No more nuclear power for the US?

[WildCat]

And it seems to me that the whole shipping issue is primarily a tactic to stop nuclear power. After all, we ship the fuel to plants with no problems. Why does it only become dangerous when the waste is shipped?

 

[joobz]

Are you sure about that, and much of the weight involved isn't a result of making it safe in case of an accident? And isn't the shipping primarily by train anyway? Much lower cost per ton by train.

The vitrification method is only used for waste storage and not for fuel.

I honestly don't know what the weight differences would be, if any. As I think more on it, silica is only one tenth the mass of the lead, so unless the content of silica is >10 times the required lead, my point is moot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So I'll ask you again Dr. A, what exactly is the problem with Yucca Mtn?

Here's a guy who thinks he knows.

Until last January, I served as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, exploring the safety of a proposed national, high-level, nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Congress created the non-partisan 11-member board to provide technical advice about Yucca Mountain to the secretary of Energy. Its members — all scientists and engineers with expertise relevant to Yucca Mountain — were appointed by the president from a list submitted by the National Academy of Science.

The board concluded that the present design for Yucca Mountain is deficient, and unless it is changed, the nation's high-level waste repository is likely to leak. Our conclusion has been ignored.

[...]

Unfortunately, designing the Yucca Mountain repository turned out to be far more complex than had been anticipated. There's been one surprise after another. Yucca Mountain was selected as the site because it is located in the desert, and it was thought the arid climate would keep the waste dry. It turns out the mountain is wet. It was thought that the water wouldn't move the waste underground very quickly. Wrong again. Water moves through the mountain so fast that in order to meet the regulatory requirements for isolation from the biosphere, the Department of Energy had to add better-engineered waste containment canisters to the design.

It now turns out that those canisters are likely to corrode. Every member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board I served on reached that conclusion, and it was the essence of our report delivered to the Congress and the secretary of Energy last November. The report was ignored.​

He resigned in protest.

 

[technoextreme]

I was born in Mineola. Where were you born?

Really now. That is sad. How do you ask about a nuclear reactor that has in fact received numerous protests for a legitimate reason (It leaked tritium into the water)? I was ten when that happened and I knew about it.

 

[joobz]

Really now. That is sad. How do you ask about a nuclear reactor that has in fact received numerous protests for a legitimate reason (It leaked tritium into the water)? I was ten when that happened and I knew about it.

I see you have a hard time arguing without insult.

ETA: I see you had removed all of the "idiot" statements..

 

[technoextreme]

I see you have a hard time arguing without insult.

How is that an insult? I was in fact ten when that happened. One of my pet peeves is asking a question without bothering to use Google. It makes you look like a fool.

 

[rwguinn]

Except that you didn't address the entire post at all. In fact, I doubt you read past the word "transportation".

Napalm doesn't have a catastrophic danger if it was to leak out as a result of collision.
Further, my mention wasn't just safety but cost.

The mass of silica/lead mix needed to shield the radiation is huge. Are you telling me that the added weight doesn't add significant cost?

Certainly it adds cost. Wasn't arguing that.
But the "napalm" in question is the tanker trucks that cruise through every city, drive up to every neighborhood gas station, and when it leaks out through collision, can contaminate ground water, cause serious respiratory problems for anyone nearby, and puts lots of Carbon into the atmosphere when it burns, as it it frequently does.
So "Safety" for transport is not an issue. Other issues can be addressed. Rail (would require upgrading current infrastructure (!!)) or other economies for transport can be addressed.

 

[Hindmost]

Right now, the only licensed designs for plants in the US are shown in the following link.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html

The pebble bed reactor is being designed as a fourth generation design, however it is years away from even a submittal—if funding stays intact.

The AP1000 plant is significantly different from past plants…there are less pumps, valves and cables. The entire plant footprint is significantly smaller. Much of the plant is going to be built in pre-fabed modules and dropped into the plant. The construction time should be shortened as a result of this and plant standardization. The first plant in the US will be difficult, but they should get better once the standardization is accomplished. The one step licensing process is definitely a benefit.

The reason that AP1000 plants aren’t being built right now in the US is because the design isn’t finished and the plants in China are first in the queue—they are using the available fabrication facilities. (plus no one wants to be first) Startup will occur in 2013-2015 if all goes well. US utilities have only released long lead items for fabrication. It takes a few years to build a vessel and steam generators and that much has started. This type of work is being done in Korea, Japan and Spain. No plans to build stuff in the US. Full contracts for plants are still in the planning stages…but are very close.

I think it was mentioned, but the French are having problems with the AREVA plant in Finland…it is about three years behind schedule. No one has any type of perfect system. They are having problems with lack of experience in construction of a nuke.

All the concepts related to other designs and thorium and reprocessing are just concepts. There are no real plans for such work and it will be years before any can be made viable. The knowledge about the Uranium cycle is well established and fuel design is advanced now…changing that would be very expensive. Still, reprocessing will be needed long term and the technology was available from EBR II.

Financing is another issue…

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

And it seems to me that the whole shipping issue is primarily a tactic to stop nuclear power. After all, we ship the fuel to plants with no problems. Why does it only become dangerous when the waste is shipped?

