I'm sure they wouldn't really object to it.

[Astronuc]

The Canadian province of New Brunswick could host a 'clean energy park' fitted with Areva's nuclear and renewable power generating equipment.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_New_Brunswick_deals_with_Areva_0907101.html

A letter of intent was announced yesterday that could see such a park established alongside the existing Point Lepreau nuclear power plant. The signatories were the New Brunswick government, utility NB Power and Areva, which has similar plans for Piketon and Fresno in the US states of Ohio and California respectively.

The company said the park "would feature a mid-sized Generation III+ nuclear plant and renewable energy sources all built by Areva." Its location alongside Point Lepreau on the North Atlantic would be expected to suit a new reactor, although its qualities for wind or solar generation were not outlined.

Generating 1650 MWe, Areva's flagship EPR model is too big to be described as mid-sized. Instead Areva hinted towards its forthcoming Atmea and Kerena designs at 1100 MWe and 1250 MWe. . . . . This would be an interesting development, especially if NB starts selling (exporting) power to the US. The EPR is rather expensive, and it puts alot of assets in one basket, or on one shaft/turbine-generator set. ATMEA is about the same capacity as a Westinghouse AP1000.

Financing will be critical.

[Astronuc]

Nuclear powers to top of the table
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Nuclear_powers_to_top_of_the_table_0607101.html
06 July 2010
Power companies using a lot of nuclear energy have been shown as among America's cleanest by the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) in recently published data. . . . . The nuclear industry loves this kind of PR. Of course, one does have to compare the complete fuel cycle and waste management to get the whole story.

[minerva]

Nuclear powers to top of the table
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Nuclear_powers_to_top_of_the_table_0607101.html
06 July 2010
The nuclear industry loves this kind of PR. Of course, one does have to compare the complete fuel cycle and waste management to get the whole story.

It's quite interesting to see how NRDC has basically admitted the truth here, that nuclear energy is a very effective, very clean, large-scale source of energy, since they have traditionally been something of an anti-nuclear organisation in the past.

With regards to the "Clean Energy Park", I really don't understand why they have to go for the "nuclear plus renewables", when the "renewables" are more expensive than nuclear for a given amount of energy capacity, and generate only a tiny fraction of the energy? Why not save the money and just use the nuclear energy?

[Astronuc]

With regards to the "Clean Energy Park", I really don't understand why they have to go for the "nuclear plus renewables", when the "renewables" are more expensive than nuclear for a given amount of energy capacity, and generate only a tiny fraction of the energy? Why not save the money and just use the nuclear energy? I'm not sure what NB has in mind, but the Pt. Lepreau (CANDU) site sites on the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy, so I imagine they are thinking of tidal power. The Bay of Fundy has tides of about 12 m (~39 ft) up toward Hopewell Rocks.

I'll be passing through the area later this summer.

[minerva]

While we're on the subject of Canada, I never could understand for what possible decent reason that one solitary 1.5 MW wind turbine at Pickering exists for, right next door to the 6 reactors which produce ~10,000 times the amount of clean energy.

It just seems a little silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_7_commemorative_turbine

[Astronuc]

It could be a test unit. Perhaps they wish to monitor wind speed and direction over a long period of time. Also, the infrastructure exists at Pickering to tie into the grid.

Maybe a tax credit? :biggrin: :rolleyes:

[mheslep]

While we're on the subject of Canada, I never could understand for what possible decent reason that one solitary 1.5 MW wind turbine at Pickering exists for, right next door to the 6 reactors which produce ~10,000 times the amount of clean energy.

It just seems a little silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_7_commemorative_turbine3.1GW / 1.8 MW = 1722X

Surely that particular turbine is iconic, or a test of some kind, but maybe the up front cost was also cheaper than more nuclear per W installed.

[Astronuc]

Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee

The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology subcommittee was established to address the question: “Do technical alternatives to today’s once through fuel cycle offer sufficient promise to warrant serious consideration and R&D investment, and do these technologies hold significant potential to influence the way in which used fuel is stored and disposed?”

The membership on the subcommittees overlap to ensure the subcommittees do not operate in isolation from one another. Each subcommittee will also address a series of questions related to governance and institutional arrangements.


http://brc.gov/RFCT_Subcommittee.html


Also of interest at INL

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/careers/282

http://www.mevschool.org/ - should be of interest to graduates and young professionals.

[Astronuc]

The joint IEA/NEA Nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap examines the steps that governments and the private sector need to take to reach that goal. It is one of a series being prepared by the IEA in cooperation with other organisations and the industry at the request of the G8.
http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6962-nuclear-roadmap.pdf

Should be interesting in 2050 to look back 40 years to see where we were.

[mheslep]

http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6962-nuclear-roadmap.pdf

Should be interesting in 2050 to look back 40 years to see where we were.Nice survey of the state of the industry, but I find the 'Roadmap' points in there are generalized to the point of being useless.

[Smiley108]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum HERE (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370) where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so HERE (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html) is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

I Agree With most of what you have said ,it is the disposal of the spent fuel that gets most of the attention !
We have wave Generators that compress air and run Turbines in Australia !
Can you explain how Radioisotope Batteries Work ?

[Astronuc]

Contracts for the next Chinese AP1000s
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Contracts_for_the_next_Chinese_AP1000s_1808101. html
World Nuclear News - 18 August 2010
A framework has been established for two AP1000 units at Xianning as well as a factory for their pre-assembled modules. Shaw will continue its role in support, but Westinghouse has no major involvement. :rolleyes:

A round of contracts signed yesterday marked a triple-first for Chinese nuclear. The first inland AP1000 project at Xianning, Hubei province; the first AP1000 project for utility China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) and the country's move to the next phase of its self-sufficiency plan.

Four AP1000s were imported from a Westinghouse-Shaw consortium in December 2006 and these are all now mid-construction. That first phase saw Westinghouse and Shaw lead construction and gradually pass know-how to State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC).
. . . . How to give away technology - and jobs.

China is now looking at agreements with other states, e.g., Argentina.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Investment_in_Argentine_nuclear_0408101.html

And Korea, with technology developed from Westinghouse technology, hopes to capture about 1/3 of the global market.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=26865
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=26797
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=14302

On the other hand, GE-Hitachi is looking to sell a couple of ESBWRs in India. Again though, there is expected to be a fair amount of technology transfer.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28260

[mheslep]

How to give away technology - and jobs.

Give away? Maybe Westinghouse just lost out to the competition? Otherwise why don't they bid in China?

[Astronuc]

Give away? Maybe Westinghouse just lost out to the competition? Otherwise why don't they bid in China? W did bid in China and won. Chinese companies (government) 'require' transfer of technology in their contracts. And they hire retired engineers from the US to reverse engineer US and European technology.

[mheslep]

W did bid in China and won. Chinese companies (government) 'require' transfer of technology in their contracts. And they hire retired engineers from the US to reverse engineer US and European technology.Why 'require' with quotes? Sounds like the cost of doing business in China.

[gmax137]

...Sounds like the cost of doing business in China.

It's just business, and nothing new in the nuclear power field: The French sell PWRs descended from the Westinghouse technology, the Japanese sell BWRs descended from the GE plants, and the Koreans sell PWRs based on the CE System 80 design.

None of this technology is 'rocket science,' it's just good old-fashion solid engineering, and American engineers have no monopoly on that.

[Jon Richfield]

Here is a web site that dispels nuclear power 'safety'.

[old, dead crackpot link deleted]


OK, I give up! What is the connection? Glowing green teddy bears or something? I cannot find anything even remotely science- or technology-literate on that site. If it is a joke it is too subtle for me and I don't have time to work it out. It is is not a joke it is a sick joke and, radiation or not, I am too healthy for it.

[Astronuc]

The United States Is Going Nuclear
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/14/the-united-states-is-going-nuclear/

but
Exelon Tightens Its Belt
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/health-care-cost-cutting-nuclear-intelligent-investing-exelon.html

Exelon has the largest portfolio of nuclear units in the US.

[mheslep]

The United States Is Going Nuclear
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/14/the-united-states-is-going-nuclear/That NEI PR guy mentions Vogtle (3,4). The site still has not received final NRC approval, and won't before 2011 per plan (http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/timeline.aspx), if then. Vogtle has grant money, has early this, early that, but no Combined Operating License in hand even after all these years. And this is an addition to an existing nuclear site. Good luck with brand new sites.

[russ_watters]

OK, I give up! What is the connection? Glowing green teddy bears or something? I cannot find anything even remotely science- or technology-literate on that site. If it is a joke it is too subtle for me and I don't have time to work it out. It is is not a joke it is a sick joke and, radiation or not, I am too healthy for it. Old crackpot link, apparently now dead.

[Jon Richfield]

Old crackpot link, apparently now dead.

Riiight... Couldn't be dead enough for me!:approve:
I have a question about nuclear waste safety that for years has struck me as grossly under-emphasised. Rather than jam it in here, I'll start a new thread. I invite everyone interested to have a look for... say: "Nuclear waste waste". Don't cry if you can't find it immediately; I still have to write the intro. If you happen to know something about nuclear power or have informed views on its pros and cons, consider yourself and your contributions doubly welcome. If not, well, welcome anyway. Who knows; we might both learn something.
Cheers,
Jon

[Astronuc]

That NEI PR guy mentions Vogtle (3,4). The site still has not received final NRC approval, and won't before 2011 per plan (http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/timeline.aspx), if then. Vogtle has grant money, has early this, early that, but no Combined Operating License in hand even after all these years. And this is an addition to an existing nuclear site. Good luck with brand new sites. To see the status of Vogtle -
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

It is the lead AP-1000 in the US.

In accordance with Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52), "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants," a COL application may reference a standard design certification, an early site permit, both, or neither. Many COL applications have referenced an application for design certification, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.55(c). On that basis, SNC referenced Westinghouse's application to amend the AP1000 standard design certification and cited the following amended design control document (DCD) in its COL original application for Vogtle, Units 3 & 4:

AP1000 DCD - Westinghouse Revision 16
Vogtle Early Site Permit Application - Revision 4
In Revision 1 to the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 COL application dated May 22, 2009 SNC updated the application to reflect that its application now incorporates by reference AP1000 DCD Revision 17, and the Vogtle Early Site (ESP) Application, Revision 5.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle_units.aspx

[Astronuc]

I caught a news item on a small reactor called CAREM.

The CAREM nuclear power plant is aimed at increasing the Argentine technological capacity in the nuclear field and developing the nation NPP export capacity, making use of favourable market conditions and enhancing Argentina insertion to this field.

The CAREM reactor is an advanced 27 MW electric-power-generation nuclear station, of inherent safety characteristics based on passive safety systems. It has a high level of intrinsic reliability, which translates into simple operation and maintenance.

In view of its simple design and low power, the reactor presents few operational requirements and calls for a limited support structure, which makes it apt for electricity generation and other applications in cities of up to 100,000 inhabitants.

. . . . http://www.invap.net/nuclear/carem/carem_index-e.html

[mheslep]

To see the status of Vogtle -
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

It is the lead AP-1000 in the US.


http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle_units.aspx
I had a conversation with a friend the other day who works at the NRC, and expressed my concerns about nuclear cost which, I believe, is in part due to the inertia and uncertainty of the licensing process. The friend said immediately that a license takes four years, indicating to me that's the standard talking point at NRC. Well sorry, not true, not for Vogtle.

I support new US nuclear in theory; given this current state of affairs I don't want to pay for it.

[Astronuc]

Interesting development -

Egypt to seek tenders for 1st nuclear plant in December
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE67Q08Z20100827
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt plans to start an international bidding process for its first nuclear power plant in December, after choosing the Dabaa site on the Mediterranean coast, news papers reported on Friday.

The Arab world's most populous country, which signed a deal with Australia's WorleyParsons for a nuclear power consultancy last year, aims to set up four nuclear plants by 2025, with the first to start operating in 2019.
. . . .

[Astronuc]

FYI - Light Water Reactor Sustainability (https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=442&mode=2)

The Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program is a research and development (R&D) program sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE), performed in close collaboration with industry R&D programs, to provide the technical foundations for licensing and managing the long-term, safe and economical operation of current nuclear power plants. DOE’s program focus is on longer-term and higher-risk/reward research that contributes to the National Policy objectives of energy security and environmental security.

The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Nuclear Energy Systems Support Program supporting R&D activities addressing reliability, availability, productivity, component aging, safety, and security of existing nuclear power plants.

Possible second license extension: most currently operating nuclear power plants will begin reaching the end of their 60-year operating licenses. If these plants do not operate beyond 60 years, the total fraction of generated electrical energy from nuclear power will begin to decline - even with the addition of new nuclear generating capacity.

Projected nuclear power generation. The red line represents the total generating capacity of current and planned nuclear power plants, assuming extended operation to 80 years. The unshaded area below the line represents lost capacity if the current nuclear power plant fleet is decommissioned after 60 years.

[mheslep]

FYI - Light Water Reactor Sustainability (https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=442&mode=2)Great idea, why not? Why not 100, 120 years? Seems to me the absolute cheapest nuclear move to make with a given dollar is to extend the life of existing plants, even that eventually means replacing every brick and pipe. Still cheaper than a new plant, new legal challenges, new six year NRC approval process.

[law&theorem]

There is at least one major unsolved problem with nuclear power. What do you do with the spent fuel? Right now it just accumulates at the various plant sites. Yucca mountain is still iffy as a long term solution.

use fast reactor to burn up most of the spent fuel
Yucca mountain problem is the bad result of ONCE-THROUGH fuel policy

[Jon Richfield]

use fast reactor to burn up most of the spent fuel
Yucca mountain problem is the bad result of ONCE-THROUGH fuel policy

Right. Our current nuclear impasse and general problem is the result of letting political hysteria arousing out of bigotry and ignorance mess up what should have been a scientific and technological/engineering challenge.

[gmax137]

...bigotry...

whaat??

[Jon Richfield]

whaat??

Hm? Is there a problem?

You have of course surely observed the attitude of the anti-nuke Nazis?

Or do I misunderstand?

[Astronuc]

Germany agrees to extend nuclear plant life span
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117
Germany's coalition government has decided to extend the life span of the country's nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years, officials say.

Under the agreement, some plants will now remain in production until the 2030s, instead of being phased out by 2021 as the previous government wanted.

There will also be new fees on utility companies to fund renewable energy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that renewable sources are not developed enough to abandon nuclear power.

She acknowledged that there were widespread concerns about nuclear energy, but said it was needed as a "bridge technology" until renewables were more viable.

. . .


Nuclear a cash cow for Germany's plans
http://world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_a_cash_cow_for_Germanys_plans_0609101.h tml
06 September 2010
German nuclear power plants are set to operate for longer after a policy change from Angela Merkel's government gave them a short-term extension in return for billions in taxes.

. . . .

[Astronuc]

First contracts for first new plant
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_First_contracts_for_first_new_plant_1409101.htm l
14 September 2010
At a supply chain event for UK contractors yesterday, EDF Energy announced that it has awarded over £50 million ($77 million) worth of contracts for the first nuclear power plant it plans to build in the UK.

Together with its investment partner, Centrica, EDF Energy plans to build four Areva EPR reactors by 2025, two each at its Hinkley Point and Sizewell sites. The company expects the first unit, at Hinkley Point C, to be operating by 2018.
. . . .

