News Is the World Ready for a New Nuclear Era?

[Art]

Pakistan I believe was big blunder for greater technology sharing--deja vu in some ways with Saddam.

But getting back to fusion, in your opinion could these timetables be moved up significantly with more $$ and cooperation between the countries doing the most active research? Whether we agree on PF that fission makes the most sense for the gap, however long it may be before solar, etc plus fusion can meet the demands, there will be significant political and economic resistance on the part of the public and at least some utilities to fission. They do need to shield themselves from liability, and short of a tobacco like law suit that links coal based emissions to x number of deaths including Aunt Jenny and my sister Melissa, however remote the odds any nuclear accident is, still carries a significant exposure, vs the former which falls into the great morass of uncertainty re any specific individual even when epidemiology can show with near certainty an excess death rate.

It seems you don't need an accident to have deaths from nuclear power generation. Various parts of the process release low level waste into the environment which will kill and injure some people based on the 'linear hypothesis'.

It seems gov'ts set 'safe' radiation exposure levels based on the principle of 'acceptable burden' whereby so long as in their view the overall benefit outweighs the overall deaths and illnesses caused then it makes sense to continue. Not much consolation if you happen to be one of the folk who fall on the wrong side of the equation.

 

[Astronuc]

But getting back to fusion, in your opinion could these timetables be moved up significantly with more $$ and cooperation between the countries doing the most active research?

More $$ will not necessarily speed up development of fusion. We are not waiting for construction of ITER, and that appears to be a necessary step. Presumably it takes current knowledge and applies it in an optimal manner. Hopefully it will be successful, but perhaps not until 2016. It has taken time to establish the organization and financing, and part of that was for the various participating nations (governemnts) to agree on one location. Now it is a matter of constructing the ITER facility.

Meanwhile, experiments and research are on-going. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough(s).

It seems gov'ts set 'safe' radiation exposure levels based on the principle of 'acceptable burden' whereby so long as in their view the overall benefit outweighs the overall deaths and illnesses caused then it makes sense to continue.

Not quite. There are strict limits on exposure levels to the general population, and higher limits on those who choose to work in the industry. Basically, the allowable exposure to anyone 18 or younger is zero - i.e. it's not allowed. Practically though, everyone is exposed to radiation via X-rays (medical and dental), or flying in an aircraft (exposure is effectively not regulated), or from natural sources. The release of radioactivity from coal plants is not regulated directly, but rather indirectly through air pollution control (scrubbers which remove ash).

 

[Art]

Not quite. There are strict limits on exposure levels to the general population, and higher limits on those who choose to work in the industry. Basically, the allowable exposure to anyone 18 or younger is zero - i.e. it's not allowed. Practically though, everyone is exposed to radiation via X-rays (medical and dental), or flying in an aircraft (exposure is effectively not regulated), or from natural sources. The release of radioactivity from coal plants is not regulated directly, but rather indirectly through air pollution control (scrubbers which remove ash).

Although radiation emission from power plants is controlled (though many studies have shown increased cancer rates around them) there is very little control or treatment of the low level waste produced in the mining of the Uranium ore itself which accounts for the vast majority of the total production of LLW eg

Uranium mining companies, including WMC and ERA, claim that they can minimise the risk to “acceptable levels” by attention to proper ventilation of the shafts, and close monitoring of workers to radioactive exposure. However, each time International Commission for Radiation Protection and other experts/organisations conduct a review on "safe" levels of radiation exposure, they conclude that low levels of ionising radiation are more dangerous than was previously decided. On average, these organisations have concluded that the actual danger is twice as bad as they thought twelve years before. This means that people are legally exposed to a certain dose of radiation one year and the next year they are told that the dose was far too high.

The new limits mean that the annual risk of death (from cancer) for a uranium miner is 1 in 1250, which is nearly ten times the risk of fatal injury in Australian industry generally, which is 1 in 20,000.
Even so the uranium industry has protested that the ICRP's new limits would be uneconomic for underground mining. In the Roxby mine underground miners have received up to 30 milliSv a year. The dose limits which the NHMRC has adopted permit a health risk which is clearly unacceptable.

http://www.anawa.org.au/health/oc-health.html .
Africa of course is far worse.

