Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[geni]

EBRII had a great track record...it operated for 30 years without any real problems...had a good breeding ratio and in its final days proved inherent fuel safey. The BN-600 design is similar to EBRII...just about a decade older and larger.

EBRII was still an experimental disign though.

Although the Superphenix reactor had issues...it was shut down due to cost and political issues.

It only ran at all because of political issues though. Sucessful sodium cooled reactors seem to be rare

The cost of uranium is still low enough to make it more cost effective to make uranium fuel instead of reprocessing and making mox fuel. Since it is a commodity, it will depend on demand. When Superphenix was shutdown, it was cost effective.

glenn

The problem is that every different type of nuclear technology appears to require a number of acidents before the problems are fixed.

Light water reactors have had a pretty good safetly record since 1990. However getting there required a range of acidents from the fairly minor SL-1
(lession make sure it takes more than one stupid thing to cause the reactor to go wrong) to the Windscale fire (lesson don't build anything like Windscale Pile no. 1)

We arew still getting reprocessing acidents and we don't yet have much experence with fast breeder setups.

 

[Hindmost]

It does not matter how likely a terrorist target it is, the fact is its the public that is scared of terrorism.



True, yet the estimate stands at 40 years.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml



The public is scared of terroism, not the intellectual. That is the point of terrorism to create unrational fear, terror. Calm the angry mob and maybe nuclear power will be a possible answer. Otherwise you face an uphill battle, while wind/hydro/solar does not face this obstacle and also has the support of the greeners.

It is politics, not logic, that runs the world. If logic ran the world we would not be in Iraq "helping" them build a new government...after we destroyed theirs.

I agree that the public is uninformed about nuclear power...as I said...we have Homer Simpson as our mascot. However, an ignorant public is not a good way to define an energy policy.

Hydro is not environmentally friendly as it destroys echo-systems when it floods an area...but there aren't any places to dam up in the US anymore. Wind farms are great...but they will take up a lot of land and solar cell manufacturing and deployment are expensive. Now, I am for all of these, but add up all these and you only get a few Quads. We are using over 100 Quads a year in the US now and over 400 world wide. Only about 6% is renewable. Something needs to be done and soon.

The estimate for fusion coming online has changed every decade. When I was in college in the 70s, we were supposed to achieve real energy producing fusion by the late 90s. The plasma just won't stabalize. The European plant will be very telling--I wanted to work in fusion power eventually and studied it to the extent possible. (it does have radiation issues as well, but they are much less than fission plants and they are inherently safe)

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

EBRII was still an experimental disign though.


It only ran at all because of political issues though. Sucessful sodium cooled reactors seem to be rare

The problem is that every different type of nuclear technology appears to require a number of acidents before the problems are fixed.

Light water reactors have had a pretty good safetly record since 1990. However getting there required a range of acidents from the fairly minor SL-1
(lession make sure it takes more than one stupid thing to cause the reactor to go wrong) to the Windscale fire (lesson don't build anything like Windscale Pile no. 1)

We arew still getting reprocessing acidents and we don't yet have much experence with fast breeder setups.

Every heavy industry has accidents. Add up all of them and only a few people have died...not that I consider that acceptable, but it is a fact. Most of the accidents, no one died and no one was hurt. SL-1 was in the 50s and only three people died. TMI was the worst commercial plant disaster and no one got hurt and no one received a high radiation dose. Even if one adds Chernobyl to the mix, it still isn't that many people--and that reactor design was just awful and there was no containment. (I also understand the cancer risks) Inherently safe fuel designs would eliminate a TMI type of accident. These fuels designs exist now. New reactors have on passive safety designs as well.

EBRII was experimental, but the experiment worked 30 years of safe operation...it is the basis for future breeder designs. There have been about 20 breeder reactors built around the world. Some still operating. The problem is not engineering, but cost and politics. With sufficient uranium reserves available, there is no need to build breeder reactors and deal with the reprocessing issues. The phenix reactor is still operating and not having issues. Superphenix was scaled up too quickly. It would take at least 25 years to significantly develop nuclear power in the US again. We certainly can't start building 100 plants tomorrow. I am not expecting it and think I will be dead before another nuke plant is built in the US. However, many other countries are looking at nuclear as a method of reducing dependance on fossil fuels.


glenn

 

[geni]

Every heavy industry has accidents. Add up all of them and only a few people have died...not that I consider that acceptable, but it is a fact.