Nuclear utilities in global sustainability index
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Nuclear_utilities_in_global_sustainability_index-1409104.html
13 September 2010
A number of US and European nuclear power utilities have been included in the latest review of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI World), one of the leading international benchmarks for corporate contribution to sustainable development.
. . . .

[Astronuc]

India ready to export reactors
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-India_ready_to_export_reactors-2309107.html
23 September 2010
Overseas vendors may be keen to sell India their reactor technology, but the country is ready to export its own pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs).

In India's statement to the 54th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman Srikumar Banerjee said that Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is "ready to offer Indian PHWRs of 220 MWe or 540 MWe for export." Furthermore, he said, Indian industry is also "on the way" to becoming a competitive supplier of special steels, large size forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services on the global market.

. . . . So India will join Russian, China and Korea as key exporters of commercial nuclear technology. They all will likely become competitive suppliers of special steels, large size forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services on the global market.

Interesting parallel between the present day US economy and that of Lancashire in the 19th century in which overseas markets began competing effectively with industries in Lancashire, which resulted in loss of revenue, periodic recessions or depressions, and surplus labour. But then again, Lancashire could generate much of its capital locally, as opposed to the US having to go to foreign sources (sovereign investment funds) to raise capital. But that is really a subject for Other Sciences or P&WA.

[mugaliens]

Germany agrees to extend nuclear plant life span
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117

That's surprising! When I arrived in Germany in 2005, the media buzz at the time was that they were phasing out their nuclear industry in favor of wind.

Sounds like the green party took a nose dive.

[Astronuc]

Inside a NPP.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11128_3-10005036.html?tag=mncol (6 images)

[mheslep]

Inside a NPP.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11128_3-10005036.html?tag=mncol (6 images)Thanks, though that's more 'outside' than inside anything nuclear, with no reactor photos given. Not that I expect journalists are allowed many pics these days inside the containment dome.

[Astronuc]

There's a nice shot into a core in the pdf in this post.
Here's a link. http://deqtech.com/Resources/PDF/Sources_at_NPP.pdf

It is tough to get images inside containment now. It's pretty much limited due to safeguard restrictions.

[Astronuc]

Nuclear Power Institute—Developing The Nuclear Industry Workforce
With eight new nuclear reactors approved for construction in Texas, the need for skilled workers is growing rapidly. NPI is meeting this challenge through a broad partnership with industry, community colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, science and math teachers, state government, Federal agencies, and elected and civic leaders.

Some 450 skilled workers needed for each new reactor being built in Texas.

nuclearpowerinstitute.org

I've known the director for 28 years. NPI is a recent creation.

A good industry journal for keeping up with nuclear power plants for and by those involved in NPP operation.
http://www.nuclearplantjournal.com/

[gmax137]

It is tough to get images inside containment now.

How's this (this unit had been mothballed for many years at the time of the photo):

28752

[Astronuc]

Ningde 4 the latest Chinese reactor project
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Ningde_4_the_latest_Chinese_reactor_project_041 01001.html
Some 24 reactors are now under construction in China.

[mheslep]

Nuclear Power Institute—Developing The Nuclear Industry Workforce

With eight new nuclear reactors approved for construction in Texas,

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.

[Astronuc]

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US. The approval is not necessarily from the NRC, although that is what counts. I suspect the approval is in the form of letters of intent or MOUs from utilities, although considering when that was written, applications for 4 units may have been withdrawn or put on hold.

The NRC has certified the ABWR, but the applications amended given the change in relationship between GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, which has been done. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-abwr.html

Meanwhile, certification of the Mitsubishi US-APWR is pending. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.html

Exelon did have plans for two ESBWRs in Victoria, but I believe those have been deferred.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.html
June 14 NRC docketed Exelon's ESP application for Victoria County, originally submitted as a COLA.

There was a private group Amarillo Power (UniStar) looking at two unitsnear Amarillo, but I don't think that was serious.

Re: http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/neScorecard/neScorecard.html

[gmax137]

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.

Also, the state public utility commission usually (typically?) has to approve new plant construction as being 'necessary' by some specific criteria. I don't know if that's the case in Texas, or if that approval was in fact in place there.

[Astronuc]

Major engineering contract for Bellefonte
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Areva_wins_Bellefonte_engineering_contract-0510107.html
05 October 2010
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has awarded Areva a contract for engineering and design work towards the completion of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant.

. . . . The NRC reinstated the construction permits for the reactors in 2009. Assuming TVA's board decides to proceed with the completion of unit 1, the plant would be expected to start up around 2018-2019.

[Astronuc]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-calvert-cliffs-20101011,0,4652014.story
Development of a new nuclear power plant in Maryland suffered a major setback last week with the disclosure that Constellation Energy Group has withdrawn from the federal loan guarantee program. Without those guarantees, it would appear unlikely that Calvert Cliffs 3 will be developed by Constellation and its partner in the project, Electricite de France.

. . . . The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.

[mheslep]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-calvert-cliffs-20101011,0,4652014.story
The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs.

[Astronuc]

That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs. As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.

[mheslep]

As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.

[joelupchurch]

As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.

[mheslep]

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. Yes! Exactly.

The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.

[joelupchurch]

Yes! Exactly.

Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.

Yes, but we are talking about designs that NRC has already approved. The important job for the NRC is to make sure the contractors and subcontractors are building the reactor to the design they approved. They can't do that job until construction starts, so the extra delay provides no extra safety.

I don't mean sitting at a desk in Washington checking paperwork. I mean actual eyeballs at the construction site. The Ap1000 is a modular design, where most of the reactor is built in factories, which should make it easier to control the quality. I wouldn't be surprised, when we start building AP1000 reactors, if we end up buying components from the Chinese.

[Astronuc]

Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.

Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China, and they are flush with cash. In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.

It could very well be that the government is over-estimating the risk of default on the $7.5 billion loan.


The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans :rolleyes:). And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Large forgings have so far been ordered from Japan until shops can be established in the US.

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.

[mheslep]

Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China,Yes of course, but the point is the government there apparently does not act to drive up the cost, relatively speaking. and they are flush with cash.What does this have to do keeping plant cost down?

In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them.

[...]The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans :rolleyes:). I agree, and I support a higher safety standard. However I'm far from convinced that standards and regulatory environments imposed by the US bureaucracy are all supportable on the basis of safety, versus bureaucratic inertia.

And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so.

[Astronuc]

What does this have to do keeping plant cost down? Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).

That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them. Just what I hear in the industry, but I'll try to get more information from the appropriate sources.

Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so. And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions. Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker, which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ." BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.

[mheslep]

.

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.I think he means historically - Byron for at least one of them. License refused in 1984 after 9 years of construction. License eventually granted; the delay no doubt cost a fortune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station

[mheslep]

Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).??? I don't follow how that all connects to being "flush with cash"? Anyway ...
And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions. Corporations? All kinds of business entities, including mom&pop shops have made unsafe products, and they still do, though not as much. I think you'd find it hard to prove the US version of government regulation is responsible for all of that improvement.

Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker, Again, I think you'd find it hard to prove that it actually does those things.
which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ."So are many things. Like, for instance, having access to inexpensive, clean energy, which allows those with out means a chance to prosper.
BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.Yes, unfortunately that does not mean "people" desired everything those governments have done, or certainly not as much as the trial lawyers desired it.

[joelupchurch]

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.

The infamous case was Shoreham. It was complete, but it couldn't get an operating license because Governor Mario Cuomo wouldn't sign off on a Emergency Evacuation Plan. Governor Dukakis used similar tactics to keep Seabrook from opening for years. The delays drove the major shareholder of the plant into bankruptcy.

It doesn't look like the apple falls far from the tree. Governor Elect Andrew Cuomo has been trying to get Indian Point shut down by getting their environmental permits revoked.

[joelupchurch]

The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans :rolleyes:). And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Large forgings have so far been ordered from Japan until shops can be established in the US.


Here is an update on large forging capabilities. China has leapfrogged Japan and the US isn't even in the running.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html

From a public safety perspective, I'm not sure it matters what value the Chinese Government places on human life. All it takes is a desire not to have multibillion dollar investments turned into puddles of radioactive slag. If anything, it might help, since I suspect any subcontractor that is caught cutting corners on reactor construction will end up with a bullet in the back of the head. They may not care if they are shipping toys painted with lead paint to American children, but they care very about protecting their investments.

[russ_watters]

I don't think it would be hard at all. One need only look at a small handful of incidents from our not-too-distant past to realize that such things as boiler explosions and fires that engulf a large part of a city have gone from somewhat common to exceedingly rare.

Now, of course, it is possible for regulation to go too far, but it is very difficult to identify what "too far" is.

For nuclear, though, you can mostly ignore the safety regulation itself and focus on the application of it. The examples given of politicians arbitrarily holding up plant construction are examples of people being able to game the process for political purposes and to the detrement of the plant. So what I'm most interested in seeing is a regulatory process put in place that eliminates such abuse, shortens timelines for approvals, etc.

[mheslep]

I don't think it would be hard at all. One need only look at a small handful of incidents from our not-too-distant past to realize that such things as boiler explosions and fires that engulf a large part of a city have gone from somewhat common to exceedingly rare.

Now, of course, it is possible for regulation to go too far, but it is very difficult to identify what "too far" is.
Yes difficult to establish "too far", because it is easy to show correlation, but not to prove causality - my point.
The alternative argument to improving safety and decreasing accidents relies on the rise of the middle class and technological improvements. As people become more affluent and expect more from life, they are less and less likely to value their lives cheaply and thus won't take highly dangerous jobs, nor tolerate a boiler design that burns down the neighborhood every ten years; government regulation happens along for the ride, taking credit. I can not prove the alternative, but it is a plausible theory, correlating well with the record.

See for example this history of declining mining deaths since 1901. The Federal Coal Mine act did not come along until 1969; OSHA 1970.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/M822A1F5.GIF

[t92]

A couple of questions. I was reading up a tiny bit on reactors and I was introduced to pool-type reactors and research reactors (often used to provide medical isotopes).

Now, I read about some low temperature non boiling lwr that were built to provide process heat and even some papers on low temp organic rankine cycle power reactors.

It got me wondering why we don't just chill a bit on the efficiency obsession and just build massive pool-type ORC power reactors. Like DIY geothermal plants. How hard can it be to build something like this?, and wouldn't the increase in plant engineering simplicity pay for the lack of thermodynamic efficiency? Well they clearly don't exist, so I wonder if anyone knows of any references to any papers, blogs, or other info that analyses why this idea isn't practical?

Or is it that we are like an ant-eating monkey with his hand stuck around a banana (sexy molten lead fast breeder super efficient mega reactor) in a bottle he cant get out because his fist is too big, but that there are some tasty v. large dead beatles (low hanging fruit nuclear) in the bottle that he could tweazer out between his fingers that are far less of an arse to attain than the usual ants (fossil fuels)?

In the same vein (but far more speculatively), what would be the practicality of having two separate types of reactors; one to produce radioisotopes by neutron activation, and the second to use these radioisotopes in massively scaled up radioisotope thermal power plants? Again any references as to why this is not practical would be great!

[Astronuc]

There are such systems as district heating plants, which can be nuclear. These provide heating to businesses or residential areas. In NY City, the local utility provides steam to some buildings.

With such systems, there is always the concern of liability in the event a hot water/steam line ruptures and injures or kills people or damages property.

Nuclear power plants have typically been built in areas removed from population concentrations, primarily because of the Emergency Protection Zone (EPZ), which can be a large area. It's easier to do that in rural areas, which also pay much lower property taxes. In addition, large power plants need a lot of cooling water - either sea, lake (reservoir), river, cooling tower, or in other words the heat is passed into water or air.

Low power density nuclear plants could possible be viable if they can have a small EPZ, and provide electricity and district heating. Using a Rankine cycle, plants may develop up to ~36% thermal efficiency, but low temperature (and lower pressure) plants are less efficient. It would be ideal (if not practical) to provide heating from the hot water discharge of the power system. Otherwise, the heat is just dumped to the environment.

There are a number of small reactors generating radioisotopes for medicine. And one commercial nuclear power plant in the US is being used to produce Co-60 for medical applications.

[mheslep]

I think this better placed here:

Was reviewing some of the posts upthread on nuclear costs and thought this update on Olkiluoto apropos to recent news. Olkiluoto was originally budgeted at $4B, then was $5.7B in 2008, now is $7.2B.
Regards the Olkiluoto EPR, any word from the industry on a) the expected final cost of the plant and b) the primary reasons for the cost overruns and schedule delays? Pop press now says 4.5B Euro / $5.7B for the 1,600MW plant, won't come online until 2012 (permit granted in early 2005)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower

Update two years on:
But the Olkiluoto-3 reactor has had a deeply troubled history. Originally slated to cost around $4 billion (€3 billion), its price tag has nearly doubled to $7.2 billion (€5.3 billion). And it is four years behind schedule.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703865004575648662738551250.html?K EYWORDS=Olkiluoto
That's one reactor being built at an existing nuclear plant. Good grief.

[joelupchurch]

Olkiluoto is a textbook case of project mismanagement, but I could supply equal or worse on just about every type of major construction project. We don't stop building bridges, dams, roads and skyscrapers because one project goes over budget. Reactors seem to get built in the far east without these kind of problems. Areva lowballed the bid on a FOAK rector and then tried to make the difference by hiring inexperienced contractors from various countries creating a veritable tower of Babel.

There was one sentence in the WSJ article that stuck out for me.
But Areva and Siemens didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction on Olkiluoto started, and they underestimated the time it would take to complete them, setting the scene for big delays.

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

[mheslep]

Olkiluoto is a textbook case of project mismanagement, but I could supply equal or worse on just about every type of major construction project. We don't stop building bridges, dams, roads and skyscrapers because one project goes over budget. Reactors seem to get built in the far east without these kind of problems. Areva lowballed the bid on a FOAK rector and then tried to make the difference by hiring inexperienced contractors from various countries creating a veritable tower of Babel.

There was one sentence in the WSJ article that stuck out for me.


"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.Sure, it may be that the Olkiluoto over runs and delays are due to bumbling, though it is not as though the French don't have have dozens of prior reactor builds already in their resume. What I'd like to see to confirm the bumbling thesis is one example of a reactor built in the US or Europe that has not cost so much or not taken so long to build (in recent history), before signing off on building (and co-financing via the government) another ~50 reactors in the US.

[joelupchurch]

Sure, it may be that the Olkiluoto over runs and delays are due to bumbling, though it is not as though the French don't have have dozens of prior reactor builds already in their resume. What I'd like to see to confirm the bumbling thesis is one example of a reactor built in the US or Europe that has not cost so much or not taken so long to build (in recent history), before signing off on building (and co-financing via the government) another ~50 reactors in the US.

France hasn't build a reactor since 2000, so it isn't like they have a pool of people with current reactor construction experience and they didn't use the people they did have. They tried to save money by hiring a bunch of newbies.

If anything the US is in worse shape, since we have only completed 2 reactors since 1990. The long hiatus means we will have to climb the learning curve all over again. I just hope Westinghouse and the Shaw Group are rotating a lot of construction engineers through China so they can get some experience. The Chinese have 25 reactors under construction right now so they are accumulating a huge reservoir of trained personnel.

