Is Obama's Endorsement of Nuclear Power a Liberal Shift?

[Astronuc]

What's the basis for laying the responsibility with the utilities? If it is solely because several utilities dropped out, I find that unpersuasive, as the delays and costs fixed by the NRC may be the main reason they did so.

Because the utilities initiated the requests to the NRC or changed their plans, and because of comments made to me by utility personel.

 

[Astronuc]

Well given the industry is 50+ years old I find that a) remarkable, and b) without further details an excuse that could be used by the NRC forever. After all, the AP1000 is not some radical new liquid Th gizmo, basically it is still a PWR.

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should. It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

 

[mheslep]

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should.

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

 

[Gokul43201]

The conditions are substantially different now, so it probably doesn't make sense to look back too far...

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005". Nuclear provisions:

Nuclear energy-related provisions in H.R. 6 include:
* “Standby support” to offset the financial impact of delays beyond industry’s control that might occur during construction and at the start of operations for as many as six new nuclear power reactors. This counterweight to the risk of potential delays would the full cost of delay for the first two new reactors–up to $500 million each–and 50 percent of the delay costs–up to $250 million–each for reactors three through six.

* Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, the framework for industry self-funded liability insurance, for 20 years. This is the longest extension ever granted by Congress. The measure to renew the act excludes a “subrogation” provision, which would have greatly increased potential liabilities to contractors at nuclear sites.

Price Anderson is a 1957 law that indemnifies the industry, partially, against liability from accidents.

* A measure empowering the secretary of energy to provide loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of “innovative technologies” that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.” This would include new advanced-design nuclear power plants, as well as clean coal and renewables.

This is the only mention of loan guarantees in the 2005 law, and it appears they are different (innovative tech) from the blanket guarantees just pledged by the President. I vaguely thought there were some guarantees already in place from years ago but I can't find a reference.

* A production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatt-hours from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of their operation, subject to a $125 million annual limit. The production tax credit places nuclear energy on equal footing with other sources of emission-free power, including wind and closed-loop biomass. These other sources have received a production tax credit on an unlimited basis since 1992, while the nuclear energy credit would be limited to eight years.

* Authorization of $1.25 billion to fund a prototype Next Generation Nuclear Plant project at Idaho National Laboratory that would produce both electricity and hydrogen.

* Authorization of funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which would foster research and development aimed at developing advanced nuclear power plants, more proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel and improved methods for managing used nuclear fuel.

* Additional nuclear power plant security requirements to buttress measures the industry has taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The measure requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revise by rule the design basis threat—the threat level against which nuclear plants are required to protect. Also provided for in the bill are periodic “force-on-force” drills by the NRC and a requirement that the NRC assign a federal security coordinator for each of its regions.

* Updated tax treatment of decommissioning funds to allow regulated and merchant companies to treat their contributions to the funds similarly, and to allow pre-1984 contributions to funds to be moved to “qualified,” deductible status over the remaining life of the power plant.

* Exemption from Department of Labor (DOL) training guidelines that will free the nuclear industry from instituting redundant and costly training guidelines, saving the industry millions of dollars.

* Establishment of one year as the time to lapse before a whistleblower can opt out of the DOL administrative process and take a case to a federal court.

* A provision directing the Department of Energy to report to Congress within one year with a long-term plan for dealing with greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste, as well as requiring a short-term plan, due within six months, on continuing recovery of sealed radioactive sources, pending the availability of a permanent disposal facility.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070710094024/http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

China may have different standards than the US.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny. Remember 9/11 came after the designs were started, and IIRC, the ABWR was certified before then. Since 9/11 the industry has had to revisit some of the design features.

 

[mheslep]

China may have different standards than the US.

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

 

[Astronuc]

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

As far as I know, the utilities are state run companies, so they have an economic advantage and other support that US utilities do not.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

Yes, BOP is outside of containment, but those areas support the safety of the core and primary system, and so they also require protection. Fossil plants are certainly less likely to be targets.

Part of the problem is that in lieu of an experiment, one has to demonstrate with analyses that one's design is sufficiently robust to meet certain unique requirements.

 

[tori97]

Nuclear plants aren't bad they're a good way to get the job done fast and easy... now the nuclear plant security is ttly different. If you really have a problem with nuclear plants you should sign a petition against nuclear plants instead of complaining to the people on this forum. just an idea... ;p

 

[Gokul43201]

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005".

I consider that to be more of a legislative accomplishment than an administrative one. As an argument for Bush's efforts it would have carried more weight if there was say, demonstrated initiative out the White House, helping push forward an unpopular bill. But signing into law a bill that cleared the Senate with 74 yeas does not strike me as a particularly dazzling credential to pin up on a resume.

