Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[blutoski]

Unless you are forced to. I'm a good driver and might not insure my car if I had the choice, but the government forces me to.

Yep. Because the value is there. They *don't* force you to get ice cream cone insurance. Reason: there's no value in it.

The insurance companies won't insure nuclear plants because they tend not to insure anything where one event can bankrupt them. Their lack of interest in insuring such an operation is not the result of them expecting such an event, but rather their expectations of the financial damage of a hypothetical event. Claiming that the insurance companies' decision means they expect such an event is misleading.

A distinction without a difference. I hear: "They think it's too risky."

You are making the classic mistake of interpreting an overly-conservative precaution as an expectation for disaster. "Better safe than sorry" does not mean "something bad is likely to happen."

No, I'm repeating the official statements of the insurance providers who have been asked by government to explain why they refuse to provide these types of products. Remember: government wants to buy insurance, too. The firms are not ashamed to explain that they are not ready at this time to insure these activities, as they find them too risky.

I'd like to hear where you got that idea. As we speak, utilities are competing to be the owners of the first new plant in the US. Perhaps you'd like to call the management at Constellation Energy or Dominion and explain to them that they aren't really interested in the programs they are aggressively pursuing.

"owner" meaning "taking full responsibility". I'd queue up, too, for a chance to get all the gravy without all the responsibiliity!

Again, the problem is not that the chance is too high. The US has tens of thousands of reactor years worth of operation without such an event. The problem is that insurance companies don't know how much it would cost them if it did occur, and the prospect of a single event driving them out of business prevents them from offerring insurance. If I'm not mistaken, this has been the philosophy of insurance companies ever since the great San Fransisco earthquake of 1906 effectively wiped out the insurance industry in that region in one fell swoop.

They're not *that* avoidant. An example, again, is launch insurance. There are still some takers, but a lot fewer after the accidents in the 1990s. Two accidents that bankrupted their insurance companies.This proved that the launch industry's track record of safety was not a reliable predictor of future events. The chance of accident was much higher than originally estimated or experienced. Insurance in this industry is now based on more precise methods of prospective analysis, and most players got out of the game entirely. The premiums reflect both the cost and the chance of incidence - all insurance works that way. Again: in some situations, the only underwriter for a launch is government because the risk/cost analysis is uneconomical.

In a technological world of Blue Screen of Death, Mars Rovers that forget to Thin(Km)etric, and loose shuttle tiles, I think we have more to worry about in terms of nuclear power than wiping out the insurance industry.

 

[Hindmost]

Double post edited to use for next post.



That is a very important point about the lessons learned at TMI-II. The melted fuel was in contact with the pressure vessel for a long time while still very hot. The vessel was not even close to being compromised. If you can shut the nuclear reactions down -- something that the laws of physics do for you in a water moderated reactor -- then the vessel is robust enough to take the remaining decay heat. As bad as the event at TMI-II was, it is viewed as an enormous success from a mechanical design standpoint. The event generated a near-worst case scenario, and yet the structural integrity of the primary loop was not challenged in any place.

Even with that knowledge, one of the Gen III+ designs (the AREVA EPR) incorporates a core catcher that would spread out and rapidly cool the fuel in a "core on the floor" scenario. The EPR also has two containment structures, separated by a six foot gap that is at very low pressure. This decreases the already very low chance of containment failure even more.

It still is a hard sell that TMI had benefits. No other industry can say their biggest accident didn't hurt anyone.

Adding hydrogen recombiners...deleting iodine scrubbers...reactor vessel level added...enhanced leak detection...core exit temp stuff...SPDS...the list goes on...however, I am 10 years out of date, so my knowledge is limited to what I read up about.

When EBRII was testing the inherent safe fuel design, I was thinking this would be so good for the industry. Clinton just shut down the testing. And no one has done anything to educate the public in the US.

glenn

 

[Solitaire]

Public fear breeds overregulation of the subject industry. Overregulation hikes up the cost of construction and operation of facilities. Misaimed public furor scuttles many plans at the building permit stage. I found many hits when I googled "overregulation nuclear power" and this link is only the first.