Unless we want to hire the Chinese to build reactors for us, I don't see any alternative to climbing the learning curve again. At least when we start building AP1000 reactors, the Chinese should have worked out the bugs in the design already.

[mheslep]

France hasn't build a reactor since 2000, so it isn't like they have a pool of people with current reactor construction experience and they didn't use the people they did have. They tried to save money by hiring a bunch of newbies.

If anything the US is in worse shape, since we have only completed 2 reactors since 1990. The long hiatus means we will have to climb the learning curve all over again. I just hope Westinghouse and the Shaw Group are rotating a lot of construction engineers through China so they can get some experience. The Chinese have 25 reactors under construction right now so they are accumulating a huge reservoir of trained personnel. Yes, though the Chinese are almost completely new to the reactor business and don't seem to be blowing out budgets and schedules. I don't know the causes in Olkiluoto, but here the government imposed regulation and legal environment concerns me, as you discussed earlier:

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States. ...

[gmax137]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

[mheslep]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

Seems like a very good argument for small modular reactors built in a factory, shipped to the site, if and when the US NRC gets around approving them in next couple of decades.

[mheslep]

I'm continually puzzled by the lack of any significant US nuclear construction, given the nuclear surge in China and the push for clean energy in the US. We've discussed costs, waste, anti-nuclear protests, etc, but that doesn't quite seem a sufficient impediment to me, so I look elsewhere for the holdup.

Observation of the current fleet of 104 US reactors shows it to be a colossal cash cow. All of the plant capital costs were paid off or written off long ago in bankruptcy courts, and those legal injunction expenses far behind them. These plants crank away year in, year out at ~90% capacity factor, with a minimal average operation and maintenance cost of 1.6 cents/kWh and a fuel cost of 0.6 cents/kWh*. There is a nice cozy relationship with the NRC, with permanent onsite inspectors at every plant in the country. Thus when selling power at 12 cents/kWh, a typical two reactor, 2GWe plant is easily casting off $1.5 billion in profit, free and clear every year. They worry about no miners strikes, rail strikes, or new clear air emissions problems, as does coal, for the life of the plants which are extending out to fifty and sixty years now.

It occurs to me that the operators of these plants would not want their large cash streams threatened in any way. I can only speculate on one scenario that would: a large resurgence of new nuclear construction, that's attended by a reanimation of the anti-nuclear movement and the inevitable NIMBYs; their cries would likely end up forcing new inspections of existing plants, new attention drawn to plants well past their design life, with attendant temporary shutdowns and the like. A fleet of new plants is also likely to have the inevitable small accident or two as they work out the kinks, all of which would be much more visible than previously. So, it is not hard to imagine the current fleet operators and attached nuclear industry have plenty of motivation to slowdown new plant approvals at the NRC, especially with people shuffling back and forth from the NRC to industry.

* http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

[gmax137]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost). True, after that you can print money for the following 50 years; but meanwhile natural gas is at $4, so you can make tons of money without betting the company.

Then, consider the effect of deregulation: the first nukes were ordered by utility companies whose business model was based on a longer term view ('once paid off, the unit is a cash cow'). Now the model is selling power this quarter. I think the execs back in the 60's still had the excitement of the 'electrification' that took place in the 30's and 40's: they saw the power companies as an agent of change (for the better). Now, these same companies are run by MBAs who have never worn a hard hat.

[mheslep]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost). Well much longer than that. That $12-14B is drawing interest during the 6-10 yrs it takes to bring the plant online (in the US). But I was suggesting above that the cost might be a symptom, not a fundamental cause, as the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B. Why? Cheaper labor costs, yes, but that doesn't explain the balance.

[gmax137]

... the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B.

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...

[mheslep]

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...Tianwan Nuclear Station in Lianyungang city. I should note I only have these Chinese media claims:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/13/content_4542917.htm

2.12GW (ignore the MW typo) for $3.3B

[Astronuc]

Milestones for AP1000s
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Milestones_for_AP1000s_2212101.html
22 December 2010
Construction of AP1000 units in China has seen three milestones this month: on-site, at a new module factory and in fuel fabrication.

[AndyDaws]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.

[mheslep]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?Well the US does generate nearly a third of the world's nuclear energy (~800 TWh out of ~2500 TWh)

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.Good news. Any interest in small modular nuclear in the UK?

[GerardCKN]

Hello to all- i had just gotten into nuclear energy and just started reading this post.

I had been reading this article that I had found regarding nuclear energy from the articles i just read , in it states that the only natural nuclide suitable for direct usage in a fission reactors is 235U but it is just going to last for another 90++ years . But i also reading another article pubished in the year 2010 that in USA president Obama is planning to build another nuclear plants . Since 235 U is just going to last from another 90++ years would it be exhausting the supply of 235U left? Hope u guys can help me on this :)

[Hologram0110]

@GerardCKN

There is lots of U235 left, just like there is lots of oil left. The question is how much is left at economical prices? When discussing reserves one must always consider at what price.
Yes building more plans means that the world will consume uranium faster.

There are also some other sources of nuclear fuel we can build plants to use. These include reprocessing decommissioned nuclear weapons, reprocessing spent fuel, thorium fueled reactors, fast-neutron reactors. There are also some more radical suggestions like sea water extraction that might become realistic options depending on the cost of energy. All this together means that we are not in danger of running out of nuclear fuel any time soon.

[joelupchurch]

The first thing to understand is that U-235 is only a small percentage of our potential nuclear fuel. Using breeder reactors would allow us to use all our Uranium and Thorium for fuel. Some estimates show that we have enough U-238 already refined and stockpiled to provide our fuel needs for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

The reason that we haven't switched to breeder reactors is that U-235 is still fairly plentiful and cheap and there isn't much of a push to use other more expensive technologies. The situation is analogous to our use of petroleum for fuel when we have much less then than a 90 year supply of petroleum, but it is currently fairly cost effective.

[chengqi]

I am a sophomore at a chinese university, majoring in nuclear engineering.you may have konw that china is buliding nuclear power plant at a surprising speed.Though that may be a good news for me,i don't think heighly of this idea.Take china for exemple.First,despite the advanced technology of AP1000（of course imported from US)we can't guarantee that every employee concentrate on his work at working time.If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.
my english is poor,i hope you can understand.thank you.

[JaredJames]

If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.
And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.

Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.

[Jon Richfield]

Speaking as a life-long nuke rooter, I am really annoyed with the Japanese with their nuke plants (and a lot of other people's plants as well, but I don't know which. All? Possibly...)

The first difficulty is that whatever you do to make a plant safe, someone will raise another logically irrefutable possibility (What if there is a still bigger quake? What if a still bigger asteroid strikes? What if a still bigger Arshl gets to be president? That sort of thing has been called the "hysterical subjunctive" and if you know of a better term for it, do please tell!)

Now, the problem is that unless the subject matter of the HS happens to be raised by someone who has no idea what he is talking about (justabout possible, I suppose...) it is logically possible in some form. But every time we have yet another incident (small, big or ginormous) we have yet another mountain to climb. We can do just so much to avoid such mountains, and just so much to avert asteroids and tsunamis, even if we spend the national GDP on protecting each individual fuel pellet. But the one thing I reckon we should have the ability to do, and insist on doing if we insist on building nuke plants, is make the passive fail-soft features work without active intervention (or it is hardly passive or fail-soft, is it?)

And is that what they did this time? Sure doesn't look like it to me! I am no nuke engineer, but it seems to me that if you have to assume that there always will be enough water from outside sources, and enough power and infrastructure to pump it, to prevent meltdown, then something, somewhere fails to be fail-soft, let alone fail-safe. And here I am not picking on the Japanese; I reckon that every plant everywhere should be SCRAMmable, and should SCRAM itself if the controls disagree with the boss.

If you think THAT is prohibitively expensive, wait till you see what come of the whole deal in Japan! Suppose that the passive water supply (or other coolant; I am not picky) had handled the melt-down problem; this would have been a poster-child for nukes (as TMI should have been, really) but instead we have a lot of govt stuffed shirts telling us that there is nuclear fallout all over, but it is all OK, trust us!

(What? Not exactly what they said? Wanna bet? Go down the street and ask the first ten laymen you find -- Any bets about the answers you get?)

What would sufficient water beneath or around or above the reactors have cost? Another million each? Ten million? A billion?

What will the difference in direct costs per reactor be in these examples?

What will the indirect costs be?

Just asking.

Maybe I'd better stop asking before my annoyance need some SCRAMming of its own...

[ramachandra_g]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

[JaredJames]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

They already use this technique, except they split the laser pre-entry to the "globe" and focus it on a material in the centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion

[ramachandra_g]

Inertial confinement fusion described there does not use the mirrors for reflecting the lasers. They use a small number of mirrors to illuminate evenly over the whole surface of the pellet. And they dont have million reflections either.

[Joseph Chikva]

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.


Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.
At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.
It is banal.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any speculations, any "green initiatives" can only be considered as politicians' methods to coquet before voters.

[JaredJames]

Inertial confinement fusion described there does not use the mirrors for reflecting the lasers. They use a small number of mirrors to illuminate evenly over the whole surface of the pellet. And they dont have million reflections either.

The technique is the same as you described.
At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.

Certainly, but we can do a lot to ensure the safety and security of the waste. I happen to like the burying of it in subduction zones.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.

Very true.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any gambles, any "green initiatives" only a politicians' methods trying to become pleasant for voters.

I do agree with this.

My main problem is that they aren't efficient enough. Don't get me wrong, they're brilliant ideas but they just can't take over demand from current production.

Personally, I'd prefer money to go to fusion development.

[Joseph Chikva]

Personally, I'd prefer money to go to fusion development.
Unfortunately it is not easy to develop the fusion power.

[Joseph Chikva]

"When it all said an done splitting atoms to boil water is overkill on a scale like slicing tomatos with a chainsaw."
In nature you can see the much bigger scale "overkill" if recall that stars use particles fusion energy for illumination mainly of emptiness.
Actually the building of nuclear plants is caused with commercial expediency. And the low price on 1 kWt*h of produced power by those plants testifies this. Naturally, more rigid environment requirements will raise operational costs and can "kill" existing nuclear plants indeed.


If the effort to resurect the nuclear industry was put into photovoltaic technology we'd take a big step toward ending our dependence on coal and oil.
[QUOTE]
I doubt. How big area of land should occupy those photovoltaic settings if producing the same power? How much food will not be produced? How much people will become hungry after this?
What do you know about biofuel production? The idea was very nice - to decrease the dependency on crude. In result today we have significant rise of prices on food as well. I do not beleave that wind, solar, etc. power able to change heat, HPP and nuclear in the future.

[QUOTE=HAVOC451;98388] Nuclear power is dying out in the U.S. Let it go.
I think that existing now nuclear plants in USA work and also will work till the end of their resurs. And this is only technical matter.

Building of new plants in USA? I do not know.
But USA today is the world most biggest consumer of crude oil. Also I know that internal transporting in USA mainly goes by tracks. So, a lot of crude is required.
When the price on barrel rises and will reach some limit what you will do? I think you will develop railway network infrastructure for decreasing the dependency on oil. So, much more electric power demand.
Will you use solar or other "green" power for this? I doubt.

[Astronuc]

Nuclear plants around the world. This has a lot of useful information.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/AnnexII/tables/table2.htm

Also - country profiles
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/countryprofiles.htm

[Joseph Chikva]

Nuclear plants around the world. This has a lot of useful information.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/AnnexII/tables/table2.htm

Also - country profiles
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/countryprofiles.htm

Worldwide Power Demand to Reach 30,300 TWh by 2035
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/press_release.pdf
Only 14% of renewables
"The share of modern renewable energy sources, including sustainable hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, modern biomass and marine energy, in global primary energy use triples between 2008 and 2035 and their combined share in total primary energy demand increases from 7% to 14%"
And the second quote
"Renewables and nuclear double their current combined share to 38% in 2035"

[Dmytry]

At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.
It is banal.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any speculations, any "green initiatives" can only be considered as politicians' methods to coquet before voters.
the worst thing about Fukushima is that (no idea why) Japanese were seen by many as the world best or second best industrial culture when it comes to safety. That's despite stuff like that:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070323a3.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/dec99/toka2.htm
Everyone looks at Fukushima, and nobody believes it is one in 10 000 years quake, or even one in 1000. Now when someone says - the reactor is very safe, the accident probability is one in 50 000 years event - nobody's going to be impressed, after the pro nuclear crowd been advocating TEPCO with arguments like 'it was one in 1000 years quake' and "you can't predict such disasters", echoing precisely some of the Greenpeace anti-nuclear arguments from before Fukushima.
The pro-nuclear crowd been really stupid. It is as if when Chernobyl happened they said "you can't prevent such accidents". Putting a nail into the coffin.

My perspective: Fukushima accident happened in a country with very bad nuclear safety record of the past 15 years, at a plant operated by a company that was previously found guilty of major coverups, at a plant built using a really old, really stupid reactor design where even the control rods are inserted upwards and are prone to falling out during maintenance, worse than this, on the version of this reactor that was never even upgraded since TMI. The plant that was built with no considerations for the tsunamis (unlike Onagawa plant which survived stronger tsunami and provided shelter to the people who lost their homes! A real example of nuclear industry being good!). In a country which haven't even got anything similar to Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst, or any nuclear military. Where the plants are operated by regional utility companies, not by something like Areva (which designs, builds, and operates reactors and reprocessing plants, and got an accident response team)
Fukushima level disaster can not happen anywhere else. Not even in Russia that still operates RBMKs. Well, maybe in Russia, but if it happened in Russia nobody else would be scraping reactor plans.

[Joseph Chikva]

the worst thing about Fukushima is that (no idea why) Japanese were seen by many as the world best or second best industrial culture when it comes to safety. That's despite stuff like that:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070323a3.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/dec99/toka2.htm
Everyone looks at Fukushima, and nobody believes it is one in 10 000 years quake, or even one in 1000. Now when someone says - the reactor is very safe, the accident probability is one in 50 000 years event - nobody's going to be impressed, after the pro nuclear crowd been advocating TEPCO with arguments like 'it was one in 1000 years quake' and "you can't predict such disasters", echoing precisely some of the Greenpeace anti-nuclear arguments from before Fukushima.
The pro-nuclear crowd been really stupid. It is as if when Chernobyl happened they said "you can't prevent such accidents". Putting a nail into the coffin.

My perspective: Fukushima accident happened in a country with very bad nuclear safety record of the past 15 years, at a plant operated by a company that was previously found guilty of major coverups, at a plant built using a really old, really stupid reactor design where even the control rods are inserted upwards and are prone to falling out during maintenance, worse than this, on the version of this reactor that was never even upgraded since TMI. The plant that was built with no considerations for the tsunamis (unlike Onagawa plant which survived stronger tsunami and provided shelter to the people who lost their homes! A real example of nuclear industry being good!). In a country which haven't even got anything similar to Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst, or any nuclear military. Where the plants are operated by regional utility companies, not by something like Areva (which designs, builds, and operates reactors and reprocessing plants, and got an accident response team)
Fukushima level disaster can not happen anywhere else. Not even in Russia that still operates RBMKs. Well, maybe in Russia, but if it happened in Russia nobody else would be scraping reactor plans.
You are talking about mistakes in Fikushima design and also mistakes during of its exploiting. I do not know, may be.
But I only said that even in case of the best design and best industrial safety there is nonzero probability of accidents.
But we need energy and nuke plants have not any alternative. Especially in Japan.

