Prospect for Nuclear Power Industry in US

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Morbius]

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

hittsquad,

You're "clutching at straws" here.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

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

I like that phrase, it actually made me laugh.

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

 

[Morbius]

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

I like that phrase, it actually made me laugh.

Candyman,

I read such statements all the time in online discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

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

 

[Morbius]

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

Candyman,

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

MIT Study of the Future of Nuclear Power in US

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

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

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

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

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

July 29, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[theCandyman]

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

50 years is a long time, is it not?

 

[Astronuc]

Candyman, what do mean by 'reusable' fuel.

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

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

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

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

 

[theCandyman]

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

 

[Morbius]

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

Astronuc,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

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

I agree that it is proliferation resistant.

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

 

[Astronuc]

Westinghouse up for sale!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

 

[theCandyman]

What do you mean?

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

from http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?181

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

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

For reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[theCandyman]

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

 

[Morbius]

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

Candyman,

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nustartenergy.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NuStart work is being funded under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program to kickstart new nuclear energy construction. The federal government is sharing 50-50 the cost of the detailed engineering with NuStart.

http://www.nustartenergy.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?ID=20050922-1

 

[Astronuc]

NuStart Selects Grand Gulf, Bellefonte For Advanced Nuclear Plant Licenses

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Marubeni Corp., Japan's fifth-largest trading company, is in talks with Toshiba to invest in Westinghouse, Takashi Hashimoto, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Marubeni, said earlier today. Mitsui & Co. and Shaw Group Inc. were identified as possible partners, according to the Nihon Keizai newspaper last month.

http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=10616

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

Ah, the fun never stops in our industry.

 

[Chronos]

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

 

[jhe1984]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jhe1984]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

Not quite.

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

You mean utility shares?

 

[jhe1984]

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

DOE will be tight on money.

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

It it prudent to do one's research.

 

[vanesch]

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

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

 

[Morbius]

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

vanesch,

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

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

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

Just adding in something from the European Nuclear Society -

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

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

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

Current news

 

[Astronuc]

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

Stay tuned.

Adding to this -

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

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

. . . .

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