The Nuclear Power Thread

[Teen4Ideas]

I just understand how there is nuclear waste, I've been taught that radioactive materials are radioactive because they are inherently UNSTABLE, unstable material is needed for a fission reaction, so why is there waste? Shouldn't what leaves the plant be stable, non radioactive material? I agree with theory process on the above comment, waste could be used as another fuel source right?

 

[Jon Richfield]

I just understand how there is nuclear waste, I've been taught that radioactive materials are radioactive because they are inherently UNSTABLE, unstable material is needed for a fission reaction, so why is there waste? Shouldn't what leaves the plant be stable, non radioactive material? I agree with theory process on the above comment, waste could be used as another fuel source right?

As far as it goes you are correct, but the difficulty is that you need to read up a lot on the nature of the different types of instability involved. By way of analogy, think of nitroglycerine and of coal burning in air. Both release energy by oxidation and reduction of fuels, in other words, by exploiting instability of oxidants and reductants in contact. Both produce largely similar reaction products. And yet, coal would make a lousy material for blasting in mines, and nitroglycerine a lousy material for warming your stove.
OK?
Now, the nuclear instabilities in question are, as you realize, the source of energy, whether for bombs, power stations, or poisoning dissident Russians. Roughly they might be classed into two types:

• nuclear decay, which is what you get from unstable isotopes, and which proceeds in terms of half-life, each nucleus undergoing (usually) minor alterations at a random time while minding its own business and ignoring its neighbours and not doing anything on the lines of a chain reaction. Think radium, strontium 90, tritium and so on.
  
• nuclear burning, to which most radioactivity is only tangentially relevant, in which the nuclei undergo massive changes, either fission (splitting if you like) or fusion (joining, if you like) in which not only a lot of energy is given off, but particles that shoot off and split or fuse neighbouring nuclei that otherwise might have sat minding their own business. If this tickling up of your neighbour is effective enough, say every splitting/fusing atom causing two more to react, then we get a what we call positive feedback -- the faster it blows, the faster it grows. This is sometimes called a chain reaction and for serious power production, an effective, efficient chain reaction is crucial, either uncontrolled in a bomb, or carefully dripped out as in a power station.

Now, all the nuclear fuels in a fission reactor happen to be radioactive, but that is simply because only very, very heavy nuclei are any good for splitting, and all nuclei more massive than lead (even bismuth it seems nowadays) are at least slightly radioactive anyway. Most of their fission products are incidentally radioactive, usually intensely so, meaning that they don't last long, but the point is not that they are active, which has nothing to do with chain reactions. What does matter is that they are too light to undergo any useful fission and therefore support no chain reaction. In fact they tend to interfere with the main chain reaction and we speak of them as poisons, that we have to get rid of before we can use the remaining fuel.

At the light element end, where we can fuse hydrogen, lithium and similar nuclei,the process differs in detail, but the principle remains the same. Only the lightest nuclei are useful in fusion and the products ("ash") of the burn are either useless or a nuisance.

So I hope that helps you understand that it is not the instability of the "ash" that matters, but the fact that it is not suited for "burning" because it cannot support a chain reaction. It does in fact give off heat and particles in quantities that continuously grow smaller (half-life) till we get an inert product, but the heat, though valuable in space vehicles etc, is too little to be valuable for bulk use in power stations.

 

[rootone]

Spent fuel rods still contain a lot of unburned Uranium, and that is in fact recycled into fresh fuel rods.
The remaining 'ash' as has been pointed out, while it is radioactive, it isn't sufficiently radioactive to contribute to maintaining a self perpetuating fission reaction, and if anything interferes with the Uranium chain reaction.
Some of the waste by products can be separated and are useful in medical treatments and other applications, others can be processed in special reactors and transformed into stuff that can be useful.
Much of the waste has no potential use that we presently know of though, so the only thing that can be done is to lock it up in a safe storage facility where it doesn't pose a hazard.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Just want to add that when rootone says

"Spent fuel rods still contain a lot of unburned Uranium, and that is in fact recycled into fresh fuel rods"

it is important to understand that "spent" in this sense never meant "burnt up", but "containing too much 'poison' to be profitable to go on using like this".
The reprocessing then does nothing to the fuel uranium or plutonium or whatever elements we were burning, or that got produced in the fission process, it just removes the "ash", the fission products that would absorb the neutrons that otherwise would keep the chain reaction going.