[Dmytry]

You are talking about mistakes in Fikushima design and also mistakes during of its exploiting. I do not know, may be.
But I only said that even in case of the best design and best industrial safety there is nonzero probability of accidents.
But we need energy and nuke plants have not any alternative. Especially in Japan.
come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.
France can't switch off nuclear.

[Joseph Chikva]

come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.
France can't switch off nuclear.
25-30%? Ok. Is this not significant? Recall that we talk about the second-third world economics and their 25% may be much more than 100% of others.
Percentage of those "worst" reactors?

[JaredJames]

come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.

That is not an insignificant amount. That's nearly a third of their energy needs.

[Dmytry]

I'm not saying they can switch it off without cutting consumption. I'm saying, when the non-nuclear powerplants and powerlines are repaired back to capacity, they can switch off nuclear power, and cut down some on the usage. There has to be overcapacity for AC in the summer, and other stuff.

For example of country that cannot switch nuclear off, you have to use France. More nuclear power total than Japan, and 75..80% of power total. 30% power cuts, that's higher prices & decreased consumption (and its not 30% as most of the time there's overcapacity). 80% power cut, that's sitting in the dark.

edit: And no. I'm not advocating switching off nuclear power. I just disagree with this optimistic thinking by the nuclear industry that it can't be switched off there, when it can.
They should, in my opinion, switch off worst 10% of reactors or so. Old non upgraded crap.
They probably have substantial % of reactors in north Japan in shutdown right now anyway due to quakes and aftershocks.

It totally blows my mind that control rods can fall out during maintenance and cause a criticality, and that every reactor of that type is not shut down until there's upgrade that absolutely, positively makes this impossible. With this approach - I am strongly against nuclear power. I'm pro nuclear in principle, when if something unplanned happens, it is fixed immediately. If control rods can fall out during maintenance and cause criticality, and that is not fixed, for me that is a total assurance that if it is discovered stronger quakes than originally anticipated are possible, or taller tsunamis, nothing is going to be fixed either.

[JaredJames]

I'm not saying they can switch it off without cutting consumption. I'm saying, when the non-nuclear powerplants and powerlines are repaired back to capacity, they can switch off nuclear power, and cut down some on the usage. There has to be overcapacity for AC in the summer, and other stuff.

There's a bit too much assumption here.

I have no idea about the Japanese grid, but if it's run like Britain / America you can't just "switch off" a bunch of plants at any time and expect the grid to maintain a usable supply.

[Dmytry]

There's a bit too much assumption here.

I have no idea about the Japanese grid, but if it's run like Britain / America you can't just "switch off" a bunch of plants at any time and expect the grid to maintain a usable supply.

you raise prices high enough for consumption to go down, then you may need to add power lines, then you shut off bunch of plants. A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible. There's nothing impossible about it. Inconvenient, yes, but if wind starts blowing inland from Fukushima, that's going to seriously piss people off.

You guys are probably working in nuclear industry. or are supportive of, and you're being real optimistic about your industry's future. I'm being realistic.

[JaredJames]

you raise prices high enough for consumption to go down, then you may need to add power lines, then you shut off bunch of plants.

You lower consumption and add power lines? That makes no sense at all.
A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible.

Ah, so they're down and a full supply is being maintained? Nope.

You can't shut down 25% of power production and expect to a) maintain a full supply as usual and b) have the redundancy you currently have.
You guys are probably working in nuclear industry. or are supportive of, and you're being real optimistic about your industry's future. I'm being realistic.

I'm seeing no realism. I see fear from the news and public, but that isn't going to bring nuclear down. Whether people like it or not, we need nuclear and it's incredibly safe compared to other forms.

See here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2882522&postcount=8

[Dmytry]

You lower consumption and add power lines? That makes no sense at all.

Yes, you need extra power lines to the places that were powered by plants that were previously shut down. To the local places where the mix is much more than 30% nuclear.



Ah, so they're down and a full supply is being maintained? Nope.

Supply and demand man, supply and demand. You have a cut in supply, you have same demand, you raise the price, that leads to decrease in consumption, to match the supply. Raise the price 2x and a lot of stupid uses of electricity (like heating) will rather quickly disappear, while the more energy efficient things will get huge edge over less energy efficient things.

I'm seeing no realism. I see fear from the news and public, but that isn't going to bring nuclear down. Whether people like it or not, we need nuclear and it's incredibly safe compared to other forms.

See here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2882522&postcount=8
Germany's phasing out nuclear. Not overnight, but over the time. A shame really, they're probably the best on safety.

[JaredJames]

Yes, you need extra power lines to the places that were powered by plants that were previously shut down. To the local places where the mix is much more than 30% nuclear.

That's neither how the grid is designed or works.
Supply and demand man, supply and demand. You have a cut in supply, you have same demand, you raise the price, that leads to decrease in consumption, to match the supply. Raise the price 2x and a lot of stupid uses of electricity (like heating) will rather quickly disappear, while the more energy efficient things will get huge edge over less energy efficient things.

That has nothing to do with what I said or was commenting on.

Regardless, you can't just "cut people off" or raise prices so no one can afford it.

In modern day terms, that's barbaric. I think you are bordering on trolling now, claiming heating is a "stupid use" of electricity - it is an essential use.

[Joseph Chikva]

you raise prices high enough for consumption to go down, then you may need to add power lines, then you shut off bunch of plants. A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible. There's nothing impossible about it. Inconvenient, yes, but if wind starts blowing inland from Fukushima, that's going to seriously piss people off.

You guys are probably working in nuclear industry. or are supportive of, and you're being real optimistic about your industry's future. I'm being realistic.
I do not work in nuclear industry. But together with raising prices on 1kWh you would get economics growth down. Accordingly you will get unemployment, competitiveness lowering etc.
Because there are some energy intensive industries being very critical to price on electricity. Do you propose to annihilate e.g. steel production industry in Japan?
When consumption will go down for what are you going to add power lines?
Earthquakes in Japan are happening permanently. But Fukushima is only the first serious accident with such aftereffects.

[Dmytry]

In modern day terms, that's barbaric. I think you are bordering on trolling now, claiming heating is a "stupid use" of electricity - it is an essential use.
See, man, using primarily fossil electricity for heating is immensely ineffective versus using the heat from fossil fuels directly. HOWEVER it is attractive due to simplicity (laying and maintaining pipe for centralized heating costs money). My house is heated using centralized heating.

On topic of extra lines: You two want to assume that i am some sort of moron who thinks that power lines make extra electricity or something? Nevermind that I gave you two huge benefit of the doubt, assuming that you had some sort of intelligent argument, such as - the 30% is the national average, suppose that southern japan has 40% nuclear and northern has 20%, then you may need extra capacity for long range transmission. Thats especially clear in case of european union. Then the renewables like wind, which require long range transmission to minimize downtime.

Barbaric, yeah, nowadays it is totally barbaric not to have advertisements lit up all the time, or to use centralized heating, or to opt for more efficient air conditioning that is also more expensive to install.

Whenever they actually will or wont get rid of nuclear, that's open question. I would guess that they won't get rid of nuclear. But you guys better don't assume that nuclear is here to stay no matter how many regulations you violate on any given day or how badly the reactors are designed (rods falling out resulting in criticality. what the hell?!)

[Joseph Chikva]

See, man, using primarily fossil electricity for heating is immensely ineffective versus using the heat from fossil fuels directly. HOWEVER it is attractive due to simplicity (laying and maintaining pipe for centralized heating costs money). My house is heated using centralized heating.

On topic of extra lines: You two want to assume that i am some sort of moron who thinks that power lines make extra electricity or something? Nevermind that I gave you two huge benefit of the doubt, assuming that you had some sort of intelligent argument, such as - the 30% is the national average, suppose that southern japan has 40% nuclear and northern has 20%, you may need extra capacity for long range transmission. Then the renewables like wind, which require long range transmission to minimize downtime.
I think nobody spoke anything offensive.
But your idea about rising of prices for electricity consumption reduction doesn't withstand criticism.
I would like to recall you that world economics is very critical to changing of interbank interest rate even only on a few tenths of percents. And you are proposing to increase the prices in Japan on order of magnitude.
And I do not understand if we should decrease power output why new power lines are required? Existing lines have not enough capacity? What additional transmission capacity will be demanded when generation will decrease?

[Dmytry]

Long range transmission is typically done differently (HVDC) to minimize the losses.
Really, I don't know why I even bother. I go as far as to think for your side and mention a problem with switching off nuclear power - that you may first need extra lines for long range transmission. Turns out its an issue you don't understand.

[Joseph Chikva]

Long range transmission is typically done differently (HVDC) to minimize the losses.
Really, I don't know why I even bother. I go as far as to think for your side and mention a problem with switching off nuclear power - that you may first need extra lines for long range transmission. Turns out its an issue you don't understand.
Dear Dmytry, if we have a task of optimization (minimization) of energy losses, yes, I do not understand why the line constructed for transmitting of higher generation would not transmit the lower. I admit that in case of change of generation schedule when some plants won't work, the existing transmitting lines network can become nonoptimal. But it isn't obvious to me yet.
And it does absolutely not required to me “your staying on my side”. As your proposal to reduce power generation in Japan is unacceptable firstly for Japanese (not for me). Because it will no doubt kill many branches of their industry.

[Borek]

A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible.

At the moment that means rolling outages (or have they already stopped), plus substantial part of the industry and housing is destroyed (so they don't consume electricity). I see your point, but you are oversimplifying to the absurd level just to support it.

That being said I agree we are in general wasting energy and it is possible to get the use down, there were threads at PF where these things have been discussed (even on a household level).

[Joseph Chikva]

That being said I agree we are in general wasting energy and it is possible to get the use down, there were threads at PF where these things have been discussed (even on a household level).
Yes, we are wasting energy and can use less for the same job. But how to use less when for one metric ton of aluminum production as I remember about 13'000 kWh required?
Dmytry proposes to increase prices on electricity for reducing consumption.

[Dmytry]

At the moment that means rolling outages (or have they already stopped), plus substantial part of the industry and housing is destroyed (so they don't consume electricity). I see your point, but you are oversimplifying to the absurd level just to support it.

Well I know I'm oversimplifying, but apparently not to level absurd enough for this thread - I see I should of simply omitted the whole 'need for more lines' issue.


That being said I agree we are in general wasting energy and it is possible to get the use down, there were threads at PF where these things have been discussed (even on a household level).
Ya, and to get the use down, you raise the price, for the alternatives to be economically viable. Heating for example is a major use of electricity that can over time be rid of by use of heat directly, especially in a place that uses mostly fossil fuels. There is a lot of cases where a lot of electricity is spent literally as a matter of convenience. That can't be done overnight, but I never said it can. Over several years yes. In the industry, too, there is a lot of cases whereby it is a lot cheaper to use electric heater than to have an on-site fossil heat source - due to cost of white collar and blue collar labour involved in designing and setting it up, not the cost of resources.
Look at the oil. Prices rise and oil consumption goes down. You know, I am not worried about peak oil. Why am I not worried? Because as the cost of resources rises, this creates demand for the blue and white collar work involved in optimization.

I'm not saying it should be done. I do think that coal power is a lot worse than nuclear power. I'm saying that it CAN be done. And to some extent, it definitely should (cull the least safe reactors). The nuclear power proponents should understand this.

edit: also, for the impact of Fukushima on nuclear power worldwide: the pro nuclear experts quoted in this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12711707
did more damage to future of nuclear power than Greenpeace can ever dream of (ditto for similar articles published elsewhere on 11th March). Nuclear optimism kills nuclear power. Now every pro nuclear expert is gonna speak of how Japanese can't get rid of nuclear. Then, heaven forbids, Japanese start phasing out nuclear power and get rid of it - what's then? Really, why 'pro nuclear' experts just keep, as the Russian proverb goes, stepping onto same rake? Making ultra optimistic predictions that don't play out. Hell, even making predictions that might not play out - gambling severely.

edit: to clarify this even better. The public doesn't think like "ahh, if the pipe A breaks, the valve B prevents the accident, if valve B gets stuck, the pressure relief valve C breaks open.... very clever, looks safe". No, the member of the public looks at the nuclear expert, and thinks - Can I trust this guy? Does he have a clue what he's speaking of? . Regular Joe looks at the expert on 11th March, talking about Fukushima, and he hears, nuclear power has a lot of backups and backups for the backups, everything's gonna be fine. Then the regular Joe looks at this issue again, and he's, wow, nobody ever told me all that stuff is in basement, etc. Joe ain't gonna look at blueprint and trace pipe A to a valve B. Joe's gonna look at expert and evaluate his words, and Joe ain't going to trust safety to such optimists.
Furthermore, and this may seem illogical, but it is a very common heuristic - if someone's been so wrong, their words acquire *negative weight*. When the same discredited expert tells how nuclear energy is safer than coal - that is a strongest anti nuclear propaganda possible.

[Joseph Chikva]

Well I know I'm oversimplifying, but apparently not to level absurd enough for this thread - I see I should of simply omitted the whole 'need for more lines' issue.
Ya, and to get the use down, you raise the price, for the alternatives to be economically viable.
Now you began to say about viability level of prices rising. But the main difficulty is in the different dependence on electricity prices in different industries. I can miss some branches but now can maintain the most depended are aluminum production and chlorine production. Do you propose average level of price rising? You will kill these two.

Heating for example is a major use of electricity that can over time be rid of by use of heat directly, especially in a place that uses mostly fossil fuels. There is a lot of cases where a lot of electricity is spent literally as a matter of convenience. That can't be done overnight, but I never said it can. Over several years yes. In the industry, too, there is a lot of cases whereby it is a lot cheaper to use electric heater than to have an on-site fossil heat source - due to cost of white collar and blue collar labour involved in designing and setting it up, not the cost of resources.
Look at the oil. Prices rise and oil consumption goes down. You know, I am not worried about peak oil. Why am I not worried? Because as the cost of resources rises, this creates demand for the blue and white collar work involved in optimization.
The matter is in the some trigger level on prices after which usage of fossil fuel vs. electricity will not be expedient. And this level differs in different industries. And if prices on crude will reach that level you will see more and more electric industrial heaters instead of fuel burning.

I do not try to save nuke industry, but I really do not see the real alternative.

And what your fellow countryman Mendeleyev has told about crude oil burning? "This is the same that banknotes burning". But we burn them (banknotes) and in very big ammounts.

[JaredJames]

Ya, and to get the use down, you raise the price, for the alternatives to be economically viable.

The alternatives are not capable of meeting demand. Especially in a country such as Japan where you have little room to place them.

Wind and solar power require far too much room, hydro could compete, but where do they put all those lakes and dams?

That's why they aren't economically viable.

This applies to anywhere that doesn't have the climate or space to locate the required amounts of renewable sources.

I'm also curious, why the power companies would raise the price and price themselves out of the competition? It's not what businesses do. You are talking about having power companies effectively commit suicide on those plants by making this move.

Regarding waste: I completely agree we waste a lot. But that doesn't make heating "stupid".

[Dmytry]

"The alternatives are not capable of meeting demand"
How do you know that? Did you count the alternatives such as burning coal on industrial site to produce the heat, instead of using electric heating? Or did you just go - hydro and solar and wind cant replace nuclear?