But with most heavy industries the worse case senario isn't that bad (say they death of everyone at the plant.

Most of the accidents, no one died and no one was hurt. SL-1 was in the 50s and only three people died.

But why did no one think that building a reactor which could fail with just one rod removed was a good idea?

Inherently safe fuel designs would eliminate a TMI type of accident. These fuels designs exist now. New reactors have on passive safety designs as well.

There are other types of acident.

EBRII was experimental, but the experiment worked 30 years of safe operation...it is the basis for future breeder designs. There have been about 20 breeder reactors built around the world. Some still operating. The problem is not engineering, but cost and politics.

The problem rate for sodium cooled ractors suggests otherwise.

With sufficient uranium reserves available, there is no need to build breeder reactors and deal with the reprocessing issues. The phenix reactor is still operating and not having issues. Superphenix was scaled up too quickly.

So we need yet another generation of experimental fast breeders.

It would take at least 25 years to significantly develop nuclear power in the US again.

Could be done in a lot less time if it had to be.

We certainly can't start building 100 plants tomorrow. I am not expecting it and think I will be dead before another nuke plant is built in the US. However, many other countries are looking at nuclear as a method of reducing dependance on fossil fuels.

Which is the other problem. France britian japan and the US running nuclear programs is not a problem. For rather a lot of the world it is.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Transporting nuclear waste usually requires a cross-country trek allowing every city it passes through to be a terrorist target. No one wants a possible terrorist threat to pass through his or her city.

The only kind of nuclear waste of potential use to a terrorist would be used fuel rods. (Contaminated coveralls and tools pose no threat, and new fuel rod shipments going IN to a reactor aren't very radioactive at all....just ask the good citizens of Springfield, MA.) High level waste like those fuel rods are transported via convoy and are in containers that would be extremely difficult to breach. But hey, let the terrorists try- absent access to some very sophisticated engineering facilities (Think "hot cells" and remote mechanical arms) any success in opening a Type B fuel assembly container would result in some very dead terrorists in a matter of a minute or so.

For better or worse, most terrorists aren't dumb enough to try accessing high level nuclear waste. There are dozens of truly lethal chemicals around that any terrorist with an IQ of 80 and access to simple hardware tools could use to kill hundreds to thousands of people. And no, I'm not about to provide a list for the curious!

 

[DanishDynamite]

The reason fast breeders are not running is more political and economically related than technology. Right now, the nuclear industry has enough fuel to run the current reactors for a long time. Insufficient resources due to lack of necessity and the scare of plutonium have caused the shutdown of the plants. The technical issues could be corrected.

An upgraded EBR II type of design would work just fine. It can be designed with inherent safety in the fuel. It operated fine for many years.

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

glenn

geni provided links which purported that there was at most nuclear fuel for at most 20 years. I realize the amount of fuel left depends on the types of regeneration facilities availaible, but would you have any links which show that a much greater horizon is likely?

Because if 20 years is the general view, my enthusiasm is gone and it is a dead-end technology.

 

[Hindmost]

geni provided links which purported that there was at most nuclear fuel for at most 20 years. I realize the amount of fuel left depends on the types of regeneration facilities availaible, but would you have any links which show that a much greater horizon is likely?

Because if 20 years is the general view, my enthusiasm is gone and it is a dead-end technology.

The link geni provided indicates that there would be 10-20 years of uranium if we were to build 10,000 plants and replace all the fossil fueled plants on the earth and eliminate some green house gases. That is not realistic and was for illustrative purposes. Back in my college days--and I have seen little to change this--there isn't a problem. The cost is still cheaper to mine uranium than to develop and reprocess with breeders even if uranium prices go extremely high. I really don't think breeders would be needed if fusion could be developed...but that darn plasma won't settle down. Breeders are great at fast fissioning transuranics and would eliminate long term waste...which is why I would like to see them to be built. Plus, it could get rid of all that plutonium.

geni's link is great and sums up what I have been saying...fission is a bridge to the next best power which is fusion. However, as Dr. Goodstein indicates: "If you're talking about nuclear fusion, then in the long range the fuel is almost limitless but it's been 25 years away for the past 50 years and it's still 25 years away." (I would really get along well with this guy)

When I studied fusion in college, I really wanted to work on it...however, it just doesn't really work yet. It was 25 years away back in the 70s. The original premise was that it would only take about 10 years after the first thermo nuke was detonated...