 

[mheslep]

Spent fuel rods still contain a lot of unburned Uranium, and that is in fact recycled into fresh fuel rods.

Can be recycled, not necessarily is.

 

[rootone]

Can be recycled, not necessarily is.

Sure, some nuclear power operators do this and others don't.
Personally I can't think of why it isn't done by all as a matter of routine.
I would have thought that the cost of recycling the usable Uranium in used fuel rods would be less than producing new rods from raw Uranium ore,
but I guess the decision not to recycle in some cases must have something to do with economics ultimately.

 

[jim hardy]

Both release energy by oxidation and reduction of fuels, in other words, by exploiting instability of oxidants and reductants in contact. Both produce largely similar reaction products. And yet, coal would make a lousy material for blasting in mines, and nitroglycerine a lousy material for warming your stove.

Jon Richfield - i like that analogy, in fact i use a similar one for my non-science friends.

""
A campfire burns cellulose. So does a stick of dynamite. But they're put together differently.

Had the bomb evolved out of the power reactor instead of the other way 'round, people would say:
'What a dreadful thing to do with perfectly good Uranium, scattering it allover the countryside like that. You can make electricity with of that stuff. '
""

 

[jim hardy]

Teen4ideas

are you a student ?
you might enjoy poking around this page
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reZoom.jsp?newZoom=7

it's sort of like the periodic chart you studied in chemistry but it shows all the isotopes .
Vertical axis is number of protons, which define what chemcal element it is.
Horizontal axis is number of neutrons, which determines which isotope of any element you are looking at.
The black line up the middle is all the stable isotopes, the rest are unstable .
How to use it:
example
in lower left click on 1H (Hydrogen), then on right side panel click "zoom 1"
you should see black squares for 1H and 2H, plain hydrogen and deuterium as in heavy water.
both are stable, and the numbers tell you natural hydrogen is is 99.9885% 1H and 0.0115% 2H.

Small wonder heavy water was so scarce in WW2...

3H is tritium with 12.32 year halflife
4H and 5H i never noticed before. I think they immediately emit neutrons thereby turning into tritium.

You've heard of Carbon 14, check that one out...have fun exploring

old jim

 

[Jon Richfield]

Had the bomb evolved out of the power reactor instead of the other way 'round, people would say:
'What a dreadful thing to do with perfectly good Uranium, scattering it allover the countryside like that. You can make electricity with of that stuff. '
""

Nice line Jim!

 

[Jon Richfield]

Personally I can't think of why it isn't done by all as a matter of routine.
I would have thought that the cost of recycling the usable Uranium in used fuel rods would be less than producing new rods from raw Uranium ore,
but I guess the decision not to recycle in some cases must have something to do with economics ultimately.

Right, plus politics. The nuke-killer nuts want to vitrify everything, good bad and potential, and bury it halfway down the mantle.
But there also are practical considerations. There is more fissile fuel in the spent fuel than we usually have capacity for using at anyone time and it contains a lot of isotopes, including "poisons" that accumulate in even highly purified reprocessed fuel, so once it is cleaned it is best used ASAP, if you don't want to do it all over again before you can use it.
Another thing is that while it is still full of highly radioactive "ash" it is practically unhandleable and hard to hijack for terrorist purposes.
So it is sensible to retain the dirty material as safely as practical while it cools down and decays into comparative safety until there is a need for it. Then you can recycle the fuel for use while it is still fresh and clean and crusty, and process the rest of the material into compactly storeable form, partly for safety till it decays, partly in case a use for it arises, and partly because if there are any particularly undesirable isotopes in it, they can be exposed to convenient sources of neutron radiation to accelerate their final decay.
Incidentally, except where they are used purely as sources of decay heat, the value of nuclear fuels is independent of how radioactive they are. They really are valued according to how fissionable or fusible they might be. In most contexts their radioactivity is a nuisance except when the decay products (usually neutrons, occasionally alpha particles) are needed to support fission or some types of fusion.

 

[Astronuc]

Sure, some nuclear power operators do this and others don't.
Personally I can't think of why it isn't done by all as a matter of routine.
I would have thought that the cost of recycling the usable Uranium in used fuel rods would be less than producing new rods from raw Uranium ore,
but I guess the decision not to recycle in some cases must have something to do with economics ultimately.