Then there are the reprocessing plants such as those in England and France which dump their LLW directly into the sea .

 

[Astronuc]

Although radiation emission from power plants is controlled (though many studies have shown increased cancer rates around them) there is very little control or treatment of the low level waste produced in the mining of the Uranium ore itself which accounts for the vast majority of the total production of LLW eg http://www.anawa.org.au/health/oc-health.html .
Then there are the reprocessing plants such as those in England and France which dump their LLW directly into the sea .

As far as I know, the incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants is the same as the general population living in similar areas where there are no nuclear power plants. This is an important factor to keep in mind. Nuclear power plants, for the most part, have been built in remote areas, e.g. agricultural areas. In agricultural areas, there is widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, so a high rate of cancer might be attributed to exposure to chemicals rather than radiation, which outside of a nuclear power plant is at background levels.

I agree however that mine tailings are simply dumped outdoors, and do represent a risk to the environment. This applies to mining in general, where heavy metals leach from tailing leach into environment. Certainly, the environmental policies of any country are a major issue when it comes to nuclear energy.

I agree that LLW at Sellafield (UK), Marcoule (FR) and LaHague (FR) should not be dumped directly into the environment.

 

[Art]

As far as I know, the incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants is the same as the general population living in similar areas where there are no nuclear power plants. This is an important factor to keep in mind. Nuclear power plants, for the most part, have been built in remote areas, e.g. agricultural areas. In agricultural areas, there is widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, so a high rate of cancer might be attributed to exposure to chemicals rather than radiation, which outside of a nuclear power plant is at background levels.

I must agree this is a valid point which I haven't seen taken into account in such studies.

I agree however that mine tailings are simply dumped outdoors, and do represent a risk to the environment. This applies to mining in general, where heavy metals leach from tailing leach into environment. Certainly, the environmental policies of any country are a major issue when it comes to nuclear energy.

I think you are understating the effect of LLW tailings when comparing them to other mine waste.

Studies have shown that back in the 50s and 60s before America adopted regulatory control the death rate from Uranium induced cancers amongst mine workers was 50%! One in every 2 workers died as a direct result of their work! I do not think any other industry comes anywhere near that, not even asbestos mining.

The most severe health problems associated with uranium mining have resulted from occupational exposure. During the 1950's and 1960's, insufficient regulatory control existed over radiation levels during uranium mining for defense-related purposes. Two epidemiological studies of these workers, one from 1981 and one from 1982, found that approximately 50 percent died from lung cancer, and many others developed an increased prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases.

http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/mining.htm

Given the lack of regulation in African countries today this 50% death rate amongst workers is probably the level they are still at. Then of course there are on top of that the additional deaths in the general population through water contamination and radon gas emissions etc.

I agree that LLW at Sellafield (UK), Marcoule (FR) and LaHague (FR) should not be dumped directly into the environment.

It's particularly irritating when England had the audacity to build it on their west coast so the prevailing winds will carry any emissions away from them and over to us in Ireland as happened during their fire in 1957

The bottom line is I don't think anyone can deny the generation of nuclear power does currently create serious health problems even ignoring the accident scenarios so do we really want to increase these problems by expanding the industry? Which brings us back to the 'acceptable burden' criteria I referenced in my earlier post.

 

[Astronuc]

American Crocodiles Make a Comeback
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9718547

American crocodiles hatch from their shells near the Florida Power and Light's Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant in Homestead, Fla., south of Miami. The land near the power plant has turned into an important habitat for the American crocodile. The crocodiles live and breed in the extensive canal system that was built to cool the water left over from generating nuclear power.

All Things Considered, April 21, 2007 · There's good news for fans of big reptiles: The American crocodile, found in South Florida, has staged a comeback. It has done so well that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to take it off the endangered species list. The biggest surprise is that the crocodile owes much of its comeback to a nuclear power plant.

Joe Wasilewski is a field biologist who has chronicled this unusual story. He's a wildlife biologist who travels the world helping governments and conservation groups manage endangered reptiles. He'll be in the Bahamas counting iguanas one month and in Guyana counting black Caimans the next.