The world energy situation scares the [rule 8] out of me.

glenn

 

[rwguinn]

The only kind of nuclear waste of potential use to a terrorist would be used fuel rods. (Contaminated coveralls and tools pose no threat, and new fuel rod shipments going IN to a reactor aren't very radioactive at all....just ask the good citizens of Springfield, MA.) High level waste like those fuel rods are transported via convoy and are in containers that would be extremely difficult to breach. But hey, let the terrorists try- absent access to some very sophisticated engineering facilities (Think "hot cells" and remote mechanical arms) any success in opening a Type B fuel assembly container would result in some very dead terrorists in a matter of a minute or so.

Why, oh why, do thoise opposed to transporting Nuclear waste across country, on specially designated routes, with monitoring, never, ever have anything to say about the 50000 lb napalm bombs they encourage daily in neighborhoods and downtown streets in every burg and city in the US?
Gasoline tankers are everywhere, all the time.

For better or worse, most terrorists aren't dumb enough to try accessing high level nuclear waste. There are dozens of truly lethal chemicals around that any terrorist with an IQ of 80 and access to simple hardware tools could use to kill hundreds to thousands of people. And no, I'm not about to provide a list for the curious!

dead is dead, nuclear or conventional chemical.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The link geni provided indicates that there would be 10-20 years of uranium if we were to build 10,000 plants and replace all the fossil fueled plants on the earth and eliminate some green house gases. That is not realistic and was for illustrative purposes. Back in my college days--and I have seen little to change this--there isn't a problem. The cost is still cheaper to mine uranium than to develop and reprocess with breeders even if uranium prices go extremely high. I really don't think breeders would be needed if fusion could be developed...but that darn plasma won't settle down. Breeders are great at fast fissioning transuranics and would eliminate long term waste...which is why I would like to see them to be built. Plus, it could get rid of all that plutonium.

geni's link is great and sums up what I have been saying...fission is a bridge to the next best power which is fusion. However, as Dr. Goodstein indicates: "If you're talking about nuclear fusion, then in the long range the fuel is almost limitless but it's been 25 years away for the past 50 years and it's still 25 years away." (I would really get along well with this guy)

When I studied fusion in college, I really wanted to work on it...however, it just doesn't really work yet. It was 25 years away back in the 70s. The original premise was that it would only take about 10 years after the first thermo nuke was detonated...

The world energy situation scares the [rule 8] out of me.

glenn

In short, even if we use nuclear fission as an energy source, the horizon is at most 20-30 years away. Is this correct?

 

[Hindmost]

But with most heavy industries the worse case senario isn't that bad (say they death of everyone at the plant.

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.

But why did no one think that building a reactor which could fail with just one rod removed was a good idea?

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.

There are other types of acident.

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

The problem rate for sodium cooled ractors suggests otherwise.

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.

So we need yet another generation of experimental fast breeders.

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.

Could be done in a lot less time if it had to be.

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

Which is the other problem. France britian japan and the US running nuclear programs is not a problem. For rather a lot of the world it is.

Korea has been successful at building plants and gets a large percent of electricity from nukes...there program is reasonable. China and India will continue as well. China's time frame is very long.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

In short, even if we use nuclear fission as an energy source, the horizon is at most 20-30 years away. Is this correct?

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

I forgot the link...here's a scenario to look at. It applies to the world. If we just use a once through cycle (load reactor with enriched uranium and then process the waste and store it), there would be 20-30 years of uranium with thousands of plants built and it is the exclusive source of electricty--not realistic. There are 104 plants in the US and about 400 worldwide built and operating over the past 50 years or so. There is no way thousands can be built quickly. If the growth rate is high, there would be uranium for hundreds of years. Add breeders in and nukes could be around supplying electricity for thousands of years. If we don't have fusion by then, we will probably go back to being hunter-gatherers.