Japan's electricity is primarily made in coal burning plants, do you know that? I'm not speaking of the fluffy hydro and renewables, I've been making this abundantly clear. I'm speaking of the big bad coal that kills more people than nuclear could, replacing the nuclear. Hydro also sucks by the way. Downstream from the dam, if the dam is destroyed, you get artificial tsunami.

I'm not saying it is good to replace nuclear with coal. In my opinion actually it is bad to replace nuclear with coal. What I am saying, is that it CAN happen, and just because it is bad, does not mean it won't happen, and it is furthermore very dumb of pro nuclear crowd to be optimistically telling how it can't happen, and risk to have it happen. Nuclear industry already lost enormous amount of face.

"I'm also curious, why the power companies would raise the price and price themselves out of the competition?"
lol, so suddenly there is competition that'd bring price down / provide it at lower price. Interesting, interesting.

[JaredJames]

"The alternatives are not capable of meeting demand"
How do you know that? /Did you count the alternatives such as burning coal on industrial site to produce the heat, instead of using electric heating? Or did you just go - hydro and solar and wind cant replace nuclear?

What does that have to do with anything? The alternative sources cannot, on a reasonable scale, produce enough electricity to cover the demand of a nuclear plant.

I am discussing renewable alternatives not fossil fuels. Going from nuclear to fossil fuel is a step backwards.
Japan's electricity is primarily made in coal burning plants, do you know that? I'm not speaking of the fluffy hydro and renewables, I've been making this abundantly clear. I'm speaking of the big bad coal that kills more people than nuclear could.

You think they should switch to coal? A step backwards if I've ever heard it. The death rates from that are through the roof.

You're arguing nuclear isn't safe and it's bad and they should force people to switch to alternate supplies such as coal, yet the death rates from nuclear including Chernobyl (and now Japan) are still far lower than coal. Where is the logic in that?

Whether people like it or not, the death rate from nuclear is significantly lower than coal and it is far safer. There is no argument that "we should switch to coal because it's better". If we are willing to accept the deaths from coal, why are we up in arms over nuclear when it has less deaths anyway? On a risk of death scale, nuclear ranks far better than coal.

I don't see the nuclear industry losing face - I see a lot of public panic generated by the media.
lol, so suddenly there is competition that'd bring price down. Interesting, interesting.

Where do you live? This is how business operates. Of course there is competition that brings the price down. No business is going to artificially inflate the price of their nuclear supply so no one can afford it - lose customers, which lowers demand - which means they have no reason to build new coal plants - would you spend billions when there's no money coming in to cover it and no demand there?

[Astronuc]

A very interesting discussion on the current state of nuclear energy in the US -

Nuclear Power: Setting Sun?
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2011-04-08/nuclear-power-setting-sun

Jacques Besnainou, CEO AREVA Inc.
Lucas Davis, Professor, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley
Jeff Byron, Former Commissioner, California Energy Commission

[Dmytry]

What does that have to do with anything? The alternative sources cannot, on a reasonable scale, produce enough electricity to cover the demand of a nuclear plant.

I am discussing renewable alternatives not fossil fuels. Going from nuclear to fossil fuel is a step backwards.


You think they should switch to coal? A step backwards if I've ever heard it. The death rates from that are through the roof.

You're arguing nuclear isn't safe and it's bad and they should force people to switch to alternate supplies such as coal, yet the death rates from nuclear including Chernobyl (and now Japan) are still far lower than coal. Where is the logic in that?

Whether people like it or not, the death rate from nuclear is significantly lower than coal and it is far safer. There is no argument that "we should switch to coal because it's better". If we are willing to accept the deaths from coal, why are we up in arms over nuclear when it has less deaths anyway? On a risk of death scale, nuclear ranks far better than coal.

For 10th time. I'm not saying what they should or should not do. I'm saying what they may do. I'm even saying why it is bad (more deaths I'd guess). Where is the logic you ask? Where is the logic in using primarily coal? Or where is the logic in starting a project to develop Japanese equivalent of KHG but drop the project 1 year in? Or where is the logic in getting 2 robots, one with hand held radiation monitor other to look at it, instead of 2 robots capable of measuring radiation? There isn't logic. There's actions - and consequences.

Seriously, I'm getting impression there that pro nuclear people want to be elite underground (vs convincing anyone that nuclear has future).

[clancy688]

Seriously, I'm getting impression there that pro nuclear people want to be elite underground (vs convincing anyone that nuclear has future).

And I'm getting the impression that the contra nuclear people want to be elite underground as well, convincing everyone that nuclear power has no future.

scnr :rolleyes:

[Dmytry]

If only. So far I can't even convince pro-nuclear that Fukushima even in principle could damage nuclear industry big time. They don't see the logical reason why it should, so the idea is that it won't.

[Astronuc]

If only. So far I can't even convince pro-nuclear that Fukushima even in principle could damage nuclear industry big time. They don't see the logical reason why it should, so the idea is that it won't. Sure it will have an effect - and it has.

NRG withdraws from Texan project
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-NRG_withdraws_from_Texan_project-2004114.html
20 April 2011

Italian government puts brakes on nuclear vote
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Italian_government_puts_brakes_on_nuclear_vote_ 1904112.html
20 April 2011

[Dmytry]

In soviets, head of minatom IIRC said something like, science requires sacrifice. After Chernobyl. A great pro-nuclear advocate he was, eh. I think what was really bad about Fukushima, is all the 11th coverage and news exceeding the worst expectations. I really wouldn't bet my money that Japanese won't start phasing out nuclear.
Just for laughs I looked up insurance rates on nuclear power plants. They apparently estimated 1/1000 probability of $300M liability accident per reactor year, that order of magnitude (collecting 400K$/year per reactor, max payment around 300M , that's for liabilities). Then there is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnit y_Act
It would seem to me that economically speaking, nobody's - not owners either - are trusting those immensely low risk figures that have been circulating (1 in 30 000 core-years etc), nobody's willing to bet a lot of money that those figures are correct.
I really dunno, if a nuclear plant is to be constructed near my house - why exactly should I trust it more than an insurance firm would? Which gives it 1% probability of serious accident in 10 years for single reactor, which in my book is a little on the not so nice side to be honest. Sure I'd rather live next to NPP than to coal fired plant, but i'd even rather have my own solar panel and energy storage, even if it costs a lot more. And I'd definitely invest in radiation monitor that is on 24/7 . 1% per 10 years is not very good neighbourhood.

[edpell]

LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium [nuclear] reactor) looks like a good solution to our energy needs. Lots of info at www.energyfromthorium.com An initial charge of U233 is used to breed U233 from a thorium blanket and produce energy.

It produces much less waste and the waste is shorter lived. It uses only room pressure unlike LWR that use high temperature water under high pressure to keep it from flashing to high pressure, high temperature steam (hence the need for the large thick pressure dome in case of failure not needed with liquid thorium fluoride/liquid uranium fluoride).

This type of reactor was run at Oak Ridge in the 1960s and is under development in France and China currently. Once they have a large source of electricity they can make synthetic methanol and dimethyl ether for transportation fuels.

[Astronuc]

Non-proprietary presentation to NRC by GEH/GNF on current technology developments.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1027/ML102700236.pdf (~24 MB file, so use save target as)

[zapperzero]

LFTR.

Liquid uranium fluoride. 800 degrees Celsius or even more, for process heat applications. No containment. Heat exchanger where water is separated from molten fluoride salt by just the thickness of a steel pipe, that's supposed to last decades, without embrittling from either fluorine or neutrons.

A radioactive fuel re-processing plant that deals with molten fluoride salts, next to every reactor. Plutonium, produced and separated on an ongoing basis.

If the thought of all this doesn't send a chill up your spine, I don't know what will.
There is a reason why those reactors never got past technology demonstrator phase. The knowledge needed to make them reliable just wasn't there. It still isn't.

[zapperzero]

No business is going to artificially inflate the price of their nuclear supply so no one can afford it - lose customers, which lowers demand - which means they have no reason to build new coal plants - would you spend billions when there's no money coming in to cover it and no demand there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#California.27s_deregulation_and_subsequent_e nergy_crisis

An energy producer artificially inflating price and thus driving demand destruction. The price point where maximum profit ratio is found is never the point at which the most units of a certain product could be sold.

EDIT: that's partly because nothing in the energy markets really is a fungible commodity, electricity least of all.

[mheslep]

EDIT: that's partly because nothing in the energy markets really is a fungible commodity, electricity least of all.??? Nearly the opposite is true, as most fuels are close to being commodities especially in raw form, less so the as they are processed, modified, and blended to meet the regulations of particular local markets.

[mheslep]

Liquid uranium fluoride. 800 degrees Celsius or even more, for process heat applications.
I speculate that most engineers would rather deal with a high temperature, low pressure system than a lower temperature, high pressure (153 atm for a light water PWR) system.

No containment. Heat exchanger where water is separated from molten fluoride salt by just the thickness of a steel pipe, that's supposed to last decades, without embrittling from either fluorine or neutrons.

A radioactive fuel re-processing plant that deals with molten fluoride salts, next to every reactor. Plutonium, produced and separated on an ongoing basis.Reprocessing from the spent fuel of a U235 light water reactor produces Pu upon re-processing, not so for Th based LFTR (in significant amounts).

...
There is a reason why those reactors never got past technology demonstrator phase.Yes, and that's well known to be the need for an infrastructure that lent itself to making weapons grade material, not reliability. See, e.g. (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1)

Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.

[zapperzero]

??? Nearly the opposite is true, as most fuels are close to being commodities especially in raw form, less so the as they are processed, modified, and blended to meet the regulations of particular local markets.

Fuels are rarely if ever blended. There's sweet crude, light crude, heavy crude, sour crude... quality differences which are reflected in the price and sometimes transferred to the end-products. Gasoline from made from Lybian oil has less sulfur than that from Saudi oil.

Refineries are generally optimized to deal with a certain type of oil. Re-equipping one is complicated and expensive.

Availability is another issue. Transport issues mean that crude from the Middle East does NOT have the same price all over the world. Some places, it may simply be unavailable. When you see talk of "oil prices" on CNN, they are generally speaking of the WTI index, which is just that, an index value from a local market, describing the price of a notional barrel of oil of a given known quality. WTI crude does not exist.

All physical deliveries are priced against a given index, with prices modified to reflect delivery date and quality of delivered product.

As for electricity, the constraints the grid imposes (huge transport losses, frequencies etc), plus the infinitesimal amounts of storage available, mean that price varies wildly across the "global market". In fact, there is no global electricity market, so it's not a commodity.

[zapperzero]

I speculate that most engineers would rather deal with a high temperature, low pressure system than a lower temperature, high pressure (153 atm for a light water PWR) system.

Reprocessing from the spent fuel of a U235 light water reactor produces Pu upon re-processing, not so for Th based LFTR (in significant amounts).

You speculate. You are also conveniently glossing over the corrosion issue.
What do you mean when you say a LFTR does not produce plutonium in significant amounts? It does. Separating it as it is being produced is trivial.

[mheslep]

You speculate. You are also conveniently glossing over the corrosion issue.I only know my own preference as an engineer when given the choice: low pressure, high temp, even with high corrosiveness, over a high pressure steam system that must be contained in the event of failure.

What do you mean when you say a LFTR does not produce plutonium in significant amounts? It does. The Pu production pathways are secondary and low probability in a Thorium reactor as opposed to primary in U235/U238. And yes, though any amount of Pu produced has to be addressed, in comparison to the load produced and stockpiled in dry casks daily by existing light water U235/U238 reactors, the amount of Pu produced per GW-day is not significant in Th reactors.

Th - U233 reactor
\mathrm{^{1}_{0}n}+{}_{\ 90}^{232}\mathrm{Th}\rightarrow {}_{\ 90}^{233} \mathrm{Th} \xrightarrow{\beta^-} {}_{\ 91}^{233}\mathrm{Pa} \xrightarrow{\beta^-} {}_{\ 92}^{233} \mathrm{U } +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow \mathrm{fission}

U235/U238 Reactor
\mathrm{^{238}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow \ ^{239}_{\ 92}U\ \xrightarrow[23.5 \ min]{\beta^-} \ ^{239}_{\ 93}Np\ \xrightarrow[2.3565 \ d]{\beta^-} \ ^{239}_{\ 94}Pu}

The Pu path in a Th - U233 reactor is a rare event, requiring five neutron captures. Along the way fission is much more likely than capture (U233 90%,U235 85%) or the capture cross section is low (U236):

\mathrm{^{233}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{234}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{235}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{236}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow \ ^{237}_{\ 93}NP\ +^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{238}_{\ 93}Np\ \xrightarrow{\beta^-} \ ^{238}_{\ 94}Pu}

Furthermore, unlike a solid fuel reactor, a liquid/molten reactor enables the possibility that the Np237 is continually removed, further shutting off the Pu pathway.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf
In 232Th–233U fuel cycle, much lesser quantity of plutonium and long-lived Minor Actinides (MA: Np,Am and Cm) are formed as compared to the 238U–239Pu fuel cycle, thereby minimizing toxicity and decay heat problems.

[zapperzero]

And yes, though any amount of Pu produced has to be addressed, in comparison to the load produced and stockpiled in dry casks daily by existing light water U235/U238 reactors, the amount of Pu produced per GW-day is not significant in Th reactors.The Pu path in a Th - U233 reactor is a rare event, requiring five neutron captures. Along the way fission is much more likely than capture (U233 90%,U235 85%) or the capture cross section is low (U236):

\mathrm{^{233}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{234}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{235}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{236}_{\ 92}U\ +\ ^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow \ ^{237}_{\ 93}NP\ +^{1}_{0}n\ \longrightarrow ^{238}_{\ 93}Np\ \xrightarrow{\beta^-} \ ^{238}_{\ 94}Pu}

Furthermore, unlike a solid fuel reactor, a liquid/molten reactor enables the possibility that the Np237 is continually removed, further shutting off the Pu pathway.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf

Citation right back atcha.

http://www.energystorm.us/Management_Of_Super_grade_Plutonium_In_Spent_Nucle ar_Fuel-r49699.html

Says there plutonium is NOT an insignificant concern. Incidentally, the fuel-blanket design of EBR-II is the one the Indians are aiming for. I wonder why? No, actually I don't.

Don't want supergrade Plutonium? Well, I guess you could just separate U-235, make stupid boring simple A-bombs and call it a day. From what I can tell from your fancy equations, it self-accumulates in the fuel in far greater quantities than U-236, while U-234 to U-235 is a relatively high-probability event (100 barns thermal, 700 barns full-spectrum so again it matters a lot what reactor design you use).

[mheslep]

Citation right back atcha.

http://www.energystorm.us/Management_Of_Super_grade_Plutonium_In_Spent_Nucle ar_Fuel-r49699.html

Says there plutonium is NOT an insignificant concern. Incidentally, the fuel-blanket design of EBR-II is the one the Indians are aiming for. I wonder why? No, actually I don't.At the moment I'm only interested in the discussion of the month which began here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3294391&postcount=335): thorium based thermal reactors, and for which I've shown above plutonium is not significantly produced. The EBR mentioned in your reference is a highly enriched uranium fast spectrum breeder reactor; of course it produces plutonium.