That said, there seem to be some very positive measures (some seem like not such a big deal to me, like reauthorizing Price Anderson, and some I don't have an opinion on yet) in the bill, and I suspect the credit for most of it belongs to Pete Domenici.

I also find it mildly eyebrow-raising - especially given the flack that Obama's taking in this thread for his head fakes and misdirection moves - that the law being put forward as the primary nuclear power accomplishment of the Bush administration was in fact voted FOR by Obama, and voted AGAINST by McCain.

The way I see it, Obama was never a strong proponent of nuclear power, but at least as far back as mid-2007 (earlier, if you go by TSA's recollection from Audacity...) Obama was advocating that a push for more nuclear power ought to be re-visited, in light of its ability to cut down emissions, mitigate pollution, and reduce dependence on the Middle East for energy needs.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

And the award for the most disingenuous argument goes to Ivan for his point of sleeping guards. When reading past the headline these guards in question were not on the same shift or on the same days. They were also in a holding room, not out at a post. Risk to plant safety and security absolutely ZERO. This is just the same as EMS personal or firefighters who are not up on call sleeping in the ready room. Just another case of the media taking a story and hyping it up for the sake of ratings.

Taking all of the used nuclear fuel from 50 years operation would give approximately 60,000 metric tonnes. A lot of weight, yes, but remember this is with elements around 92 on the periodic table. Putting all of that in one place it would cover one football field 7 yards deep. Plus used fuel from a USA designed PWR can be put into CANDU style reactors with only the need to change fuel rod stack geometry and size.

 

[mheslep]

...

Taking all of the used nuclear fuel from 50 years operation would give approximately 60,000 metric tonnes. A lot of weight, yes, but remember this is with elements around 92 on the periodic table. Putting all of that in one place it would cover one football field 7 yards deep.

That misdirects in the opposite direction. Storage volume is not the issue. The risk of leaking small amounts of it into the environment is. Eventually something must be done beyond onsite storage.

Plus used fuel from a USA designed PWR can be put into CANDU style reactors with only the need to change fuel rod stack geometry and size.

The word 'only' has no place in a sentence describing the manipulation or reforming of nuclear waste from a reactor.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

That misdirects in the opposite direction. Storage volume is not the issue. The risk of leaking small amounts of it into the environment is. Eventually something must be done beyond onsite storage.

If the fact that the Oklo natural reactor can't convince a person that unbound nuclear particles do not have a highly mobile nature then nothing will. Plutonium has moved less than 10 feet from where it was formed almost two billion years ago. Also take into account modern fuel consists of small pellets of a highly stable ceramic uranium dioxide, in a very stable tube of zirconium metal alloy. The stuff is hardly unbound, and not going anywhere. Yes we can do something beyond on site storage. Do as the South Koreans do put the used fuel from PWRs into CANDUs. After it is no good for CANDUs recycle the stuff.

Honestly if there needs to be a concern about waste products from the energy sector in the USA, worry about fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag coming from coal power plants. A higher dosage of radiation is received from the stuff then any dosage that would ever be received from stored nuclear fuel. It will destroy a respiratory tract with frightening ease. A typical 1000 MW coal plant requires 60 hectares of land with an average depth of 9m just for one year of operation. And the coal industry can just put it in plies or land fills and forget about it. that is a much bigger problem then used nuclear fuel.

The word 'only' has no place in a sentence describing the manipulation or reforming of nuclear waste from a reactor.

Why not? All that needs to be done it take the 200 to 300 individual rods out of the fuel rod assembly. Open one end of the 4m long zirconium metal alloy tube. Empty out the pellets. Pack the pellets back into a 50cm long zirconium metal alloy tube. Finally take 43 of these tubes and put them in a new fuel rod assembly. Easy and it can all be done remotely. So yes the word "only" dose have a place in this process of reusing nuclear fuel.

 

[Astronuc]

Why not? All that needs to be done it take the 200 to 300 individual rods out of the fuel rod assembly. Open one end of the 4m long zirconium metal alloy tube. Empty out the pellets. Pack the pellets back into a 50cm long zirconium metal alloy tube. Finally take 43 of these tubes and put them in a new fuel rod assembly. Easy and it can all be done remotely. So yes the word "only" dose have a place in this process of reusing nuclear fuel.

Easily said. Not easily done. And that's not how it done. Remote handling/processing is not trivial.

 

[mheslep]

...the Oklo natural reactor can't convince a person that unbound nuclear particles do not have a highly mobile nature then nothing will.

A higher dosage of radiation is received from the stuff [burning coal dug from the Earth] then any dosage that would ever be received from stored nuclear fuel.

These statements are contradictory. Pick one.