In the US, I would like to see plants start being built now...maybe 10 reactors and then see if we could gear up to have about another 100 plants in about 30 years. However, I am not confident. Actually, I think there is a better chance of wining the lottery.

glenn

 

[DanishDynamite]

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

I forgot the link...here's a scenario to look at. It applies to the world. If we just use a once through cycle (load reactor with enriched uranium and then process the waste and store it), there would be 20-30 years of uranium with thousands of plants built and it is the exclusive source of electricty--not realistic. There are 104 plants in the US and about 400 worldwide built and operating over the past 50 years or so. There is no way thousands can be built quickly. If the growth rate is high, there would be uranium for hundreds of years. Add breeders in and nukes could be around supplying electricity for thousands of years. If we don't have fusion by then, we will probably go back to being hunter-gatherers.

In the US, I would like to see plants start being built now...maybe 10 reactors and then see if we could gear up to have about another 100 plants in about 30 years. However, I am not confident. Actually, I think there is a better chance of wining the lottery.

glenn

Thanks. This was my understanding as well. But geni, who I respect, made a claim which made me a bit unsure. Glad to see that he was exagerating.

So, given that nuclear fission power is close to being the wet dream of "environmentalists", why aren't there more of these plants being built as we speak?

 

[blutoski]

The problem is that there are factors other than direct risk to consider. Insurance companies have to consider can they afford to pay out should the worst happen. Historically worst case has been things like two airlines colliding over a city or massive gas explosions. 9/11 was a bit of a shock but what with one thing or another it could be covered.

Worst case nuclear disaster (total meltdown with containment failure) is as much as 2 orders of magnitude worse. Lloyd's of London has pools of capital totalling around £32 billion. It is doubtful if even combined this would be enough to pay off against such an event.

Exactly! The point is that they think it is likely they will have to pay out. In other words: they think some sort of expensive disaster is likely to happen within the lifetime of the market. Most analyses I've seen are waste material disposal accidents, rather than compromised cores, but irradiated water tables are possibly more expensive to clean up than a minor meltdown.

If the owner of a nuclear plant was so certain that a major disaster was impossible, he's confidently build one without insurance.

Nobody has.

The only organizations willing to take on the very real risk of disaster right now are governments, which have the ability to commandeer vast resources to manage cleanup, should it be necessary.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Exactly! The point is that they think it is likely they will have to pay out. In other words: they think some sort of expensive disaster is likely to happen within the lifetime of the market. Most analyses I've seen are waste material disposal accidents, rather than compromised cores, but irradiated water tables are possibly more expensive to clean up than a minor meltdown.

If the owner of a nuclear plant was so certain that a major disaster was impossible, he's confidently build one without insurance.

Utter bull. No company builds a windmill or a coal-fired plant without insurance. It is simply business as usual to do so.

Nobody has.

The only organizations willing to take on the very real risk of disaster right now are governments, which have the ability to commandeer vast resources to manage cleanup, should it be necessary.

Utter claptrap. There are lots of companies willing and able to build a safe nuclear plant. They are only hindered from doing so by woo-woo opinions which scare the administration.

 

[Hindmost]

Thanks. This was my understanding as well. But geni, who I respect, made a claim which made me a bit unsure. Glad to see that he was exagerating.

So, given that nuclear fission power is close to being the wet dream of "environmentalists", why aren't there more of these plants being built as we speak?

I would say most environmentalists around the US don't like them due to the waste. Greenpeace was certainly against them...sierra club too I believe. There is zero political support from any party here--it is probably considered political suicide of sorts. I always believed that nukes were environmentally friendly with essentially zero release. Running the diesels every now and then would be release some CO2 and soot. There are some low levels of radioactive material released as well.

The construction cost is still high as is operation and maintenance. The fuel cost is just very cheap...one million times more energy than any chemical reaction. (love that statistic) Getting ride of low level waste has gotten progressively more expensive as well. Licensing risks during construction can double the cost of a plant in the US. We also don't have a good plan in the US to get rid of spent fuel...the NIMBY rule is in force and it will hurt long term. The area in Nevada selected has been geologically stable for millions of years...it's dry and would be fine, but no one wants it around. The French have had a resonable spent fuel processing system for a long time. The technology is available.