Don't want supergrade Plutonium? Well, I guess you could just separate U-235, make stupid boring simple A-bombs and call it a day. From what I can tell from your fancy equations, it self-accumulates in the fuel in far greater quantities than U-236, while U-234 to U-235 is a relatively high-probability event (100 barns thermal, 700 barns full-spectrum so again it matters a lot what reactor design you use).No, U-235 doesn't accumulate, in a reactor it primarily fissions, or decays, or becomes U236. And no 235 can not be chemically separated from the four other isotopes of Uranium. U233 is the primary fission fuel for this kind of reactor, and theoretically it could be used to make a weapon, though it appears extraordinarily difficult to do because of the gamma emissions from the inevitable U232 impurities and its decay chain.

[zapperzero]

Ok, thorium-based. Which design are we talking about, exactly? I'd hate to make the same mistake twice.

Your argument re chemical separation is a straw man. I never said it's possible with chemicals, just possible. Of course isotope separation is hard, but it's no harder or easier than it is for uranium obtained from other sources.

Now, for the accumulation. Take a thorium-based design of your choice. How much U-235 is there, per unit mass, in the fuel, after six months of operation? How much Pu-238?

[mheslep]

Ok, thorium-based. Which design are we talking about, exactly? I'd hate to make the same mistake twice.Well some modern variant of the original Thorium molten salt reactor as built at Oak Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory_ Molten_Salt_Breeder_Reactor

Your argument re chemical separation is a straw man. I never said it's possible with chemicals, just possible. Of course isotope separation is hard, but it's no harder or easier than it is for uranium obtained from other sources.

Now, for the accumulation. Take a thorium-based design of your choice. How much U-235 is there, per unit mass, in the fuel, after six months of operation? How much Pu-238?Interesting question, let me crunch that one ...

[chrisbaird]

I don't think that's sappy at all. But, in the time it would take to design, license, and build a few nukers, (Add extra time to deal with the courts while every anti-nuke protester in the country trys to stop construction.) the photovoltaic industry could provide a better solution. As demand grows the technology improves and the cost comes down. Lots of good paying jobs are created. There's really no reason why there couldn't be 2 or 3 kilowatts of PV cells on 2 million roofs through the sun belt in just 2 years.
Just a thought.

If you do the math, solar energy is not viable on the large-scale. No matter how amazing your photovoltaics are, there is simply not enough solar energy incident on the surface of the US to run the country without bull-dozing large swaths of land. I think its crazy how some environmentalists love solar, but if it were to be implemented on a large scale would require the destruction of large amounts of wilderness.

[mheslep]

If you do the math, solar energy is not viable on the large-scale. No matter how amazing your photovoltaics are, there is simply not enough solar energy incident on the surface of the US to run the country without bull-dozing large swaths of land. I think its crazy how some environmentalists love solar, but if it were to be implemented on a large scale would require the destruction of large amounts of wilderness.That's misinformation. Current technology 20% efficient PV could capture enough sunlight to power the entire US electrical load (~1000GWe capacity) with an PV area of ~30,000 sq km (100mi by 100mi). About 3/4 of that area supposedly could be provided by using existing rooftops, commercial and residential in the US. (http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/leasing-america-s-rooftops-for-solar-energy-3987/) That portion at least requires bull-dozing nothing at all.

The problem with solar PV power lies in the distribution of that power, how to store it for use when the sun's not available, and, most of all, cost in comparison to other sources. The problems do not include a lack of solar energy incident on US geography. Edit: See for example
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

[Ivan Seeking]

That's misinformation. Current technology 20% efficient PV could capture enough sunlight to power the entire US (~1000GWe capacity) with an PV area of ~30,000 sq km (100mi by 100mi). The problem lies in distribution of that power, how to store it for use when the sun's not available, and, most of all, cost in comparison to other sources. The problems do not include a lack of solar energy incident on US geography.

Given that it tends to be less centralized, it seems that distribution is less a problem for solar than nuclear power.

[zapperzero]

Well some modern variant of the original Thorium molten salt reactor as built at Oak Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory_ Molten_Salt_Breeder_Reactor

An interesting read. Would your modern variant also include a neutron-generating core of U-235? Again, what design are we talking about, here?

I liked the references best. Here's one:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5538
It's a study on disposal issues. One of the issues discussed is that UF6 may have outgassed from the cold salts mixture. Another is a chemical method for the removal of Plutonium.

[mheslep]

An interesting read. Would your modern variant also include a neutron-generating core of U-235? Again, what design are we talking about, here?...Some kind of neutron source, perhaps a fissionable material like low enriched Uranium, is needed to start a Thorium reactor. The source starts the process of breeding Thorium into U233, but once started the source is soon burned up and no longer needed.

[Borek]

Some kind of neutron source, perhaps a fissionable material like low enriched Uranium, is needed to start a Thorium reactor. The source starts the process of breeding Thorium into U233, but once started the source is soon burned up and no longer needed.

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?

[Joe Neubarth]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?
In tons of Uranium, there is always a neutron source.

[Astronuc]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time? In a core of fresh fuel, as is the case in the first cycle, and usually in the second cycle, where the max burnup is low, yes one uses startup sources to provide sufficient neutrons to the detection systems.

In fresh or first cycles cores, there are primary neutron sources, e.g., PuBe, RaBe, AmBe or more commonly these days Cf(252)Be, that use (α,n) reactions, in which an alpha from Pu, Ra, Am or Cf fuses with the Be nucleus to form an excited C13, which then emits a neutron and becomes a C12 nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_neutron_source

The added benefit of Cm is spontaneous fission.

After at least 3 annual cycles, or 2 18-mo or 24-mo cycles, there is sufficient TU elements, or radioisotopes of Pu, Am, Cm to have sufficient spontaneous fissions to produce the necessary neutron activity to monitor the approach to criticality.

Otherwise there is a secondary source of neutrons (Sb-Be) which uses activation of Sb-123 to produce Sb-124, which decays to Te-124, and in the process a 1.7 MeV gamma is emitted which induces photoneutron emission. The secondary source produces neutrons during the second and third cycles of a young reactor, until there is sufficient TU inventory.

In tons of Uranium, there is always a neutron source. A core of fresh U has very little neutron activity. So a neutron source is added.

One of the objectives is to ensure that a prompt criticality (or rather prompt supercriticality) will not occur.

[mheslep]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor. The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a high neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium in to fissionable U-233.

[zapperzero]

I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor. The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a dense neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium in to fissionable U-233.

The Oak Ridge experiment was run to test (among other things) the feasibility of a mixed U-Pu core as a neutron source for a thorium breeder reactor. I should add, perhaps, that this means the actual breeding and separation process was never tested there.

[zapperzero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk

Indian documentary about their thorium AHWR experiment. It is being run on a mix of PuO2/ThO2 and UO2/ThO2 elements.

[mheslep]

In a core of fresh fuel, as is the case in the first cycle, and usually in the second cycle, where the max burnup is low, yes one uses startup sources to provide sufficient neutrons to the detection systems.

In fresh or first cycles cores, there are primary neutron sources, e.g., PuBe, RaBe, AmBe or more commonly these days Cf(252)Be, that use (α,n) reactions, in which an alpha from Pu, Ra, Am or Cf fuses with the Be nucleus to form an excited C13, which then emits a neutron and becomes a C12 nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_neutron_source

The added benefit of Cm is spontaneous fission.

After at least 3 annual cycles, or 2 18-mo or 24-mo cycles, there is sufficient TU elements, or radioisotopes of Pu, Am, Cm to have sufficient spontaneous fissions to produce the necessary neutron activity to monitor the approach to criticality.

Otherwise there is a secondary source of neutrons (Sb-Be) which uses activation of Sb-123 to produce Sb-124, which decays to Te-124, and in the process a 1.7 MeV gamma is emitted which induces photoneutron emission. The secondary source produces neutrons during the second and third cycles of a young reactor, until there is sufficient TU inventory.
Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

[zapperzero]

Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

Where would you put your accelerator? And then? Wave it around like a flashlight?
What would you do with it after the chain reaction starts?

[mheslep]

Where would you put your accelerator? And then? Wave it around like a flashlight?
What would you do with it after the chain reaction starts?Same place one would place another spontaneous fission based neutron source? These things are ion tubes and they are not necessarily large.
http://www.nsd-fusion.com/14mev.php

[Astronuc]

Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator The neutron sources induce fission in the fuel, so they have to be in the core. There are primary startup sources, and secondary sources. The primary sources are based on (alpha, Be or SF), while secondary sources are based on photoneutron reactions. When possible, operators of LWRs do 'sourceless' startups, i.e., they use the SF of transuranics isotopes in the fuel instead of non-fuel sources.

DT-based n-generators use high voltage (keV), and that's not something one wants in a reactor core. Other than control rods, which are withdrawn from the core (above in a PWR and below in a BWR), what goes into the core stays in the core during operation. Anything in-core gets irradiated with neutrons, and therefore activated.

[mheslep]

The neutron sources induce fission in the fuel, so they have to be in the core. By 'in the core', do you mean contained inside the diameter of a Zirc alloy fuel rod, or simply collocated?
DT-based n-generators use high voltage (keV),Yes.
and that's not something one wants in a reactor core.
Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation? Still it seems with the normal MeV particles hurtling around that a contained, and on/off controllable, high voltage source might almost be an afterthought.
Other than control rods, which are withdrawn from the core (above in a PWR and below in a BWR), what goes into the core stays in the core during operation. Anything in-core gets irradiated with neutrons, and therefore activated.Of course. Likewise with the metal in the control rods. We're not talking about my lunch but a neutron generator, which at the moment are most often used (AFAICT) miles underground for well logging in oil&gas exploration.

[zapperzero]

Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation?

Water with ions in it. You get the picture. Isolated electrical connectors would have to be strung through holes in the RPV and left there for a year.

I can see the point in designing a new type of reactor, perhaps one that uses "spent" fuel, based on your idea. But it seems too much trouble to go through when a simple (albeit highly-radioactive) metal rod serves just as well.

[jim hardy]

FWiW

regarding that neutron source for reactor startup

it's for practical considerations.

Thought experiment

a "cold clean core" of uranium with no fission products doesn't make very many neutrons by its natural fission because its half life is so long.
So your instrument will only indicate a lone neutron every once in a while.

That'd be an unsafe condition in which to pull control rods, because what if in between lone neutrons you pulled the rods too far?
Next lone neutron that came along might start a runaway chain reaction that'd get away from you before you could put rods back.

So you never start up a reactor until there's enough neutrons for good indication on your neutron counter.

That may well require an external source of neutrons.
Neutron sources are not big or complex or expensive.

In our school's little swimming pool style research reactor we used a source about the size of a soda can. It contained polonium and beryllium, emitted 10^6 neutrons/sec.
It hung by a wire on a peg in one corner of the pool. (We found out nylon string doesn't do well around neutrons)
Before startup we'd move it so it dangled by core, and make sure the neutron counter responded to that. After reactor was critical we put it back to side of pool and hung it on its peg.

Now - a soda can on a wire is a whole lot simpler than a particle accelerator.

The power reactor i worked at later had , in the assemblies adjacent the startup neutron detectors, one fuel pin loaded with a neutron source instead of uranium.
but that was in the sixties... yesterday when i was young.

old jim

[Astronuc]

By 'in the core', do you mean contained inside the diameter of a Zirc alloy fuel rod, or simply collocated? In the core, meaning within an assembly of which many the core is comprised.

Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation? Still it seems with the normal MeV particles hurtling around that a contained, and on/off controllable, high voltage source might almost be an afterthought. Any neutron source will induce fissions. It is necessary that the fissions be induced in the core for the reasons that jim hardy mentions.

Of course. Likewise with the metal in the control rods. We're not talking about my lunch but a neutron generator, which at the moment are most often used (AFAICT) miles underground for well logging in oil&gas exploration. Well logging is a different activity. Activation analysis is achieved by neutrons activating surrounding material then using a gamma spectrograph to look at the characteristic gammas coming of the decay of radioisotopes.

In nuclear reactors, the objective is to induce fission in the core in order to maintain control of the core. When the current reactors were new, most had ex-core fission detectors to monitor power. Fresh core have very little neutron activity, so they require a neutron source to provide sufficient neutrons to the detectors so that operators can monitor the approach to criticality. Approach to criticality is achieved by pulling control rods in a BWR, and by boron dilution in a PWR (control rods are mostly pulled at startup).

A high voltage neutron source would be one more penetration into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). It is desirable to minimize the penetrations into the RPV.

It is also desirable to minimize hardware that will be irradiated, since at some point the hardware reaches its design/operating life and has to be discarded. Highly radioactive material is costly to dispose of in the required manner, although it could be held until it decays below a certain limit (which may not always be practical).

As jim pointed out, some neutron sources may have been placed in special fuel rods (that's news to me). I've always seen neutron sources in special inserts in PWR fuel, and ex-assembly locations in BWRs.

As for control rods, they typically reside outside the core in PWRs, and there is a design/operating lifetime, because the tips are pretty close to the active fuel, and the AIG gets some exposure. Swelling and the cracking of control rod tips is limiting, so sets of control rods will be replaced after about 15 years. In BWRs, the control rods are use in-core for reactivity control, and they tend to be replace more frequently. Discharged control rods will end up in the spent fuel pool for sometime until they are sent to a final respository.

From an economic standpoint, it is in the interest of a utility to minimize the radioactive material of which must be disposed.

[nikkkom]

I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor.

This would not classify as merely "neutron source" (meaning "a material or device which generates millions or billions neutrons/sec"), you need a full-fledged chain reaction driven neutron source - you need vastly higher fluxes in order to transmute sufficient amounts of Th-232.

The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a high neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium in to fissionable U-233.

Exactly.

[nikkkom]

If you do the math, solar energy is not viable on the large-scale. No matter how amazing your photovoltaics are, there is simply not enough solar energy incident on the surface of the US to run the country without bull-dozing large swaths of land.

Insolation: ~1kW/m^2
PV efficiency: growing by the day, but let's assume conservatively that it will never exceed 10% for economically viable multi-km^2 installations.
Losses due to night / clouds / rain: 4/5, but let's assume higher losses: 9/10.

Thus, 1 m^2 can produce only 10W on average. 1 km^2 can produce 10 MW.

Mostly desert and dry US states:

Arizona: 295254 km^2
Nevada: 286367 km^2
New Mexico: 315194 km^2

Sum: 896815 km^2

If we would tile only 10% of this land with PV panels we'd generate 897 GW (on average). And then there are dry, inhospitable areas in Utah, Colorado and Texas if we would ever need more.

Total installed electricity generation capacity in the United States today is a bit above 1000 GW.

I think its crazy how some environmentalists love solar, but if it were to be implemented on a large scale would require the destruction of large amounts of wilderness.

You didn't do the math.

[Joe Neubarth]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. ...

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so HERE (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html) is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.
.

The fear in Deutschland and the United States opens many doors for other countries. France can sell nuclear power generated Electricity to the European grid. Since their worker capacity to manufacture is not up to German standards, Germany can continue to be a major manufacturing country in the region and France can be an energy producer.

Ditto, in North America. Mexico could build a hundred nuclear power plants (Say fifty miles south of the border -- Taking into consideration the Americans who claim that living within fifty miles of a nuc plant greatly increases your chances to getting cancer or having autistic children or suppression of their immune systems....)