The nuclear power operators themselves do not perform the recycling/reprocessing, but rather spent/used fuel is sent to a reprocessor. In reprocessing, the fuel is basically dissolved, the fission products are separated and chemically formed into a stable configuration (immobilized), and the unused U and Pu is reformed into usuable fuel. All that is done remotely due to the radiation levels, which are many time greater than the ore. Remote handling greatly increases the cost of the fuel, and the disposition of the inventory of radionuclides (fission products) as opposed to mine tailings is a significant cost.

Right now, uranium ore is inexpensive, and the cost of fuel from virgin UO₂ is much less than recycled U and (U,Pu) MOX. The structural materials, i.e., the Zr-alloy or SS-alloy cladding and supporting structure are the same.

 

[nikkkom]

Sure, some nuclear power operators do this and others don't.
Personally I can't think of why it isn't done by all as a matter of routine.
I would have thought that the cost of recycling the usable Uranium in used fuel rods would be less than producing new rods from raw Uranium ore,
but I guess the decision not to recycle in some cases must have something to do with economics ultimately.

Reprocessed Uranium costs more than natural one, and it has slightly worse characteristics. It contains some U isotopes which don't occur in natural U, and these isotopes aren't very good at fission. IOW: 5% enriched reprocessed U is approximately equivalent to 4.5% enriched natural U. Since enrichment for civilian power reactors is capped at 5%, you can't "simply" use 5.5% enriched reprocessed U. It's not allowed. Thus, fuel fabricated from reprocessed U would be somewhat less efficient that one from natural U.

 

[Astronuc]

Reprocessed Uranium costs more than natural one, and it has slightly worse characteristics. It contains some U isotopes which don't occur in natural U, and these isotopes aren't very good at fission. IOW: 5% enriched reprocessed U is approximately equivalent to 4.5% enriched natural U. Since enrichment for civilian power reactors is capped at 5%, you can't "simply" use 5.5% enriched reprocessed U. It's not allowed. Thus, fuel fabricated from reprocessed U would be somewhat less efficient that one from natural U.

That's true for the most part. However, in the case of MOX (U,PU) fuel, the Pu-content is necessarily greater than 5% (more like 6 to 8%), but equivalent to 5% U-235, in order to compensate for the parasitic absorption of isotopes like Pu-240.

Research reactors, e.g., BR-3, could (can) and did use higher enrichments, 8 to 10%, for special fuel programs. Some research reactors used up to 20%, which is down from higher enrichments in the past.

Obviously, research reactors have different purposes, e.g., research or isotope production, than commercial reactors, which are generally used for base-load electrical supply. Some commercial reactors may be used to produce certain isotopes like Co-60.

 

[rootone]

So as things stand with current reprocessing technology, there just isn't a cost effective way to get most of the U235 out of used fuel rods without it having an admixture of unwanted isotopes.
I guess it might be feasible to do it in principle, but on economic grounds it's considered that this process takes an unreasonable amount of time and energy to do it.
There ARE however facilities in a fair number of countries where they do actually do this, and they wouldn't bother if the economic argument against was fully conclusive, what would be the point?

 

[nikkkom]

So as things stand with current reprocessing technology, there just isn't a cost effective way to get most of the U235 out of used fuel rods without it having an admixture of unwanted isotopes.
I guess it might be feasible to do it in principle, but on economic grounds it's considered that this process takes an unreasonable amount of time and energy to do it.
There ARE however facilities in a fair number of countries where they do actually do this, and they wouldn't bother if the economic argument against was fully conclusive, what would be the point?

The point is (1) to reduce the amount of waste and (2) natural U is not a particularly abundant resource. It can become much more expensive in the future.

 

[Astronuc]

So as things stand with current reprocessing technology, there just isn't a cost effective way to get most of the U235 out of used fuel rods without it having an admixture of unwanted isotopes.
I guess it might be feasible to do it in principle, but on economic grounds it's considered that this process takes an unreasonable amount of time and energy to do it.
There ARE however facilities in a fair number of countries where they do actually do this, and they wouldn't bother if the economic argument against was fully conclusive, what would be the point?

Each nation has to look at its indigenous resources, e.g., plentiful U/Th supply, and at the back end costs (i.e., disposition of spent fuel or fission products). Some countries, like the US and Canada, have abundant U resources, while nations like France, UK and Japan, do not. The latter group are more likely to reprocess than the former.