In the US, the education around nuclear power has been poor and many teachers don't like it either. I would venture to say, if you asked a person here if a nuke plant could explode like a nuclear weapon, most would say yes. Excuse me while I shed a tear...

glenn

 

[Lonewulf]

In the US, the education around nuclear power has been poor and many teachers don't like it either. I would venture to say, if you asked a person here if a nuke plant could explode like a nuclear weapon, most would say yes. Excuse me while I shed a tear...

It's in almost every video out there, such as the K-19: The Widowmaker. The reactor will go critical and it will be just like Hiroshima! OMG!

 

[blutoski]

Utter bull. No company builds a windmill or a coal-fired plant without insurance. It is simply business as usual to do so.

Obviously. The reason is that there can be accidents.

Note: there are many projects that operate without insurance, even when big costs are involved. RAL does not insure their satellite launches. They feel they could manage the cost of risk in their profit margins rather than externally through insurance brokers, because the felt the chance of accident was very low.

Boeing's Delta 4 commercial satellite division also does not insure most launches. They're prepared to cover total losses, if necessary.

You only choose to get insurance if there's an economic justification.

Utter claptrap. There are lots of companies willing and able to build a safe nuclear plant. They are only hindered from doing so by woo-woo opinions which scare the administration.

It doesn't matter. There are no insurance companies offering to underwrite these operations - even government owned ones - because they're considered to be too big a risk.

Furthermore, I am unaware of any private companies that are willing to take on the risk of ownership - there are many that are willing to build and operate plants, of course. They are part of the normal private enterprise landscape in many countries.

NEIL and ACE provide insurance to nuclear power plant contractors to cover the contingency of breakdowns that lead to unplanned power outages (which cause an expense to the operator) without hesitation. They also provide all sorts of other insurance, just like they do for other forms of power generation. They will not, however, underwrite the risk of accident leading to irradiation outside the facility. They consider the chance of accident to high in context of the potential for destruction.

 

[Hindmost]

A worst case scenario of a melt down followed by a total containment failure is not plausible. To design for this type of scenario is unfeasible in engineering. It would be like designing a building to withstand an asteriod collision along with a tornado.

TMI actually proved the meltdown scenario assumed was not what actually occurs. The core never had a chance of melting thru the vessel etc. (china syndrome stuff) It gave us some new data--most importantly that iodine doesn't get released into the atmosphere. Past analysis assume 100% of the iodine in the core was released into the surrounding environment. Since it seeks out the thyroid, it is dangerous. At Chernobyl, several people died of thyroid cancer. Its half-life is short however.

Inherently safe fuel designs cause the fuel to expand into voids in the cladding causing the fission reaction to shutdown without operator intervention and with all coolant pumps stopped.

glenn

 

[pvt1863]

You only choose to get insurance if there's an economic justification.

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.

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.

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."

Furthermore, I am unaware of any private companies that are willing to take on the risk of ownership - there are many that are willing to build and operate plants, of course. They are part of the normal private enterprise landscape in many countries.

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.

NEIL and ACE provide insurance to nuclear power plant contractors to cover the contingency of breakdowns that lead to unplanned power outages (which cause an expense to the operator) without hesitation. They also provide all sorts of other insurance, just like they do for other forms of power generation. They will not, however, underwrite the risk of accident leading to irradiation outside the facility. They consider the chance of accident to high in context of the potential for destruction.

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.

 

[pvt1863]

Double post edited to use for next post.

A worst case scenario of a melt down followed by a total containment failure is not plausible. To design for this type of scenario is unfeasible in engineering. It would be like designing a building to withstand an asteriod collision along with a tornado.

TMI actually proved the meltdown scenario assumed was not what actually occurs. The core never had a chance of melting thru the vessel etc. (china syndrome stuff) It gave us some new data--most importantly that iodine doesn't get released into the atmosphere. Past analysis assume 100% of the iodine in the core was released into the surrounding environment. Since it seeks out the thyroid, it is dangerous. At Chernobyl, several people died of thyroid cancer. Its half-life is short however.

Inherently safe fuel designs cause the fuel to expand into voids in the cladding causing the fission reaction to shutdown without operator intervention and with all coolant pumps stopped.

glenn

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.