America can have relatively inexpensive electricity. Mexico could solve their balance of trade problem and all will be right with the world. Of course the United States will be increasing their national deficit, but that has never seemed to bother the Americans as they just pump Trillions and Trillions of electronic dollars into the global economic system.

[zapperzero]

The fear in Deutschland and the United States opens many doors for other countries.

It is ever so :smile:. The dangerous, polluting and/or manual labor intensive jobs get shipped to the second and third world.

[mheslep]

Insolation: ~1kW/m^2
PV efficiency: growing by the day, but let's assume conservatively that it will never exceed 10% for economically viable multi-km^2 installations.
Losses due to night / clouds / rain: 4/5, but let's assume higher losses: 9/10.

Thus, 1 m^2 can produce only 10W on average. 1 km^2 can produce 10 MW.

Nice rough analysis but a bit too conservative; I think going forward we'll see more like 40 W/m^2 electric output to the grid for area covered w/ panels. Average received W/m^2 is known, i.e measured, for flat plate south facing panels tilted at latitude:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_46.shtml, e.g.
Rome: 176
Houston: 197
Miami: 219
Los Angeles: 225
Honolulu: 248

The numbers are substantially higher for two axis tracking systems.

The industry is moving solidly towards affordable ~20% panels for Si crystalline, so in sunny places like LA we'd see ~40W/m^2 average generation out to the grid.

That power density yields an area of ~10000 sq mi to generate the maximum US electrical output of 1000 GW, or perhaps ~6000 sq mi to replace just the fossile fueled portion of the grid (given the storage issue can be resolved). Note that the required area does not have be new or otherwise useful land. By comparison:
o Total area, all US rooftops, residential and commercial: ~6000 sq mi
o One US military base in deserts of New Mexico: ~3500 sq mi
o Total area, US road system: ~17,000 sq mi


20% panel:
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobwhere=1300258525337&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3De20_327_ds_e n_ltr_w.pdf&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs

[edpell]

France can sell nuclear power generated Electricity to the European grid... Mexico could build a hundred nuclear power plants...

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy.

[Astronuc]

FYI - http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf

[Astronuc]

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy. If hydrogen were available, it would be better to put it in the form of various alkanes (e.g., methane), and perhaps ethanol. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis would be used.

[zapperzero]

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy.

There's a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?

[Joseph Chikva]

There's a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?
Actually hydrogen isn't attractive as transport fuel due to its low combustion heat per volume density.

Methanol being a one of so called “base chemicals” is widely produced now (~40 millions tons per annum) via the following reaction CO+2H2=>CH3OH http://www.topsoe.com/business_areas/methanol/~/media/PDF%20files/Methanol/Topsoe_large_scale_methanol_prod_paper.ashx
Process is very similar to Fischer-Tropsch process but uses another type of catalysts (e.g. Cu based instead of Fe or Co based).

Initial mix is made now via steam reforming natural gas (high temperature ~1000 deg Celsius):
CH4+H2O and may be O2 (if partial oxidation) => nCO+mH2+?Co2+?H2O (the quantity of last two depends on selectivity of catalyst)
If we need not methanol but need pure hydrogen for example for hydrocracking process or fertilizer (ammonia) manufacturing the second step of lower temperature process is carried out:
CO+H2O=>H2+CO2
And the second process produces very large quantity of carbon dioxide.
This is the most common for today’s level of technology and today’s parity of prices on electricity and hydrocarbons.
Today's annual production of ammonia exceeds 120 million tons http://www.greener-industry.org.uk/pages/ammonia/1ammoniaapq.htm
And so, if even not considering hydrocracking process also consuming a big quantity of hydrogen, annual production of hydrogen is not less than 3/17*120=21 million tons.

Thinking strategically, crude oil and gas will end in 30-50 years.
In process of an exhaustion of stocks prices inevitably will grow having exceeded the certain threshold when it becomes more favourable to make hydrogen via water electrolyze. And power source here – only nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.
Carbon source in this case will be only the coal gasification in which target reaction is: 2C+O2=>2CO
Manufacturing of liquid hydrocarbons fromcoal is a so called Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) process.
In this process we can produce hydrogen without usage of electricity as well via mentioned above “low temperature” process. But carbon dioxide pollution in this case will be much higher than in case we would use natural gas as carbon source (Gas-to-Liquid).

Note#1: Fischer-Tropsch process has been developed since 1925 in Germany and was used by Nazi for producing of motor fuel from coal in WW2 when they have only not large oil deposits in Romania. Production scale exceeded 5million metric tons per year.
Note#2: One of leaders in CTL process is a South African company SASOL who developed that when South Africa was being embargoed by UN by the reason of apartheid.

PS#1: Nuclear wastes are significant challenge. So, let's develop fusion producing no or much less wastes.
PS#2: I have a book written in late 40s in which is described in details how German chemicists prepared FT and other catalysts and how they build reactors. Now such information as a rule is an industrial secret (know-how) of such companies such as SASOL, Akzo Nobel, etc.

[zapperzero]

In process of an exhaustion of stocks prices inevitably will grow having exceeded the certain threshold when it becomes more favourable to make hydrogen via water electrolyze. And power source here – only nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.

This is economics, not physics, so strictly speaking out of the forum scope. However I think the mods will allow a reply:

It is not a given that fuel price will ramp upwards forever more, while maintaining or increasing transaction volume in the market.

IOW, at some very high price point, most people will trade in their cars for bycicles, or use mass transport, or do whatever else (including nothing!) because they simply cannot afford more fuel.

Now this price point may be above the profitability threshold for water electrolysis, or not.

[Joseph Chikva]

This is economics, not physics, so strictly speaking out of the forum scope. However I think the mods will allow a reply:

It is not a given that fuel price will ramp upwards forever more, while maintaining or increasing transaction volume in the market.

IOW, at some very high price point, most people will trade in their cars for bycicles, or use mass transport, or do whatever else (including nothing!) because they simply cannot afford more fuel.

Now this price point may be above the profitability threshold for water electrolysis, or not.
Your question what we should do with nuclear wastes also out of the forum scope.
And how you we can bycicles for moving cargo, excavation, flying, military? Armored bicycles? :)
Whether you want to refuse completely plastic?

Actually, economics adapts to any price. I am 47 and remember time when 1 barrel’s price was 7$ and now that is above 100.

And for example, according to SASOL company data threshold of expediency of "coal-to-liquid" technology usage is steady price above 80 $/barrel (at present price for power coal).
And what technology to use for solving of various problems depends on parity of prices.
Hydrogen via electrolyze or steam reforming depends on prices parity on electricity and natural gas.
What base chemicals (olefins or acetylene) as precursors to use for manufacturing of various organic chemical products also depend on parity of electricity, natural gas and crude oil. As in case of cheap electricity acetylene is more attractive for producing the same chemical.
And cheap electricity when oil and gas prices will grow can be produced only by nuclear plants.

[mheslep]

Your question what we should do with nuclear wastes also out of the forum scope.
No, nuclear waste discussion with some engineering context is not out of scope here ; I find it is encouraged in keeping with other forum rules.

[Joseph Chikva]

No, nuclear waste discussion with some engineering context is not out of scope here ; I find it is encouraged in keeping with other forum rules.
You are right in case if consider technical aspects.
But:
How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?
And I do not see here the technical aspects.

[zapperzero]

Actually, economics adapts to any price. I am 47 and remember time when 1 barrel’s price was 7$ and now that is above 100.


You should also remember,then, passenger cars using 25 liters of gas /100km, then. And oil-fired plants as a mainstay of power generation. And houses heated with heavy oil. And the crisis in the '70s when oil could not be had at ANY price because suddenly the main producers decided they would be better off (economically) keeping it in the ground.

Adaptation exists, to be sure, but it most certainly involves demand destruction.

[Joseph Chikva]

You should also remember,then, passenger cars using 25 liters of gas /100km, then. And oil-fired plants as a mainstay of power generation. And houses heated with heavy oil.
Passenger cars with gasoline consumption from 3 l/100km to 40l/100 km and may be more (such as Lamborghini, Mazeratti, Ferrari, etc.). But what? If quality of gasoline is acceptable and price is the same what a difference via which technology and from which feedstock that gasoline will be produced?

Who will run heavy oil power plants if we will have cheap and at the same time safe nuke?
Yes, for this we should increase standards of industrial safety on another – more higher level.
But in any case by increasing of oil prices nuke plants will become more competitive.

[Astronuc]

Shaw to sell Westinghouse stake back to Toshiba
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2060563
9/6/2011 5:07:00 PM
Toshiba Corporation is to increase its stake in nuclear power plant vendor Westinghouse Electric Company to 87%, by acquiring all of the shares held by The Shaw Group's subsidiary Nuclear Energy Holdings.
. . . .
Both Shaw and Westinghouse confirmed that the sale would have no impact on any of the four AP1000 nuclear power plants currently under construction in China or the six under contract in the United States. Bernhard said that Shaw ‘fully expects’ to continue working on future AP1000 projects.
. . . .
Once the acquisition of Shaw’s stake in Westinghouse is complete, Toshiba’s stake in the company will increase from 67% to 87%. The remaining shareholders in Westinghouse are Kazakh state-owned company Kazatomprom owning a 10%, and Japan’s Ishikawajima-Hariwa Heavy Industries with the remaining 3%. I'd expect that Shaw has a lot of NPP experience at this point, so they are a serious player in the NPP supplier market.


In other news: A new probe, the materials analysis particle probe, or MAPP, sees materials interactions in fusion reactors
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2060554

[zapperzero]

But in any case by increasing of oil prices nuke plants will become more competitive.

Yes. That is true, if the oil prices keep increasing - which is by no means a given. Economic contraction may decrease demand to the point where prices (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) stagnate or even drop.

At which point, no-one would be able/willing to bear the opportunity cost of new NPPs.

[unassailable]

After briefly reading through this thread, it seems we are focusing strictly on nuclear fission.
What about nuclear fusion?
Does everyone think it will be beneficial to implement such a volatile source of power?
With more smaller labs researching cheaper ways to obtain a reaction, how viable will it be as a power source?

[mheslep]

After briefly reading through this thread, it seems we are focusing strictly on nuclear fission.
What about nuclear fusion?
Does everyone think it will be beneficial to implement such a volatile source of power?
With more smaller labs researching cheaper ways to obtain a reaction, how viable will it be as a power source?There are numerous good fusion threads in the forum. You might search in the Nuclear Engineering forum at large for them.

[Joseph Chikva]

Yes. That is true, if the oil prices keep increasing - which is by no means a given. Economic contraction may decrease demand to the point where prices (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) stagnate or even drop.

At which point, no-one would be able/willing to bear the opportunity cost of new NPPs.
I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

[mheslep]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

[zapperzero]

I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.
The oil IS running out. So prices rise, until some buyers are driven to bankruptcy or otherwise forced to stop buying. Then, demand falls and prices go down again. When that happens, those who invested in new production capacity that is only profitable because of high prices go bankrupt too. This will happen to the fancy new NPPs that make process heat for Fischer-Tropsch, if they are ever built.

So overall, production plateaus or declines slowly, while more and more buyers are driven out of the market. Eventually, only plastics manufacturers will be left, they will be the last to switch to natural gas.

My computer does not have a fuel cell. If juice from the wall socket somehow runs out, I will not go "hmm, time to invest in new NPPs". I will set up a few wind turbines or solar panels on the roof of my condo so that my neighbors and I have some juice to charge up mobile phones and laptops, run a couple iceboxes in the basement maybe...

[Joseph Chikva]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
Thanks for my education.
But you are a little late.
Yes price forms on base of ratio on supply and demand.
And oil supply will fall down with permanently growing demand.
Do not drive car, do not grow bread, consequently do not eat, etc.

[Luca Bevil]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.

[Joseph Chikva]

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.
At the expense of fast developing countries e.g. China, India, Brazil, etc.
And I thought that we told about world.
And certainly personally you can try to lead primitive life. But the majority living on the planet would disagree with you and further will use the civilization blessings consuming more and more fuel and electricity.
Have Air Conditioner and do you switch it on when you hot?

[mheslep]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

[robinson]

I notice that solar powered electric vehicles is missing from the scenario. As is solar/wind power in general.

[Luca Bevil]

Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

Well.. 50 years from now I can quite easily envisage a smart grid with massive renewable generation...
does it matter to the NPP competitiveness right now ?

I do not think so...
what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..

a much shorter time horizon is what guides today's society

[edpell]

Carbon source in this case will be only the coal gasification in which target reaction is: 2C+O2=>2CO


Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.

[edpell]

what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..


China having a strong command economy component will have no problem building power plants needed for the countries survival. Remember that really big wall?

[Joseph Chikva]

Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.
You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

[edpell]

You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

The down side to carbon from coal is that we are putting more carbon into the air. The global warming and human global warming folks say this is very bad. The up side of using a biological source is that it is NET carbon neutral. The carbon came from the air into the plant and is returned to the air to begin the cycle again.

There are a number of interesting papers from Uppsala University on peak coal.

Man, $5 per ton is cheap.

[Joseph Chikva]

If we consider burning, yes, more CO2 pollution in comparison with burning of e.g. natural gas.
If we consider processing into hydrocarbons of two carbon sources: farm wastes and coal, you are wrong. Firstly, coal is biological source too. Secondly, gasification of coal is very similar to gasification of biomass.
If we would produce hydrogen via electrolyze and not via the following reaction:
CO+H2O=>H2+CO2
We will have very low CO2 pollution during processing.

Yes, 5$/t of production cost is cheap and their selling price ExW (on site) is about 8-10$ depending fraction. But transported e.g. to Georgia that coal would cost about 50-60$/t. As transportation cost is very critical to cheap goods’ final price.

[mepat1111]

I've just read through this whole thread, some great information in here, thanks for the reads to everyone who contributed. I'm self taught but have a strong interest in nuclear physics, engineering and safety, and am considering taking up undergraduate studies next year. I'm not very knowledgeable compared to the highly educated people here just yet so I'll probably be mostly lurking for a while, maybe popping up with questions here and there.

A couple of posts from way back in the thread which I thought were amusing in hindsight:

The next Chernobyl magnitude meltdown will put an end to the nuclear experiment. The Union of Concerned Scientists predicts a 1 in 3 chance
of a meltdown in the USA in the next 5 years due to sumps plugging
up.http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

Want to place a bet then?

I'll give you 3 to 1 odds.

If there is a meltdown in the US in the next 5 years, you get $300 of my money.

If there isn't, you owe me $100.

How about it?

Remember, the magnitude of Chernobyl was TINY. Like I said before, if EVERY nuclear power plant in the US has a Chernobly magnitude meltdown, air pollution would STILL kill more people in a month. The biggest cost would be the money and energy lost.

And I'd take the bet too. I'd give 100 to 1 odds. Because of the differences in design, a Chernobyl style meltdown would require something like a meteor strike to happen - the odds really are that low.

[Astronuc]

But in the 1976 election proliferation was an issue where Ford felt a disadvantage relative to his opponent Jimmy Carter. Therefore, on October 28, 1976, just five days before the presidential election, Ford announced a ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in an attempt to curb proliferation. Ref: http://energyfromthorium.com/category/conferences/thec2011/

The ban is often attributed to (blamed on) Carter, but Ford promoted it publicly before Carter. It was however enacted during Carter's administration.