 

[jim hardy]

There's a book, "The Curve of Binding Energy" by John Mcphee, describing proliferation concerns that brought about a halt of US progress toward reprocessing.
McPhee writes on diverse subjects.
His "Survival of the Birch Bark Canoe" is another fun read.

 

[mheslep]

Veteran nuclear engineer Charles Forsberg from MIT, ORNL, is the principal investigator for a very interesting nuclear concept here, called the FHR for Flouride salt High temperature Reactor. Molten salt cooled, pebble-bed fueled, high temperature. These features have been explored before. The novel aspect with the FHR is the hybridization with gas and/or heat storage to allow a peaking capability of 140%, which would allow the reactor-hybrid to work well with intermittent power. Its compelling. Efficiency 66% with combined cycle.

The inherent safety advantages of molten-salt are contradicted, to a degree I think, by the selection of a solid fuel as a opposed to fuel contained in the salt which can be gravity drained away for the core.

Abstract
The Fluoride-salt-cooled High-Temperature Reactor (FHR) with a Nuclear Air-Brayton Combined Cycle (NACC) and Firebrick Resistance Heated Energy Storage (FIRES) is a new reactor concept. It is designed to (1) increase revenue relative to base-load nuclear power plants by 50 to 100%, (2) enable a zero-carbon nuclear-renewable electricity grid, and (3) eliminate the potential for major fuel failures in severe accidents. With the reactor operating at base-load the plant can (1) deliver base-load electricity to the grid, (2) deliver peak electricity to the grid using auxiliary natural gas or stored heat at times of high electricity prices, or (3) buy electricity when electricity prices are below that of natural gas and store as heat for peak power production at a later time. The system may provide grid electricity storage to replace pumped hydro storage, batteries, and other devices. These capabilities are a consequences of (1) coupling the FHR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor fuel and liquid salt coolant) to a gas turbine, (2) advances in gas turbine technology, and (3) advances in high-temperature fuels. MIT leads a university consortium with the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Wisconsin to develop the reactor. The Chinese Academy of Science plans to start up a 10 MWt test reactor by 2020. As a new reactor concept there are significant uncertainties and major development work is required.

 

[nikkkom]

That's true for the most part. However, in the case of MOX (U,PU) fuel, the Pu-content is necessarily greater than 5% (more like 6 to 8%), but equivalent to 5% U-235, in order to compensate for the parasitic absorption of isotopes like Pu-240.

Technically, producing fuel rods from repU with 5.5% u238 enrichment is not a problem.

The problem is regulatory: this is not an approved kind of fuel.

Yes, it can be approved. But bureaucrats surely will make lives of everyone involved in certifying that (or anything else, for that matter) a nightmare. A long one. Think five years of paperwork, with small admixtures of occasional _actual_ useful work (such as running computer simulations, to prove something you are nearly certain of anyway: that this fuel is basically equivalent to 5% enriched natural U).

 

[Astronuc]

Technically, producing fuel rods from repU with 5.5% u238 enrichment is not a problem.

Well, enrichment usually refers to the fissile isotopes, specifically U-235, which is about 0.71% in natural U, but increased up to 5% in commercial nuclear (LWR) fuel. It is certainly regulatory, and the regulations are based on criticality control. Some shops have had licenses in the past for >5% for certain special programs in commercial fuel, just as some shops currently have licenses for highly enriched (≥ 20%) U-235, but that fuel is used in research, or otherwise special, reactors, not commercial reactors.

For U with less than 0.71% U-235 is considered depleted U.

Reprocessed uranium (RepU) has been used in Germany and France.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Mixed-Oxide-Fuel-MOX/

Reprocessing of 1050 tonnes of French used fuel per year (about 15 years after discharge) produces 10.5 tonnes of plutonium (immediately recycled as 124 tonnes of MOX) and 1000 tonnes of reprocessed uranium (RepU). Of this about two-thirds is converted into stable oxide form for storage. One-third of the RepU is re-enriched and EdF has demonstrated its use in 900 MWe power reactors.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1630_CD/PDF/IAEA-TECDOC-1630.pdf

I've participated in projects involving RepU and MOX.