 

[Art]

American Crocodiles Make a Comeback

And to think only a couple of years ago their parents were simple common newts

 

[denverdoc]

And to think 20 years ago they wanted to build a reactor on a fault line in California.

 

[Art]

And to think 20 years ago they wanted to build a reactor on a fault line in California.

Some people will go to any length to scam insurance companies. 'Honest I had a nuclear power plant right there and it fell into that big hole'

 

[denverdoc]

Along the lines of had you a heavier car, it would't have had suffered so much damage. Therefore I will only allow the average damages had you bought a tank as any sensible citizen should have done under these dangerous times, don't you care, why didn't you buy a tank? Perhaps we need to look at child custody..

 

[Astronuc]

What's behind the red-hot uranium boom
Supply crunch, demand from nuclear power plants push metal prices higher; NYMEX getting in on the action.

A renewed interest in nuclear power, sparked by global warming fears and surging electricity use in the developing world, is the main driver behind the expected boost in demand.

Worldwide, there are 28 new nuclear reactors being built, 64 on the drawing boards and another 158 proposed, according to John S. Herold's Ruppel. If all those reactors get built, it would mean 57 percent more reactors from the 435 in operation.

 

[dlgoff]

How many in the U.S.?

 

[Astronuc]

How many in the U.S.?

Not sure, but I've heard at least a dozen, and maybe up to 20 or so, are in planning. I've heard that at least two pressure vessels have been ordered.

A friend and former colleague just started work at the NRC, and he mentioned that they are hiring like made in preparation for new applications.

Currently, we have 104 operating reactors, including Browns Ferry 1, which is restarting after a long downtime. No new reactor has been ordered since the late 1970's, and many were canceled when Three Mile Island-2 had its accident.

 

[denverdoc]

While over a 100 US coal fired plants are in the planning stages iirc.

 

[edward]

IMHO it seems that it would be much more effective in both the long and short term if all new reactors were built according to an already proven design.

Building a new power plant of any kind in this country depends on raising capitol. The designs that are touted as being newer , better, or more efficient seem to attract investors. They also seem to be the ones that have unforeseen problems pop up.

The Palo Verde plant here in Az was (I think) the last nuclear facility built in this country. When it finally went online in 1986 it was millions over budget and nearly five years behind schedule.

All of the financial controversy some how translated in the public eye to be safety related. This brought about a resurgence of the public public outcry that began when the original plans to build the plant were announced. This time politicians got involved and for several years the whole project was held up for more and more inspections and equipment tests.

The Palo Verde plant had a number of problems over the years that were mostly kept from the public. Since 2004, however, the plant has had at least one of it's three reactors shut down 18 times primarily due to problems with reactor cooling pumps.

When a reactor is shut down the public has to be notified that there may be power outages as the power company ,APS, searches the power grid looking for a source of electrical power that they can purchase. The increased cost of buying power from the grid is passed onto the public in the form of higher electric rates.

And every time a reactor is shut down the public over reacts to the situation as if it is a critical safety issue. This in turn re-starts the "nuclear is not safe" debate all over again.

I realize that this has been quite a ramble so I will try to make a point.

We need numerous spread out smaller reactors of a proven and time tested design. Instead we appear to be headed into another phase of building megalithic structures like the three reactor Palo Verde plant. Each will probably have a design straight from the drawing board and will include the troublesome bells and whistles meant to attract investors.

 

[edward]

Some good links at:

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=344

 

[dlgoff]

" We need numerous spread out smaller reactors of a proven and time tested design."

Exactly. They can put one in my back yard. Let's get them moving.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure what "numerous" means, but to completely replace coal, we'll need about 500 of gigawatt capacity...

I actually disagree with the "proven design" idea simply because there aren't any "proven designs" in the US that are less than 40 years old! What I would favor, however, is the idea of standardized designs, though realizing that there are certain to be minor refinements to be made for each new ones.

 

[edward]

I'm not sure what "numerous" means, but to completely replace coal, we'll need about 500 of gigawatt capacity...

The number would depend on the capacity of the chosen design, but I think we can rule out giant three reactor plants like Palo Verde. Coal isn't about to go away until a significant amount of power is generated by other means. I would imagine that this will involve a lengthy transition period. Although that period may be sped up when more people realize that coal produces a lot of nasty pollutants other than just CO2.