I'm familiar with the environmental hazards of coal including the radiation. I expect many people have some rough idea of the problems with coal. I'm also somewhat familiar, I think, with the issues surrounding commercial nuclear power. That's why, after weighing the alternatives, that I favor some more nuclear power. I didn't arrive at that point by hand waiving and assuming everything is perfect as-is with nuclear, all problems solved. On the contrary, I want to take responsibility for my position and become even more critical in the examination of nuclear power.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Easily said. Not easily done. And that's not how it done. Remote handling/processing is not trivial.

My understanding of the process that was needed to get used fuel from a PWR into a CANDU reactor was just a change of fuel rod length and rod packing form factor. That there was no need for any form of chemical reprocessing because the actinide/neutron poisoning that makes the fuel no longer usable in a PWR was not a problem for a CANDU type reactor. Also from my own knowledge and experience remote manufacturing is very easy. The process I had described to me about the steps necessary to repackage fuel sounds like an incredibly easy line to set up. Granted I'll give you that the machinery will have some special material and shielding requirements, but I don't see that being a problem.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

These statements are contradictory. Pick one.

I'm familiar with the environmental hazards of coal including the radiation. I expect many people have some rough idea of the problems with coal. I'm also somewhat familiar, I think, with the issues surrounding commercial nuclear power. That's why, after weighing the alternatives, that I favor some more nuclear power. I didn't arrive at that point by hand waiving and assuming everything is perfect as-is with nuclear, all problems solved. On the contrary, I want to take responsibility for my position and become even more critical in the examination of nuclear power.

I completely disagree that they are contradictory. Granted I might of not made my point clear. My point is that the particles of uranium, thorium, potassium, and their radioactive decay products including radium are bound up in the coal ash byproducts. Also that things like fly ash unless keep constantly wet or sealed off acts just like topsoil. If it gets some wind behind it it becomes air borne, or can be easily washed away.

Conversely nuclear fuel pellets are about the size of your thumb up to the first joint. It might roll away from where it is put but it won't blow or wash away. Also it is a ceramic encased in a extremely resistant metal alloy, it won't be going anywhere. Stick it in glass like the current plan is for permanent disposal it really now won't be going anywhere. My point was take a stroll through a dry cask or pool storage facility for used nuclear fuel. After that go take a stroll at a coal plants ash disposal landfill. Less radiation exposure will be received at the nuclear fuel site then the coal one.

I didn't arrive at my support for nuclear power supplying the USA, then the worlds need for electric power by some hand waving. I came to it after research, comparison of current numbers, more research, and looking at past and present performance. Also is the need to become more critical of nuclear power and all of its current slew of very strict rules really needed? If that is the case let's start applying it other industry's with worse safety records first.

 

[russ_watters]

Going back to the dirty bomb issue, there was a lot of speculation, not a lot of citation about it. Here's an NRC fact sheet on dirty bombs:

Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html

A more detailed paper:

We examined 36 attack scenarios and reduced them to two plausible
or likely scenarios using qualitative judgments. For these two scenarios, we conducted a project
risk analysis to understand the tasks terrorists need to perform to carry out the attacks and to
determine the likelihood of the project’s success. The consequences of a successful attack are
described in terms of a radiological plume model and resulting human health and economic
impacts. Initial findings suggest that the chances of a successful dirty bomb attack are about
10–40% and that high radiological doses are confined to a relatively small area, limiting health
effects to tens or at most hundreds of latent cancers, even with a major release. However,
the economic consequences from a shutdown of the harbors due to the contamination could
result in significant losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including the decontamination costs
and the indirect economic impacts due to the port shutdown.

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~winterfe/A ...n the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.pdf

It is interesting that they chose an attack on a port as the most useful - basically, they are maximizing the economic harm by shutting down a high bandwidth path for goods and services to flow. But the lifetime death toll (most due to latant cancers or the bomb) is only in the low hundreds, which is achievable with a good truck bomb with or without nuclear material in it.

While I realize the general public has a pretty high capacity for panic, one thing working against the terrorists is that cameras don't have geiger counters attached to them. The general public wouldn't even know an attack was a dirty bomb for probably a few days after it happened. And That's critical to maximizing the panic. Particularly if there are no acute cases of radiation poisining to increase the fear. If, a week later, people find out that it was a dirty bomb and the port needs to be shut down for a few months to clean it up (instead of a few weeks to secure and rebuild), I'm not sure the panic will be that great.

Unless the
bomb is set off in a very densely populated area, the
effects are likely to cause only a few fatalities and several
injuries. Acute radiation sickness might occur if
bystanders or emergency workers who rush to assist
blast victims suffer from prolonged exposure to highly
radioactive material. For example, during a 2004 dirty
bomb exercise held in Long Beach, emergency workers
rushed to the blast site, unaware of the radioactive
material and without protective clothing. Had
this been a real attack, they probably would have suffered
from some level of radiation exposure, though
most likely not in a range that produced acute radiation
effects.