 

[Astronuc]

PNNL - Energy and Environment Directorate - Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ne/
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ne/pdf/nuclearenergy_story.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Materials for Nuclear Plants
From Safe Design to Residual Life Assessments
Authors: Hoffelner, Wolfgang
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447129141

This is a reasonably good book on nuclear materials and is fairly comprehensive with respect to materials and reactor designs. It provides a good introduction and overview for those not familiar with the subject. One could write book on each material system, as well as on each chapter in the textbook.

It is important (even critical) to distinguish between in-core and ex-core systems and materials. The neutron irradiation environment has a profound effect on materials vis-à-vis irradiation damage (changes to microstructure) and transmutation. Although the textbook includes a comment attributed to reference 2, "Only minor differences between nuclear and non-nuclear applications exist," in my experience, there is nothing minor about the in-core environment.

 

[Astronuc]

A reasonably accurate list of canceled nuclear reactors in the US.

http://www.rogerwitherspoon.com/docs/cancellednukeplants.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Those canceled reactors roughly tally at ~110 GWe? Modern up-rates probably take them to ~120 GWe, i.e. would have more than doubled US nuclear power capacity.

 

[Astronuc]

A rundown of advanced nuclear energy programs.
http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-advanced-nuclear-industry

 

[eXorikos]

Is there a technical reason why in the UK it was chosen to build new nuclear powerplants rather than go for a lifetime extension? I am not very familiar with AGR design. I know Magnox fuel is no longer produced.

 

[rootone]

I think it was just a case of newer designs being more effective in various ways, just like you don't forever upgrade the same computer.

 

[eXorikos]

I think it was just a case of newer designs being more effective in various ways, just like you don't forever upgrade the same computer.

Of course, I was just asking what the technical reasons are. In many other countries using PWRs they did a lifetime extension, e.g. Netherlands and Belgium. So it appears to be cost-effective for a PWR, but apparently not so for AGR.

 

[Astronuc]

Some good summaries of LWR technology.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-06-engineering-of-nuclear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/MIT22_06F10_lec06a.pdf
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-06-engineering-of-nuclear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/MIT22_06F10_lec06b.pdf

I did note some misinformation that will have to be corrected. The error relates to the description of PWR control rods, specifically the Ag-In-Cd control rods which are effectively black, not grey. Grey rods use Inconel or Ni-based metals, although Westinghouse is introducing a newer concept for grey rods in the AP-1000. Black control rods are used for shutdown, while grey rods may be used for power shaping and relatively small changes in reactivity, for example during load-following. Some EdF plants use grey rods for power maneuvering. B&W plants were designed with axial power shaping rods (APSRs), but otherwise most PWRs have not used grey rods.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-...lear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/

 

[TJM-Ex-Op]

What two or three things would you tell non-technical college age voters about nuclear power?

Dear Physics Forum nation,
I'm a long time nuclear professional, former Senior Reactor Operator in commercial nuclear power. I made a career change to consulting/contracting a short time ago. I recently helped some professors at the local junior college who were teaching a class called "Physics in Society" to non-science majors. I presented some info on nuclear power. I thought I did a good job of presenting a balanced objective case. It was well received so I was invited to return and integrate this more directly into the course. Meaning the material presented would be testable. Pretty awesome no? The course material presented by the professors covers reactor types, fuel cycle, stream cycle etc. I tried to emphasize how people are trained, the oversight, and the traits of a healthy nuclear safety culture. The professors challenged me asking, "What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"
So I thought I'd reach out to Physics Forum nation for help.
Some of my thoughts,

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb
• The industry is highly regulated
• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training
• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants
• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.
• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

I'm trying to develop one or two major takeaways. What do all think?
I welcome suggestions.
tjm

 

[jim hardy]

he professors challenged me asking, "What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"
So I thought I'd reach out to Physics Forum nation for help.
Some of my thoughts,

At the plant where i worked, two of the mechanical foremen took photographs of a refueling outage at the plant. They wanted a show&tell for their kids' elementary school.

They produced a great series of 35mm slides covering a refueling - from lifting the concrete covers off reactor cavity , removing head cables and insulation, detorque unbolt and lift reactor head , floodup , lift internals, swap fuel , put it all back together again.
That's everyday stuff and midnight oil to plant guys like you and me
but to somebody who's never seen a steam turbine or inside of a containment , that huge machinery is right out of sci-fi.
Our two foremen became local celebrities, every school within forty miles asked them to present their show..
Local media got wind and we hosted an enterrage of TV reporters. The pretty evening news anchor lady posed on our spent fuel crane, in yellows.