I actually disagree with the "proven design" idea simply because there aren't any "proven designs" in the US that are less than 40 years old! What I would favor, however, is the idea of standardized designs, though realizing that there are certain to be minor refinements to be made for each new ones.

I of course agree completely with the standardized design. That is, however, where we run into a catch 22. People will accept something that is proven and reliable, but a standardized design in and of itself has no historical record.

People love "new and improved" in their computers, peanut butter, and laundry detergent, but I am not so sure that they would accept it in the area of nuclear power production. Getting people to accept new nuclear power plants will probably be the most difficult task. And how we do that is beyond me.

I am thinking that there was a lot of reactor research done in the eighties, but the public didn't want any part of the new designs. That is definitely Astronic's area of expertise.

 

[Smurf]

I'm not sure what "numerous" means, but to completely replace coal, we'll need about 500 of gigawatt capacity...

What do you think of the clean coal idea? Whereby you clean out the sulfur, and then pump the CO2 underground.

 

[russ_watters]

"Clean coal" is a buzzword that doesn't reallly mean anything. There is certainly a lot that can be done with existing technology to reduce the emissions of the nastier stuff (and I am all for immediate implimentation), but actually eliminating the CO2 emissions (what is really necessary if we are to believe in anthropogenic global warming) isn't something that is anywhere near a reality. It is still just something people talk about because it sounds nice.

Clean coal is the name attributed to coal chemically washed of minerals and impurities, sometimes gasified, burned and the resulting flue gases treated with steam, with the purpose of almost completely eradicating sulfur dioxide, and reburned so as to make the carbon dioxide in the flue gas economically recoverable. The coal industry uses the term clean coal to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use[1], with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide...

There are no coal fired power stations in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, so the process is theoretical and experimental and thus a subject of feasibility or pilot studies. It is has been estimated that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial scale clean coal power stations (coal burning power stations with Carbon capture and sequestration) commercially viable and widely adopted.[4].

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

I think eventually technology will make coal relatively clean, but we're nowhere near there yet (and the same goes for alternate energy sources like wind and solar), which is why nuclear power is so important. Though we speculate on upgrades and innovations for nuclear plants, nuclear power itself is a "now technology", which is part of the reason it is so important to utilize it immediately.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/corporate/170507GE_and_Hitachi_move_closer_to_marriage.shtml?jmid=904404560
18 May 2007

General Electric (GE) of the USA and Hitachi of Japan have signed a 'formation agreement' to proceed with merging their nuclear businesses. Described as a 'global alliance', the combined nuclear player would have great expertise in boiling water reactor (BWR) design construction and maintenance. The companies said that potential areas for investment would include new infrastructure, advanced reactor design and service tehcnology. The agreement is based on a letter of intent the two parties signed in November 2006.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/corporate/160507Japan_Steel_Works_tools_up.shtml?jmid=904404560
17 May 2007

The company with a virtual monopoly on the heavy forgings required for nuclear power plants is doubling investment levels in advance of orders. Japan Steel Works intends to invest 20 billion Yen ($166 million) in both FY2007 and FY2008, up from 10 billion Yen in FY2006. The company has said one of its main targets would be to supply nuclear reactor pressure vessels to the Chinese and American markets.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/regulationSafety/170507-European_utilities_certify_Westinghouse_s_AP1000.shtml?jmid=904404560
17 May 2007

Westinghouse's AP1000, an 1100 MWe pressurized water reactor design, has received formal certification of compliance from the European Utility Requirements (EUR) organization. The design met 99% of the more than 5000 requirements set by EUR. The European Passive Plant (EPP) group, initially formed by Westinghouse and led by European utilities and suppliers, is implementing a program to address the 1% of AP1000 non-compliances. This non-compliance is primarily in the areas of aircraft crash protection, 12- to 24-month operating flexibility, and minor features in the plant layout. The program is expected to be completed in the next 18 months.

Elsewhere -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070521/wl_nm/nuclear_saudi_gcc_dc_1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070520/wl_africa_afp/algeriausenergy_070520183936