I think I disagree with their reasoning because I don't think they've properly considered the impact of the ideology of the terrorists. Yes, they are interested in economic harm, but they are more interested in physical harm. For that reason, I think it is much more likely that they would try to attack a large crowd. There was a New Year's bombing attack foiled a couple of years after 9/11 (in Seattle, I believe). There was a scare that turned out to be nothing in Times Square this year. Mardi Gras would be another good target. For these scenarios, you maximize the immediate deaths, plus maximize the possibility for acute radiation sickness. People might not know the difference, but if they see video of people writing in pain with the headline "Dirty Bomb!" above it, they will think "radiation poisoning".

Bottom line, though, I think the actual harm potential of a dirty bomb is far too low for it to be considered anything special. And since there is so much unprotected Russian fuel out there, I think the whole argument is a smokescreen anyway: terrorists aren't going to try to steal our nuclear fuel to make a dirty bomb, so the dirty bomb risk has no bearing on whether we should use nuclear power.

 

[DrClapeyron]

The stuffs been around for near 60 years. I don't see why it would just suddenly jump up out of the woodworks as a convenient alternative at this time. The mother of invention is not "I have been perturbed slightly by a couple of Volvo commercials, let's change everything for my convenience".

 

[zomgwtf]

I think it an attack ON one of the power plants is more feared than terrorist capturing waste from America and using it in a bomb. I remember reading up the security measures in place a nuclear plant though. I doubt that any group of terrorist would be able to mount an attack against one.

 

[russ_watters]

The stuffs been around for near 60 years. I don't see why it would just suddenly jump up out of the woodworks as a convenient alternative at this time. The mother of invention is not "I have been perturbed slightly by a couple of Volvo commercials, let's change everything for my convenience".

Two reasons that also apply to the 9/11 attack:

1. They didn't think of it 60 years ago for some reason (which is odd: afterall, a bomber once flew into the Empire State building).
2. The focus is shifting. In the '80s airplane hijackings were a real fad and a typical modus operandi of terrorists. But they didn't crash them, crash them into buildings, etc. They weren't suicidal and they were more interested in making statements/demands than just killing people. Now they aren't doing any talking during the attacks, they are just maximizing the killing. So if a dirty bomb really has the potential to be a new, innovative attack mode, I'd think they'd want to try it.

 

[mheslep]

Two reasons that also apply to the 9/11 attack:

1. They didn't think of it 60 years ago for some reason (which is odd: afterall, a bomber once flew into the Empire State building).

Apparently the first modern era suicide bombing in the moslem world was not until 1981 in Lebanon, according to L. Wright and other sources. Before then, the direct prohibitions against it in the Qur'an held sway.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Apparently the first modern era suicide bombing in the moslem world was not until 1981 in Lebanon, according to L. Wright and other sources. Before then, the direct prohibitions against it in the Qur'an held sway.

Using bombs may be new but suicidal combatants used in unconventional strategy is not. See: the Assassins.

 

[mheslep]

Using bombs may be new but suicidal combatants used in unconventional strategy is not. See: the Assassins.

I was aware of the invention of the term Assassin centuries ago in the middle east, but I didn't note any suicidal connection. No search available for the book.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was aware of the invention of the term Assassin centuries ago in the middle east, but I didn't note any suicidal connection. No search available for the book.

Sorry, I was not referring to a book, only the group sometimes known as the assassins. The Hashshashins (later assassins) when they sent assassins did not expect that the assassin would survive the attempt on the life of the target. Most of them made their attempt and then killed themselves. There is a famous scene (possibly fictitious) describing Hassan i Sabbah, leader of the Hashshashin, illustrating his power and the devotion of his followers by giving a signal that apparently prompts several of his men to throw themselves off of cliffs to their death.

At any rate it is rather off topic but this was nearly a thousand years ago. I am not so knowledgeable of the history of the area to know if such means have been used much or often between then and now but it is not exactly recent. It may be worthwhile to note that the Hashshashin were very similar in nature to modern Islamic terrorists. A splinter group of "radical" Islam attempting to shift the political tides of their times.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry, I was not referring to a book, only the group sometimes known as the assassins. The Hashshashins (later assassins) when they sent assassins

Yes that's the group

did not expect that the assassin would survive the attempt on the life of the target. Most of them made their attempt and then killed themselves.

From memory, I don't think that's correct regarding suicide, and some fast junk googling seems to confirm.

However, under no circumstances did they commit suicide, preferring to be killed by their captors.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Hashshashin/

Edit: oops mistook this for another thread. waayyy off topic.