So

"What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"

I'd want them to know
their friends and neighbors work here
it's honest hard work
it's not spooky or scary science
the nuclear reactor itself works great for it was thought up by geniuses
99.9% of the work in a plant is on the mechanical systems surrounding the reactor.

This line changed my anti-nuke Mother in Law's thinking:
"The power reactor grew out of the Manhattan project.
That's unfortunate because the power reactor inherited the stigma of 'The Bomb' .
Had events unfolded in the reverse order, public opinion would be instead :
"What?
Somebody actually blew up perfectly good uranium? Profligate Wastrels ! Don't the fools know you can make electricity with that stuff? "

I use this analogy for non-science majors:
"You understand chemical reactions.
A reactor is to a bomb as firewood is to dynamite . "

So my advice is - bring your considerable experience into your presentation. Get real photos . My Walmart scanned my 35mm slides on to a cd-disc for a presentation 2013, hopefully they still have that ability for yours.

 

[Astronuc]

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb

• The industry is highly regulated

• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training

• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants

• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.

• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

It looks like 6 great take-aways. As for decommissioning, look at cases like Big Rock Point, and other examples.

I know a lot of folks in the nuclear industry and many are very involved in the outdoors and conservation. There are a lot of folks who enjoy outdoor sports, including camping, fishing and hunting with their friends and family, so they have a vested interest in maintaining the safety of nuclear plants.

 

[mheslep]

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb

• The industry is highly regulated

• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training

• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants

• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.

• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

US nuclear power has for decades been the bedrock of the clean US energy supply and with an excellent safety record. Today, new problems and new innovations have come to the fore that suggest a new approach to the discussion.

With regards to possible public fears about nuclear power, Fukushima is in the public's recent memory. So it is radiation leakage (not nuclear explosions) the prompts fears, fears encouraged by an active and irrational anti-nuclear community with connections to the fossil fuel industry. Notably, despite the great loss of life from the quake and tsunami at Fukushima, nobody died from radiation nor, per the World Health Organization, are any deaths from radiation causes likely to ever be detectable.

Your points 2,3,4, and 6 are all related to a real issue with nuclear power: the cost of new nuclear. As you are likely aware, the first nuclear plants in the US, before the creation of the NRC, were built relatively quickly in the hundreds of million dollar range (today's dollars). Now, Vogtle 3 and 4 will cost $15-16 billion with a ~ten year build time. It is this large cost that make the destruction of the Fukushima reactors a very large negative for a utility. By contrast, a new gas plant of similar size might cost a fifth the cost, can be built in 18 months, and does not require a large staff with "continual training", a security force, and permanent onsite regulators. So yes the industry is highly regulated, but is the particular US regulation appropriate? Does the current regulatory regime drive up costs unnecessarily and stifle innovation. Many new nuclear designs have been proposed, but recently DoE/NRC officials essentially testified that any non-light water reactor designs need not apply, though some of them could make a Fukushima type plant explosion not unlikely but impossible.

The point of nuclear power is to enable economic engines by means of clean and affordable energy; it should not be a jobs program.

 

[nikkkom]

By contrast, a new gas plant of similar size might cost a fifth the cost, can be built in 18 months, and does not require a large staff with "continual training", a security force, and permanent onsite regulators. So yes the industry is highly regulated, but is the particular US regulation appropriate? Does the current regulatory regime drive up costs unnecessarily and stifle innovation.

Even with all this heavy regulation, nuclear industry failed to create the feeling that reactors are safe and won't ever spew lots of radioactive materials to the environment. The facts are, reactors did do that, multiple times, and there were multiple close calls as well.

Why are you surprised general public is not eager to see "innovation" from this industry?

 

[mheslep]

As you know, harm from radiation is not defined by "lots of radioactive materials" in the environment as the environment already has lots of radioactive materials, but by a level of radio-toxicity that causes measurable short or long term fatalities or disease. While possible, that's never occurred from commercial reactors in the US nor from the Fukushima accident in Japan. Meanwhile, the emissions from coal plants continue to cause a very predictable and measurable harm via lung disease and the like every year.