An NRC inspector conducting an inspection of the lab I where I worked (metabolism research using radiolabeled materials) told me that, due to overregulation, a telephone that would cost you or me $50 (back in the late '80s), would cost a nuclear power facility $500 because it would have to be failsafe tested to a ridiculous degree.

So, that's why a lot of people blame environmentalists for the lack of nuclear power development in the USA. Perhaps unjustly. I don't equate environmentalists with the luddites that seem to cling to them but that's why.

Environmentalists are a mixed bag, some oppose nuclear power, others support nuclear power, and and even a few remain decidedly neutral about nuclear power. I don't consider environmentalist particularly powerful in the political realm, but the admittedly the current administration biases my view.

I think it's probably the association with the atomic bomb that drives part of the fear. The other part comes from incidents in other industries like the chemical industry that makes people nervous about all technologies. I suspect nanotechnology will produce quite a few nasty surprises soon.

The story about a phone costing $500 might be true. I've encountered a considerable number of second hand and third hand stories that did not turn out to be true. Nonetheless, it sounds reasonable to me. Yet a phone is a small cost when compared to the concrete and steel used in the construction of the plant. I have doubts those cost ten times the normal cost. Figuring out this puzzle might take a while.

 

[Solitaire]

Nuclear energy expensive?

Have you checked the price of some of the renewable energy sources? Solar power is just about the most expensive way you can possibly generate electricity. Yes, sunlight is free, but maintaining the hundreds of square miles you would need to be a major supply for the grid isn't. Wind power is better, but only by a bit.

Yes. From the article I linked earlier: 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for Coal, 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for Wind, 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for Geothermal, 4.9 cents per kilowatt-hour for Hydroelectric, 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for Natural Gas, 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for Biomass, 5.9 cents per kilowatt-hour for Nuclear, and 12.4 cents per kilowatt-hour for Solar. But energy efficiency costs only 3.13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

I've heard that if you consider that solar panels are being made at factories powered by the grid, the amount of CO2 produced by solar energy (the amount produced by making the panel vrs the amount of energy it can produce in it's lifetime), it actually is more than nuclear energy. I suppose if you could get enough made, you could power the solar cell factories on solar power....

A solar panel costs about $6.00 per watt to make. Assuming the cost consists solely of energy then it takes 133.3 kilowatt-hours from a coal fired plant to make. In a desert southwest location like nevada, a solar cell will produce 2.2 kilowatt-hours per year then it will take 60 years to pay off the energy in it's construction. Oh dear, that doesn't sound right. I guess the assumption needs a bit more work. Moving on.

Nuclear energy doesn't need to be expensive and in practice, it's competitive in price. Then again... coal is dirt cheap. Especially the high sulfur kind.

Yet it is. I'm not yet able to solve the puzzle, but I did find this quote:

Record Low Production Costs, Nuclear Energy Institute, 20 February 2007

The industry's average production costs - encompassing expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance - were at an all-time low of 1.66 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2006, according to preliminary figures. Average production costs have been below 2.00 cents per kilowatt-hour for the past eight years, making nuclear power plants highly cost competitive with other electricity sources, particularly those that are capable of reliably producing large amounts of electricity.

What could the other 3.9 cents remaining be? It's a good puzzle.

Uranium is not a rare material by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not too worried about that.

 

[Schneibster]

Environmentalists are a mixed bag, some oppose nuclear power, others support nuclear power, and and even a few remain decidedly neutral about nuclear power. I don't consider environmentalist particularly powerful in the political realm, but the admittedly the current administration biases my view.

Well, we're finally starting to win on global warming.

Now, I'm one of those pro-nuclear-power environmentalists; but I have to tell you, I have serious concerns about human factors, and about shortcuts for finances. I think there is hysteria (damn I hate to use that, it's so sexist, but I'm not talking about women- I'm talking about people who don't know how it works, and are afraid on general principles, some of which you talk about below). I think the points blutoski makes above about insurance are valid, but not because of the actual damage, but because of the perceived liability. It's not a matter of how dangerous it is, it's a matter of how people could sue for something that isn't actually demonstrable damage but that they can claim is and a jury can't tell the difference. I don't know what the solution is to that. There are credible claims both ways. There is accumulating anecdotal evidence that long-term exposure to low-level radioactive material is a major health problem. On the other hand, there is evidence of exposure to relatively high-level exposure that resulted in absolutely nothing. It's clearly apparent that we don't really know how this works yet, and unquantifiable risks are anathema to insurers.

I think that TMI when combined with The China Syndrome killed the nuclear power industry in the US dead. It sucks, as far as I'm concerned- but Brown's Ferry is nothing to sneeze at either. Chernobyl could never happen here, we haven't made anything that gnarly ever, nor would anyone in their right mind. The Soviets decided it was OK to take that risk, and there is a credible argument that Chernobyl did more to take the Soviet Union down than Reagan ever thought of. I don't know if I agree with that, but it's credible. It didn't help the nuclear power industry's reputation in the US, that's for damn sure.

The biggest problem is, there's really no way to concretely define the risk. With the waste, we could be bequeathing a horrifying legacy to our grandchildren. On the other hand, it could be no big deal at all. I perceive global warming as a far worse threat, but I could be wrong. Terrifyingly wrong. I seriously and sincerely doubt it, and I'd put my money where my mouth is, but if low-level exposure is as big a deal as it potentially might be, who the hell knows? And I know a hell of a lot about nuclear energy, because I know quite a lot more about nuclear physics than most people- and although I'd bet on it, heavily, there is still that anecdotal evidence out there.

I think it's probably the association with the atomic bomb that drives part of the fear.

That's certainly part of it, I have no doubt.

The other part comes from incidents in other industries like the chemical industry that makes people nervous about all technologies.

That's what I had in mind above when I mentioned "human factors." You can't afford to mishandle this stuff; it's dangerous, and the effects can be subtle and long-term. OTOH, there are chemicals that make even relatively high-level nuclear waste look benign. It's more that people are scared of it because they can't see it, than it's straightforward risks.

I suspect nanotechnology will produce quite a few nasty surprises soon.

I've been preaching about mataglap nano for quite some time now. We need to make damn sure we have a clear idea of what we're doing before we get into this technology in a big way.

The story about a phone costing $500 might be true. I've encountered a considerable number of second hand and third hand stories that did not turn out to be true. Nonetheless, it sounds reasonable to me. Yet a phone is a small cost when compared to the concrete and steel used in the construction of the plant. I have doubts those cost ten times the normal cost. Figuring out this puzzle might take a while.

A $500 phone is one that someone always answers when you dial.

 

[autumn1971]

Quick post here, I didn't have time to read all the other posts, but as far as I can tell pvt1863 hit it on the head in the first page, every bit of nuclear waste generated by an american nuclear plant since their inception is stored on site pending a more permanent waste site. There is almost no waste produced by nuclear plants. Other than thermal waste, which is a real, if solvable, problem, the old canard that nuclear plants produce too much waste is refuted by simply looking around. What happens to the supposedly huge amount of nuclear waste generated by these plants? After decades of functional life, the entire amount of waste generated by nuclear plants is storable at the plants themselves. Not the best soloution, but show me any other power plant that could store its waste on-site. Pretty damn efficient, if you ask me.

 

[Yllanes]

Well, we're finally starting to win on global warming.

Now, I'm one of those pro-nuclear-power environmentalists; but I have to tell you, I have serious concerns about human factors, and about shortcuts for finances. I think there is hysteria (damn I hate to use that, it's so sexist, but I'm not talking about women- I'm talking about people who don't know how it works, and are afraid on general principles, some of which you talk about below). I think the points blutoski makes above about insurance are valid, but not because of the actual damage, but because of the perceived liability. It's not a matter of how dangerous it is, it's a matter of how people could sue for something that isn't actually demonstrable damage but that they can claim is and a jury can't tell the difference. I don't know what the solution is to that. There are credible claims both ways. There is accumulating anecdotal evidence that long-term exposure to low-level radioactive material is a major health problem. On the other hand, there is evidence of exposure to relatively high-level exposure that resulted in absolutely nothing. It's clearly apparent that we don't really know how this works yet, and unquantifiable risks are anathema to insurers.

That shouldn't happen. The worlwide average dose equivalent absorbed by the population is 2.4 mSv/year (this number changes a lot from one place to another). The nuclear power industry represents one thousandth of that, you get 4 times as much radiation from a one hour plane trip than from the nuclear industry in a whole year. According to the UN, the dose equivalent is

• Natural sources: 2.4 mSv/year (typically ranges from 1.0 to 10.0 mSv/year)
• Medical diagnosis: 0.4 mSv/year
• Atmospheric nuclear testing: 0.005 mSv/year
• Chernobyl accident: 0.002 mSv/year
• Nuclear power production: 0.0002 mSv/year

(when I said the radiation received from nuclear power was one thousandth of the natural background I was including the Chernobyl accident, but not nuclear testing, which isn't energy production).

But you may be talking about the workers. The average dose for Spanish nuclear personnel in 2004 was 1.31 mSv/year. This number is smaller than the variations in background from one place to another. Again, the data from the UN, for different occupations, is

[latex]\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline
\bfseries Source/practice &
\bfseries Average annual effective dose
(mSv)\\
\hline
Nuclear fuel cycle (including uranium mining) & 1.8\\
Industrial uses of radiation & 0.5\\
Medical uses of radiation & 0.3\\
Education/veterinary & 0.1\\
Air travel (crew) & 3.0\\
Mining (other than coal) & 2.7\\
Coal mining & 0.7\\
Mineral processing & 1.0\\
Above ground workplaces (radon) & 4.8\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
[/latex]

As you can see, air crews receive more radiation than workers in a nuclear plant.

The issue of the aborbed dose for exposed workers is thouroughly monitored and legislated. Even if a lawsuit like that were possible, it would affect other industries at least as much as nuclear power production.

 

[a_unique_person]

Until there is a viable method for the proper disposal of nuclear waste, then I continue to have problems with nuclear energy.

By the way, the 'Enterprise' of Star Trek used anti-matter as a power source, not nuclear power.

I thought it was dilithium crystals, whatever they are.

 

[Bigt]

Very interesting thread. I live about 5-6 miles from the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in Red Wing, MN. I've lived here my whole life; the nuclear plant has been operational for over 30 years. What astonishes me - as others have already commented on - is that all of the "waste" fuel is still on site, either in the spent fuel pools in the plant (which I've seen - they aren't very large but they sure are deep) or in dry casks stored on a pad outside and near the plant. This a link to a Google satellite photo of the spent fuel pad: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...331&spn=0.001371,0.005021&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr. Those white spots are the dry casks. Each one weighs - if I remember correctly - 90 tons unloaded and a bit over 120 tons with spent fuel.

The dry casks became a source of much controversy when a judge ruled (wrongly, in my opinion) that their storage was a legislative matter, not a regulatory one. So the "environmentally" concerned Minnesota legislature decided to limit the number of casks to 17 rather than the 48 the utility originally applied for. If more were needed, some of the 17 would have to be shipped off site somewhere. That somewhere hasn't materialized yet; however, the legislature has now allowed for more casks to be stored, partly in exchange for a greater investment by the utility in renewable - mainly wind - technologies.

Many are concerned that there will never be a long turn storage solution or about transporting the fuel when one finally goes online. Many believe that the waste fuel is a environmental disaster waiting to happen. Some now worry about terrorists. Well, there the casks are, waiting to be blown up by anyone with sufficient resourses and the moxie to do it. It would be easy! The pad is located within 200 yards of the main road, out-of-sight behind a berm and some trees. Not many know this. There isn't much obvious protection. No concrete barriers, no guards, just a fence and probably a mess of sensors. It would not be hard to overpower what security forces there are (what company overspends on security?), at least for a short while before greater and more powerful forces arrive.

What would it take to blow up a dry cask? Would the payoff be worth the effort? I doubt it but I really don't know for certain. No matter; I am not worried. Should I be?

 

[geni]

That shouldn't happen. The worlwide average dose equivalent absorbed by the population is 2.4 mSv/year (this number changes a lot from one place to another). The nuclear power industry represents one thousandth of that, you get 4 times as much radiation from a one hour plane trip than from the nuclear industry in a whole year.

Two problems we this. We are now fairly certain that the body reacts differently to sustained exposure compared to brief peaks of exposure.

Secondly there amount kicked out by the nuclear industry depends on where you live. If you lived close to the old Dungeness magnox reactor you were looking at a dose from direct radition of about 0.5 mSv/year.

 

[fishbob]

A solar panel costs about $6.00 per watt to make. Assuming the cost consists solely of energy then it takes 133.3 kilowatt-hours from a coal fired plant to make. In a desert southwest location like nevada, a solar cell will produce 2.2 kilowatt-hours per year then it will take 60 years to pay off the energy in it's construction. Oh dear, that doesn't sound right. I guess the assumption needs a bit more work. Moving on.

From what I have read, the cost of refined silicon keeps going up - which boosts the manufacturing cost for solar panels. That $6 includes materials, labor, sales and marketing, finances - all kinds of things that cost more than energy for production.

 

[geni]

That is not true...worst case scenarios at chemical plants and oil refineries is quite dangerous. I was scared of an amonia spill at the fertilizer plant that I worked near. It would have killed everyone in the area. With inherent safety in the fuel design now...LOCA type events are not even troublesome.

And as a result it is becomeing hard to build new chemical plants.

That was a plant in the 50s...reactor analysis is much more advanced now. The person had to pull that control rod to the top of the core very quickly by hand to cause the prompt criticality that occurred--that is the specuation and probably why he ended up lodged in the roof. Such scenarios are not even possible now. That is just not a good analogy with current designs.

More a problem with the design process than the design. Someone aparently thought haveing a single point of failure was aceptable.

The inherent safety applies to all accidents including worst case LOCAs and main steam line breaks.

What about errors in fuel ammounts concentrations?

You will have to quantify this for me...some of the prototypes worked well and some failed. In the US EBRI and EBRII were successful. Clinch River was never completed. The number of incidents that I recall were just not that many.

If the problems are in scaleing up haveing a working prototype doesn't mean much.

No, just a scaled up version of EBRII. However, they won't be cost effective with current uranium prices, so I see little chance of it happening. There is not an economic need, but some countries want to keep the technology available for the future...such as Japan and China and India. The US is not really doing anything substantial and I very much doubt that will change.

The US is not really doing anything substantial that isn't classified.

If a single plant was started today, it would take 10 years of relatively problem free work to get electricity to the grid.

Even Sizewell B which suffered from overuns was up and running after 7 years.

If a lot of plants were started, the engineering expertise would not be available. There would be some growing pains. In the US, the engineers are old...and retiring very fast since most of them are boomers. So new blood is coming in, but the expertise in building a large plant is in the people that have done it a few times. My first startup, I was on a learning curve. My second and third, I was solving problems before they became problems.

Knowing how to build a plant 30 years ago is of limited use (you just can't get the parts gov). So most of the design will either be new of will involve stuff found in other industries.

Korea has been successful at building plants and gets a large percent of electricity from nukes

And we know SK had a program to build nuclear weapons and may still have a low level one.

...there program is reasonable. China and India will continue as well. China's time frame is very long.

Both have nuclear weapons already so not an issue.

 

[Crossbow]

I thought it was dilithium crystals, whatever they are.

Sorry, but that is not right.

Vast amounts of power are generated by the matter/anit-matter reaction and the only substance that can safely process such large volumes of power are dilithium crystals.

 

[Yllanes]

Two problems we this. We are now fairly certain that the body reacts differently to sustained exposure compared to brief peaks of exposure.

Yes, but I'm not sure I see your point here.

Secondly there amount kicked out by the nuclear industry depends on where you live. If you lived close to the old Dungeness magnox reactor you were looking at a dose from direct radition of about 0.5 mSv/year.

Yes, but even if you work there and the dose is 2 mSv instead of 0.5 this is less than the variation in the natural background from one area to another. Even if it weren't, it would be less than what air crews get, so the problem would not be specific of the nuclear industry.

The dose for the general public is negligible and the dose for people who live just outside the plant or work there is not specially high, not compared to other occupations or the natural background.

 

[geni]

Yes, but I'm not sure I see your point here.

Even Airline pilots do not fly continiously.

 

[autumn1971]

I don't have the documentation with me, but isn't a very significant portion of the construction cost projections, and therefore the efficiency calculations, due to the years of lawsuits that the anti-nuke movement realized was a great way to keep reactors from being built?

 

[cyr]

Even Airline pilots do not fly continiously.

You seem to imply that a low steady radiation level is more damaging than short exposures to higher levels?

I was under the impression that the opposite has been shown to be true, that below a certain level the body is quite capable of dealing with radiation - and in fact a certain level may be beneficial (e.g. cancer rates are lower in areas with high natural radiation levels).

Well, it was on TV so it must be true!

It was a BBC/Horizon documentary, can't remember the name. Maybe someone else knows, or know of some more reliable sources...

 

[Hamradioguy]

You seem to imply that a low steady radiation level is more damaging than short exposures to higher levels?

I was under the impression that the opposite has been shown to be true, that below a certain level the body is quite capable of dealing with radiation - and in fact a certain level may be beneficial (e.g. cancer rates are lower in areas with high natural radiation levels).

Well, it was on TV so it must be true!

It was a BBC/Horizon documentary, can't remember the name. Maybe someone else knows, or know of some more reliable sources...

The concept is "Radiation Hormesis" and a major proponent is T.D. Luckey. His papers on this have been published in the peer reviewed Health Physics Journal where, as might be expected, they have caused a bit of a controversy. Most HPs I believe take the stand that "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" anything to this idea. But virtually all agree that when the radiation levels get very low (A chest X-ray, frequent flights as a passenger on an airplane, or living outside the fence of a nuclear plant) the adverse effects of ionizing radiation either don't exist or are too low to measure even in a large population.

We're right back to the issue of relative risk. I always tell my anti nuke friends that they need to wear seat belts, stop smoking, cut back on alcohol consumption, avoid trans-fats, wear bicycle helmets, etc. before raising concerns over radiation from nuclear power production. Heck, if anyone is really worried about ionizing radiation they'd best not sleep on an upstairs floor (more cosmic ray exposure) or in a basement (radon). It can be a tough sell.

 

[Lonewulf]

Don't forget a nice hot summer day.

 

[Hindmost]

...More a problem with the design process than the design. Someone aparently thought haveing a single point of failure was aceptable.

Comparing that design with anything done today is not reasonable.

What about errors in fuel ammounts concentrations?

Easily determined during low power physics testing...predicted flux profile must be within 3% of predicted or no startup. Calibrated some of those myself.

If the problems are in scaleing up haveing a working prototype doesn't mean much..

Always an issue...it didn't work well with gas cooled reactors...so, a modular design is now the proposed. However, experience rules. We know what we are doing better each day. (as long as we all don't retire)

Even Sizewell B which suffered from overuns was up and running after 7 years..

construction might have been 7 years. Must do about 2 years of engineering before you start pouring concrete. On my last plant, the contracts were signed in 1987, first concrete wasn't until 89-90 and finished the first unit in 95 and the next in 96.

The new advanced designs would require less construction time, but there is a lot of FOAKE to do. And bugs will be there.

Knowing how to build a plant 30 years ago is of limited use (you just can't get the parts gov). So most of the design will either be new of will involve stuff found in other industries. .

I absolutely disagree with this. Experience is paramount in building and running nukes. Welding is still welding and concrete pours are concrete pours. The design will be new, but a pump is still a pump. The instrument cabinets are really the only big changes. I have gone through a lot of those. With modern electronics, it was easy to start them up...much more user friendly.


.

And we know SK had a program to build nuclear weapons and may still have a low level one..

CANDU: bomb material quite easily
light water reactor: Garbage...the isotopes of Pu are either burned or capture a few too many neutrons and convert to 240 and 241, etc.--which is useless

Both have nuclear weapons already so not an issue.

glenn