The whole shipping issue has been a ridiculous distraction...in the US, we have been shipping cores and waste around for years. We've actually had quite a bit of practise.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/subfact.shtml


Before fuel is irradiated, it is shipped by ordinary trucks as the radiation levels are essentially nothing and the fuel would be useless for any type of nuclear weapon...after irradiation...a few seconds exposure would be lethal, but the fuel would still be useless for weapons.

glenn

 

[Roadtoad]

The whole shipping issue has been a ridiculous distraction...in the US, we have been shipping cores and waste around for years. We've actually had quite a bit of practise.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/subfact.shtml


Before fuel is irradiated, it is shipped by ordinary trucks as the radiation levels are essentially nothing and the fuel would be useless for any type of nuclear weapon...after irradiation...a few seconds exposure would be lethal, but the fuel would still be useless for weapons.

glenn

*Ahem*

I see those rigs all the time. If you know how to read the placards, you can spot them easily, *(which, of course, is the idea.)

You don't see the security, but it's there. Trust me.

 

[WildCat]

Here's a guy who thinks he knows.

Ah, the old groundwater argument. The steel casks might corrode in 5,000 years. I'm sorry, but I have a lot more faith in humans 5,000 years from now to figuree out what to do if the casks corrode than this guy does. If they don't know what to do that could only mean some catastrophic event has happened and the corroding casks in the desert will be the least of their concerns.

If that is the reason for the delay (if it is Chu hasn't mentioned it) we will never build another nuke plant because there will be no site that meets the ridiculous requirements. The Earth is geologically active! Maybe the moon will be acceptable?

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

• It cuts funding for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program. Funding for the program "will be scaled back ... while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

So do you think this is a positive or a negative? I think we should have been building nuke plants for the last 30 years. We've been sitting on our hands because of an "accident" that didn't cause any harm to anyone.[/QUOTE]

I'm on a roll with responses =)

I think nuclear energy is a good way to go. There is not enough crude oil to please the growing population so we should get to work on creating tidal power, nuclear power, hemp, Etc. Anything BUT crude oil. The markets will decide what is best. Instead of keeping Egypt, jordan and Israel on life support like michael scheur puts it, we can put that money in investments like ethanol, nuclear, tidal wave power Etc.

=)

 

[BeAChooser]

Is this stimulus via blue ribbon commissions?

ROTFLOL! Excellent.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ah, the old groundwater argument. The steel casks might corrode in 5,000 years.

Let's see ... Obama supporters say we shouldn't worry about massive debt 10 years from now when we have an economic crisis now, yet use concern about corroding casks 5000 years from now as an excuse to doing nothing about the energy crisis now. Seems a little inconsistent,.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem with burning waste is that it's a highly contaminated energy source. Lets assume that we can acheive full combustion of all organic compounds, we'll have a highly variable content of NOX and SOX compounds that will need to be scavanged from the off gas. Further, there would be an unknown amount of heavy metals coming along into the furnace. This would need to be scavanged as well, adding cost. Since it isn't known how much will be entering into the furnace, a robust/overspecified purification system will need to be designed, greatly increasing the cost of the plant.

Are you comparing that to nuclear? From what I've read, we are closer to containing the effects of burning waste than we are uranium.

By controlling the tmeperature of combustion we can control NOX. SOX is already controlled in fluidized bed combustion by addition of dolomite and limestone. There is an issue with PHC, or some other hydrocarbon, I forget which (the same stuff that makes BBQ taste so good )

It's just another technolgy that may assist the delay in implementing cleaner nuclear. As with any energy generation techniques, there are good points and bad points. I'm just presenting it as one of the many technologies I think are being mulled over.

 

[Furcifer]

I think nuclear energy is a good way to go. There is not enough crude oil to please the growing population so we should get to work on creating tidal power, nuclear power, hemp, Etc. Anything BUT crude oil.

How much crude oil do you think is being burned to generate electricity?

 

[Furcifer]

I'm sorry, but I have a lot more faith in humans 5,000 years from now to figuree out what to do if the casks corrode than this guy does. If they don't know what to do that could only mean some catastrophic event has happened and the corroding casks in the desert will be the least of their concerns.

Ah, the "Future Generations" arguement.

Why do anything then?

 

[tomwaits]

Ah, the "Future Generations" arguement.

Why do anything then?

If it was like 300 years, ok. But 5,000 years???? That's an eternity away.

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

How much crude oil do you think is being burned to generate electricity?

I have no idea. enlighten me.

All I know is oil is done. We should harvest hemp and have our cars run on an ethanol from hemp. Peanut oil, ethyl alcohol, nuclear. There are SOOO many BETTER alternatives to oil.

 

[Furcifer]

I have no idea. enlighten me.

All I know is oil is done. We should harvest hemp and have our cars run on an ethanol from hemp. Peanut oil, ethyl alcohol, nuclear. There are SOOO many BETTER alternatives to oil.

Here in Canada less than 3%. Most of the diesel powered generators are used in remote locations or as back-up in places like hospitals and other large facilities.

In terms of power generation, oil isn't really a factor. I agree though, there are many other alternatives that need to be pursued.