[gmax137]

1981

President Ronald Reagan lifts the ban on commercial reprocessing, but the development of reprocessing facilities was no longer considered economically viable in the United States.

from the same site linked by astronuc. I have never really understood the emphasis given to this 5 year ban on reprocessing. Apparently reprocessing has been 'legal' for the past 30 years, but all we ever hear is 'Jimmy Carter made reprocessing illegal.'

[eXorikos]

I'm doing a paper on nuclear fusion by laser as an application of high power lasers. Are there papers that I really have to read? I can't find any more recent material. The most recent I found was from 2002.

I've got 2 books in our library: High Power Laser Interactions by Robieux (2000) and The Physics of Laser Fusion by Motz (1979).

[Joseph Chikva]

I'm doing a paper on nuclear fusion by laser as an application of high power lasers. Are there papers that I really have to read? I can't find any more recent material. The most recent I found was from 2002.

I've got 2 books in our library: High Power Laser Interactions by Robieux (2000) and The Physics of Laser Fusion by Motz (1979).
You can not find because only The National Ignition Facility (Nif) in the US is drawing closer to producing a surplus of energy from the idea.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14842720
As I know they should end building of their experimental set in near future and do not make publications.
You can get more information from their web-site: https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/ or https://www.llnl.gov/str/Payne.html

If you are interested generally in inertial confinement also you should find information on Heavy Ions Fusion
Light Ions Fusion program is canceled.

From books I would also advise you: James J. Duderstadt, Gregory A. Moses, INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1982

[Astronuc]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US -

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/93/04708943/0470894393-112.pdf

[clancy688]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US

Interesting indeed. To me that doesn't sound like a "perspective" at all. It's rather undertones of a disappointed child who doesn't get his toys.


If such an explosion [in Chernobyl] were to have occurred in a Western nuclear power plant, the explosion would have been safely contained.


I'm not so sure about that. No way a containment could've contained the force of THAT explosion.


The accident that occurred at Chernobyl could not occur elsewhere.


Maybe. Maybe not. But other types of accidents could occure elsewhere. Even in his super-safe western reactors. *hint* Fukushima *hint*


Thirty-one plant workers and firemen died directly from radiation exposure as a result of the Chernobyl accident.


No word regarding related cancer deaths, environmental concerns and hundreds of thousands of people who had to be evacuated forever. Only 1800 cancer cases which have been mostly healed. "What are you fussing about? Look, only 31 people died!!! If that's the worst nuclear power can do, then stop arguing!"


After decades of scientific study, it is clear no legitimate safety issues preclude opening Yucca Mountain for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.


Nice. Everything regarding reprocessing and storage in one paragraph. If it's that easy, then what the hell are we fussing about for DECADES? Seriously...


Reprocessing will become more efficient and economical as technology continues to advance


Didn't we start using nuclear power without having any plan on exactly what to do with the resulting waste because we thought "In 20 or 30 years someone will find a solution, for example transmutation."?
So far technology hasn't advanced. Where do his hopes come from?


But even in the United States, all the high-level by-products from 50 years of nuclear fission could be assembled 10 feet high on a single football field


With or without shielding? And how many football fields do the low- and medium-level byproducts need?


Commercial nuclear electricity has killed zero members of the public over that period.


:rofl:
ONE page above he mentioned 1800 Chernobyl related thyroid cancer cases. 99% of which were healed successfully. Which means that, unfortunately, 1% was fatal. It took him only one site to totally discard the results of that accident. Fascinating. What a hero.


Nuclear ships from all countries are welcomed into 150 ports in 50 countries


Nope. I remember some nuclear powered ice breakers not being allowed in some German ports.


North America may be unable to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while they are stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all.


Just on a side note:
He thinks that any country without nuclear power will strand somewhere comparable to technological middle ages, doesn't he?
That's not a rational approach. For him, wind turbines are an archaic technology, using them would be an insult to hundreds of years of human excellence in the field of science. That's what I make of this little statement.


But you won’t see any GE ads, in this day of concern about climate change, that 70% of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power


What the hell does he care about carbon? As far as I'm concerned, the US doesn't care. We Germans will reduce our emissions by 20% during the next 10 years - including shutting down all existing NPPs. You Americans will reduce your emissions by about 2% during the next 10 years. Including building new NPPs.
Plus the fact that mining uranium produces considerable carbon emissions on its own. Nuclear power is not as carbon free as you all think.


Those of us who know better must begin a strong and enduring battle against these forces because our success will improve the plight of the least fortunate, poorest fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated on this planet


"With nuclear power, energy will be to cheap to meter!" - all right, it's the sixties argument all over again.


----------------------------


The whole text can be summarised into two arguments:

- Nuclear power can save the world
- All those anti-nuclear-power-goons are fear-driven spoil-sports

:rolleyes:

[mheslep]

What was the over pressure in the explosion? Wiki says, un-referenced, that containment withstands up to 200 psi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

[mheslep]

We Germans will reduce our emissions by 20% during the next 10 years - including shutting down all existing NPPs.Well perhaps if 20% of Germans leave, but otherwise no Germany will not lower CO2 emissions 20%, not in 10 years if it permanently shutters all 17 reactors. Germany might export some emissions, or import nuclear power, as it has just begun doing now (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,786048,00.html) with the closure of 6 plants, but then what's the point?

Meanwhile in the US, energy consumption per person has been dropping 1.5% per year since 2000. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&tstart=948430800000&tend=1232514000000)

[clancy688]

Germany will not lower CO2 emissions 20%, not in 10 years if it permanently shutters all 17 reactors


I had a similar discussion with NUCENG half a year ago. I'll quote myself from that thread (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3357626&postcount=176):


NUCENG provided a link which stated that Germany will reduce its CO2 emission by 30-33% compared to 1990 until 2020. Shutting down NPPs included. We won't met our target of -40%, but 30% is still not bad. In the same time, the US will probably be building over a dozen new plants. And what will be their reduced emissions? The plan is 4%. If they are as efficient as Germany, they come down to 3%.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...enhagen-accord

Summary

Germany shuts down 17 NPPs until 2021 and will reach a 33% emissions cut until 2020
US will build over two dozen new NPPs but plans to reach only a 4% emissions cut until 2020


Guess you're right. 20% was wrong. It's actually 30%.
But why is that so? Why do we get a 30% cut even if we shut down our plants? It's simple, really. This cutdown was agreed upon somewhere around 2000. At the same time, it was decided to phase out nuclear power until 2020 (they decided to phase out the phase out 10 years later, but that's another story). So shutting down ALL NPPs was always included in our plan to lower emissions.


Germany might export some emissions, or import nuclear power, as it has just begun doing now with the closure of 6 plants, but then what's the point?


It's not six, it's more. I don't have the exact number right now, but it was well over 10 for most of the year (other NPPs unaffected by the moratorium were being maintenanced). Moreover, that we had to import energy was also being caused by the old electric grid. Most nuclear plants are located in the south, with much of our renewable energy being located in the north. But the current existing grid is to old and to unflexible to handle energy transports across the country. There were times last year when wind turbines in the north were creating excess energy - but transporting it to the south where it was needed was not possible, so we had to import from surrounding countries.

Here's a chart (http://www.anti-atom-piraten.de/2011/12/deutschland-ist-weiterhin-strom-exporteur/) displaying energy import and export for 2009-2012. To select the chart:

Chose the value you want (tagesgenau - per day, 7-Tage-Durchschnitt - 7-day-average, 30-Tage-Durchschnitt - 30-day-average, kumulativ - cumulative) and click on the button "Ansicht zurücksetzen" in the upper right corner of the chart.

The black line marks the shutdown of our oldest 7 plants. In late May 13 of our 17 NPPs were offline.

This article (http://taz.de/Deutschland-exportiert-weiterhin-Strom-/!84270/) (sorry, only in German) concludes that, even with NPPs shut down, Germany continued to export more energy than import.
They state that numbers from ENTSOE (european network of transmission system operators for electricity) show that Germany exported around 6 billion kWh in 2011.


Meanwhile in the US, energy consumption per person has been dropping 1.5% per year since 2000.


Great. But then go to the lower left side of the website, scroll for Germany and enable our energy consumption per capita. Granted, it hasn't dropped 1.5% per year.
But then we only started with HALF of your energy consumption per person.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&tstart=948430800000&tend=1232514000000#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA:DEU&ifdim=country&tstart=948430800000&tend=1232514000000&hl=en&dl=en

[mheslep]

But then we only started with HALF of your energy consumption per person. Yep. Try it with some serious distance to travel in country that spans a continent, ~4000km coast to coast, with Great Plains winters, FL, AZ, TX, NM, and southern CA summers, the world's largest refining industry, and then get back to me. Canada has even higher per capita energy consumption for similar reasons.

[mheslep]

Guess you're right. 20% was wrong. It's actually 30%.
There's no 'actually' until it happens over the next 10 years as you predict (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3721015&postcount=410) above.

Moreover, that we had to import energy was also being caused by the old electric grid. Most nuclear plants are located in the south, with much of our renewable energy being located in the north. But the current existing grid is to old and to unflexible to handle energy transports across the country. There were times last year when wind turbines in the north were creating excess energy - but transporting it to the south where it was needed was not possible, so we had to import from surrounding countries.
No, the proximate cause of imports was taking those nukes off line, the grid was incidental. Prior to that, regardless of grid quality Germany exported net power. Now, since the plant closures after Fukishima, it imports net power according to de Spiegel.

Here's a chart displaying energy import and export for 2009-2012. To select the chart:From the "Anti-Nuclear Pirates"? (Google's translation)

[clancy688]

No, the proximate cause of imports was taking those nukes off line, the grid was incidental. Prior to that, regardless of grid quality Germany exported net power. Now, since the plant closures after Fukishima, it imports net power according to de Spiegel.


According to Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/0,1518,807323,00.html)(but no English version of the specific article) we're exporting and importing power at the same time. Thanks to the mentioned grid unreliability.
I guess both of us are getting our wires crossed.

You're right when you say that taking the NPPs offline caused us to import more power.

But at the same time, the data shows that our overall annual energy production is still more than we need.


From the "Anti-Nuclear Pirates"? (Google's translation)


The actual data they are using is taken from ENTSOE.

[mheslep]

An interesting perspective on the nuclear industry in the US -

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/93/04708943/0470894393-112.pdf

The author (Lehr) states that a 1GW can be built on 200 acres. Theoretically, sure that's true. But absent a coastal plant without cooling towers, I doubt that is true practically speaking in the US under existing regulation, or anywhere close to it. If the NRC's 'exclusion zone' is included I expect the area of even the smaller ones (Milstone) is doubled.

Quick survey (from either wiki or the site licenses at NRC):
Byron 1782 acres
Milstone: 500 acres.
Palo Verde: 4000 acres
Commanche Peak: 7700 acres

Then there are the other peripherals seldom mentioned. The plant closest to me, the 1.8GW North Anna, had a 53 km^2 (13100 acres) lake built solely for the cooling needs of North Anna. And BTW, that area of land receives 53GW of solar radiation for several hours a day, or 254 GWh/year (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/VA.PDF).

[Astronuc]

Clearly, land use has to be considered, and certainly that is dependent on the path to the ultimate heat sink. It is beneficial to have a river, e.g., Hudson River, which is actually a tidal estuary, lake or ocean on the boundary.

Perhaps the smallest NPP site is San Onofre at 84 acre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Lehr's article is too lofty for me.



Meanwhile - Sandia chemists find new material to remove radioactive gas [gaseous iodine] from spent nuclear fuel
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/mof/

But it's a start in the right direction.

[mheslep]

Clearly, land use has to be considered, and certainly that is dependent on the path to the ultimate heat sink. It is beneficial to have a river, e.g., Hudson River, which is actually a tidal estuary, lake or ocean on the boundary.

Perhaps the smallest NPP site is San Onofre at 84 acre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Yes I knew San Onofre was one of the smaller plants, using the Pacific as its heat sink (no evaporator towers). However, the Exclusion Zone given in section 4 (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0531/ML053130316.pdf) of the license online at NRC has a long radius of ~2000 sq ft, or about 287 acres, though about a third of that is in the ocean. The Low Population zone appears to have a radius five times larger (hard to gauge from the figure), or about 1400 acres, with only half on land.

Lehr's article is too lofty for me.Agreed. I find fault with much of it. I think advocates should leave well enough alone with three points: i) nuclear provides 90% capacity factor baseload power which variable renewables can not without some innovation in storage, ii) nuclear emissions are ~zero, iii) nuclear could be inexpensive, in fact it appears to be in other countries like China, but is not in the US in no small part due to the NRC, which has never granted an operating license to a nuclear plant proposed under its watch.

That kind of argument would draw attention to improving the nuclear business model instead of leaving it stuck in the 1960's LEU and PWR world.

Meanwhile - Sandia chemists find new material to remove radioactive gas [gaseous iodine] from spent nuclear fuel
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/mof/

But it's a start in the right direction.There's another way to accomplish this: molten fuel.:tongue:

[Astronuc]

There's another way to accomplish this: molten fuel.:tongue: Molten (or otherwise degraded) fuel certainly releases fission gases and volatiles. That was the problem with Fukushima.

If one is referring to molten salt, that too releases fission products, which do have to be collected, even if in a dedicated processing facility.

Thorium (Th-232) and U-233 fissions produce a slightly different isotopic vectors than U-235/U-238 fissions, but one still has fission gases (isotopes of Xe, Kr) and volatiles (isotopes of I, Br, etc) to collect, immobilized (calcine and vitrify, or petrify) and dispose of in a water repository.

[mheslep]

Molten (or otherwise degraded) fuel certainly releases fission gases and volatiles. That was the problem with Fukushima.

If one is referring to molten salt, that too releases fission products, which do have to be collected, even if in a dedicated processing facility.

Thorium (Th-232) and U-233 fissions produce a slightly different isotopic vectors than U-235/U-238 fissions, but one still has fission gases (isotopes of Xe, Kr) and volatiles (isotopes of I, Br, etc) to collect, immobilized (calcine and vitrify, or petrify) and dispose of in a water repository.Yes I know molten salt fission will produce gases; the point is they are relatively simple to remove compared to solid fuel, pending some breakthrough like you linked. This should make high burn up possible in a MSR.

[clancy688]

Here's a recent report regarding French nuclear power and the actual costs:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Extending_operating_lives_of_French_reactors_best_ option-3101124.html


France, the court estimated, has so far spent €188 billion ($246 billion) on nuclear energy.

[...]

The operating costs of EDF [operator of the French NPPs) amounted to €8.9 billion ($11.6 billion) for the production of 407.9 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2010, according to the court. The average generating cost, the court calculated, was €49.5 ($64.7) per megawatt-hour (MWh). According to the audit office, whatever decision is made to maintain the current level of nuclear energy usage in France will require significant investment in the short- and medium-term at a rate of at least double the current level of investment. This, it says, will increase the average cost of production by about 10%.


Soooo... 5 cents per kwh. Looking cheap so far, doesn't it? But then look at those 188 billion in research. And add that, too. Nearly tenfolds the price.
Onshore wind energy is not much more expensive (somewhere between 50 and 60 Euros per MWh if I remember correctly... and I'm not so sure if any country boosted its wind energy research with 200 billion bucks).

Cheap energy my ***. Renewables can hardly top that.


Here's the report in French:

http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf