Nuclear Power Stations - Yes or No

[rjh01]

Before Australia builds a power plant it should

a. Be able to extract uranium from the rock.
b. build a uranium enrichment plant and sell the uranium.

Once it has done that then build a plant.

An alternative is to use uranium 233 made from Thorium. A much better option.

 

[WildCat]

Oh, well that totally explains why the nuclear industry can't get insured ... Oh, wait you're stuffing a strawman. Are the coal suppliers buying insurance actuaries or could it be one reactor accident could cost more than all the power the nuclear industry has generated?

The costs are exaggerated because of irrational fears of nuclear power. The worst nuclear accident in US history cost exactly zero lives.

What happens when terrorists attack a coal fired power plant?

For the insurance company, nothing. Acts of war are generally excepted from insurance payouts.

If they blow up their homemade nuke next to it does it send out a massive fallout cloud 500x the size of the original bomb?

Homemade nuke? If terrorists start making homemade nukes reactors are the least of our problems.

If nuclear supporters are so sure of their safety and security prowess why don't they take the full burden of risk? I'm sorry but if you can't get insured there is a reason and that reason hasn't changed in 50 years.

Elaborate on what you mean by "the full burden of risk".

As a matter of fact terrorism has made ever nuclear facility a huge target for their first nuke.

Doubtful. A far more likely target would be a port city like New York, Los Angeles, or Seattle. Far easier to do and far more damage to be done. I doubt nuclear plants are anywhere near the top of the list.

The insurance problem has nothing to do with NIMBY either it entirely has to do with reactor safety. How many lower order accidents and near misses do you know about? Can you name at least twenty of them? How large and deep was the unknown crack in the Davis-Besse reactor vessel? How many months did they knowingly operate the reactor after the problem was discovered? If you don't know the answer you need to do some research with a critical eye.

What do you think would have happened with the crack, worst case scenario? Do you think nuke plants can explode like an atomic bomb?

If you're not going to read the link I previously posted at least look at the titles of the articles in these link. Does any of it ring a bell, if not you really need to do some reading.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/sabotage_and_attacks_on_reactors/

Here's some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident

From 1880 to 1910, mine accidents claimed thousands of fatalities. The U.S. Bureau of Mines was created in 1910 to investigate accidents, advise industry, conduct production and safety research, and teach courses in accident prevention, first aid, and mine rescue. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Acts of 1969 and 1977 set further safety standards for the industry. Where annual mining deaths had numbered more than 1,000 a year in the early part of the 20th century, they decreased to an average of about 500 in the late 1950s, and to 93 during the 1990s.[13] In addition to deaths, many thousands more are injured (an average of 21,351 injuries per year between 1991 and 1999), but overall there has been a downward trend in deaths and injuries.

And that's not including deaths from black lung disease of miners nor the contribution of CO2 and other emissions to the atmosphere. Nor deaths related to transporting coal.

As for track records Timothy Treadwell has a perfect track record living with Alaskan Grizzly Bears for 13 years and then they ate him and his girlfriend.

Yes, nuclear power is just like living with wild brown bears!

 

[Fiona]

Hindmost, if you can be bothered can you tell me how we get rid of the waste please

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What happens when terrorists attack a coal fired power plant? If they blow up their homemade nuke next to it does it send out a massive fallout cloud 500x the size of the original bomb?

Yes... actually... that's exactly what will happen.

Sparton produces first yellowcake from Chinese coal ash

Sparton Resources announced that it had successfully produced a small quantity of yellowcake (U3O8) from fly ash from a Chinese coal-fired power plant.

The uranium extraction test work is being conducted by Sparton's processing engineering consulting firm Lyntek Inc of Denver, Colorado, USA. The test to produce yellowcake used 6.1 kg of mixed fly ash produced at the Xiaolongtang power plant. The ash averaged some 0.4 pounds of U308 per tonne of ash (160 parts per million uranium).

Lyntek indicated that the material contains some 0.46 pounds of U308 per tonne of ash (160-180 parts per million uranium), suggesting a total of some 2085 tonnes U3O8 (1770 tU) are contained in the Xiaolongtang ash piles.

As for track records Timothy Treadwell has a perfect track record living with Alaskan Grizzly Bears for 13 years and then they ate him and his girlfriend.

If Timothy and his girlfriend had treated the bears exactly the same way nuclear engineers treat reactors, they would have built a six foot thick concrete dome over the bears and they'd still be alive today (the bears'd be in poor shape though).

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hindmost, if you can be bothered can you tell me how we get rid of the waste please

Breeder reactors and neutron deactivation.

 

[Kestrel]

Hindmost, if you can be bothered can you tell me how we get rid of the waste please

It's a three step process:

1. Let the waste cool down for a few years in a water pool near the reactor.

2. Reprocess to extract material such as PU-239 that can be reused as reactor fuel.

3. Store the remainder where it can continue to decay naturally.

Step 1 is currently being done.

Step 2 is widely regarded as impossible in the US, but France has been doing it for years.

Step 3 is made much easier because we took out the PU-239 in Step 2.

Now can you explain how we are going to remove all that excess CO² from the atmosphere?

 

[Fiona]

No kestrel I can't. Nor am I committed either way in this debate. But I had understood that the waste is dangerous for a very long time. If that is true then this does not seem like a solution to me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's funny that you are acknowledge the existence in the third paragraph of your post but completely ignore them in the first. Your claim is based on fear and superstition. It's no different from saying "gas stations are only good for making napalm" or "video cameras are only good for making child porn".

It's based on the fact that there are only a handful in the world and many of the nations that once had them have shut them down permanently and are not planning on building more. You'll also notice that with the sole exception of Japan the people who built them are nuclear weapons club members. That's because if you're after cost-effective power conventional fission is cheaper, even with all its associated problems. You pay extra for a fast breeder if you want the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons, and you're willing to put up with the inherent risks of producing 1000MW or so of power in a space the size of a barrel, which will dismantle itself very energetically if the liquid sodium coolant system screws up.

The downside risk of nuclear proliferation is also a non-trivial concern. I would be against allowing anyone but the existing nuclear powers to operate such a facility, which means most of the world is going to need a different energy solution.

If you think that breeder reactors are only good for making bombs, then maybe you should never be trusted with one?

This statement is nonsensical.

Global uranium reserves are sufficient to provide all of earths energy needs for roughly 8,500 years, BTW. And that's not counting thorium supplies.

That's the pie in the sky figure, and then you've added another helping of thorium pie in the sky. If that's the figure you want to focus on, global solar reserves are sufficient to provide all of Earth's energy needs for billions of years.

France has.

Nuclear power advocates have this myth that nuclear power is absolutely wonderful and it's only fear, ignorance and NIMBYism that stops us from entering a glorious era of free energy. In other words everyone is irrational but them, and they are persecuted prophets.

The fact is that when governments do an even-handed appraisal of the pros and cons of nuclear power, particularly fast breeder technology, they usually end up figuring out that they are better off putting their money elsewhere.

I'm not saying there aren't specific situations where nuclear power is the best solution, but as a solution to the global need for electricity existing nuclear technologies are inferior to existing renewables overall, and pie in the sky technology from any camp has to prove itself before it's worth discussing.

 

[Cynic]

But I had understood that the waste is dangerous for a very long time. If that is true then this does not seem like a solution to me.

Needles are dangerous -- if you sit on them. The key is not to sit on them. Radioactive material is dangerous if you're near it. The key is to not be near it.

 

[Fiona]

Possibly. But that rather depends on how much control we have and that is definitely influenced by how much time were are talking about

 

[linusrichard]

Yes nukes please as soon as possible. What will we do with the waste? Shoot it into the sun, bottom of the ocean, who cares? We could put it in Times Square and still be better off, on average, than we are right now, burning rocks for energy.

 

[Hindmost]

Hindmost, if you can be bothered can you tell me how we get rid of the waste please

This is obviously an issue, but not insurmountable. The amount of waste generated is very small overall--U235 is only about 5% of the reactor fuel and about 4% gets fissioned. The majority of radioactive waste products will decay away within about 300 years. The long lived waste and the transuranics like plutonium are a bigger problem. The plutonium can be recycled back into existing reactors in what is called MOX fuel and burned. France does this successfully. It extracts more power out of fuel. In addition, the plutonium and other transuranics can be put into liquid metal fast breeder reactors and burned while breeding more plutonium for other reactors.

The useless fission product waste needs to be stored for about 300 years. There are several processes to consolidate the waste. My favorite is to vitrify the waste into glass and store it in stainless steel canisters. Where to store it permanently is another question...salt domes are favored as they have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

France has a complete program for fuel from start to finish and does the following: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html This is an excerpt related to reprocessing.

Used fuel from the French reactors and from other countries is sent to Areva NC's La Hague plant in Normandy for reprocessing. This treatment extracts 99.9% of the plutonium and uranium for recycling, leaving 3% of the used fuel material as high-level wastes which are vitrified and stored there for later disposal. Typical input today is 3.7% enriched used fuel from PWR and BWR reactors with burn-up to 45 GWd/t, after cooling for four years

Right now, the US just stores old fuel bundles in spent fuel pools or in dry storage casks onsite as fuels pools are full. Essentially, it is all a stop gap. Ironically, the US pioneered fuel reprocessing back in the 60s.

The answer is not easy and certainly not ideal. Very few things in the energy or any heavy industry are. Compared with the waste generated from the oil, coal and chemistry industries, I think nuclear looks favorable. The high level nuclear waste from all the plants in the US would fit on a football field to a depth of about 10 feet (3m) or so.

glenn

 

[Fiona]

It is not easy to follow this. I see that you say that the percentage of radioactive waste is very small: and that most of this will decay in 300 years. I am getting the impression that you consider the French system is quite good: but your link seems to suggest that they have 117,000 m³ of waste which currently has no home. This is relatively short lived waste expected to decay in 30 years or so. I think the link means this has been generated since 2004. As it is older waste it is possible less is generated now with more efficient generators, and I confess I cannot envisage what that amount looks like: if you tell me that will cover a football pitch to a depth of 3 metres I believe you: and if you tell me it will cover Wales to a depth of a mile I will believe that as well. This is the level of ignorance some of us have, and I appreciate it must be frustrating.

The French appear to have decided that this stuff is to be buried in clay to a depth of about 15 metres, if I read your link correctly. Nobody wants it but France is a very centralised state and I think the government will get its way in the end there. But 30 years is manageable I think: at least it is better than 300.

I see you believe there are better solutions. You mention salt domes and say they are very stable. I do not know what they are or where they are. But I am very conscious that 300 years takes us back to 1709: the world looked nothing like it does today in 1709. I am trying to think of a country which has not undergone major political and military upheaval in that period and it is not coming to me easily. All of europe is out because the world wars were so extensive and because we had the french revolution and the napoleonic wars and who knows what all in that time: America had the war of independence and the civil war at least. Partition in India is much more recent and ...well I need not go on to china and vietnam, I am sure.

If we need to store truly dangerous material with any possibility of military use (perhaps the LLW does not have any such capability, I do not know) for 300 years or more then I do not see where we can put it and be sure it will be safe in that time scale.

This may well be a groundless fear and there may well be answers to those concerns. But the world turns and 300 years is not nothing. I am not so concerned as others about accidents at plants (though I think that a good safety record now will not necessarily be a good safety record once there are more of these things and we are more blase about them: and that is also not to be taken lightly): and cost is a consideration which may or may not go in favour of this option.

But I see many different figures thrown about with regard to how much of this stuff we have or can get and how long it is likely to meet our needs: in the absence of real certainty I am having trouble weighing the need for peace and stablity (including geographical stability given what is arguably a changing climate) somewhere for 300 years against a fix which might only give us 80. Because I don't think 300 years of peace is very likely anywhere. And in truth we would need to have it in many places, not just one.

I suppose it can be argued that cheap and plentiful energy will make war etc less likely: but I do not see any sign that the world's resources are currently becoming more equitably distributed; and I do not see any reason to suppose that more energy will suddenly make that happen.

Darth has said that I have fallen for the scare mongers and that may well be true: but at present this seems to me to require a change in human behaviour of a kind I cannot find plausible.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm working at a Co-Gen plant, pretty clean stuff burning natural gas. The new LM 6000's are a marvel of modern technology (check out the thermodynamic curves)

Anyone one seen these? Modular Nuclear Reactors

If Australia has coal reserves and no natural gas, then clean coal is probably the best investment over the next 25 years. Use the cheapest energy you can and let the others figure nuke out. Be smart, conserve and boost efficiency in the mean time. Consider a few 5000 MW low pressure reactors, wind turbine farms and some solar.

 

[rockinkt]

edited due to my error

 

[daenku32]

Anyone willing to challenge my claim that globally speaking new nuclear power installations are being done at more than adequate pace (as compared to other alternatives)?

 

[Hindmost]

It's based on the fact that there are only a handful in the world and many of the nations that once had them have shut them down permanently and are not planning on building more. You'll also notice that with the sole exception of Japan the people who built them are nuclear weapons club members. That's because if you're after cost-effective power conventional fission is cheaper, even with all its associated problems. You pay extra for a fast breeder if you want the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons, and you're willing to put up with the inherent risks of producing 1000MW or so of power in a space the size of a barrel, which will dismantle itself very energetically if the liquid sodium coolant system screws up.

The downside risk of nuclear proliferation is also a non-trivial concern. I would be against allowing anyone but the existing nuclear powers to operate such a facility, which means most of the world is going to need a different energy solution.

snip...


That's the pie in the sky figure, and then you've added another helping of thorium pie in the sky. If that's the figure you want to focus on, global solar reserves are sufficient to provide all of Earth's energy needs for billions of years.



Nuclear power advocates have this myth that nuclear power is absolutely wonderful and it's only fear, ignorance and NIMBYism that stops us from entering a glorious era of free energy. In other words everyone is irrational but them, and they are persecuted prophets.

The fact is that when governments do an even-handed appraisal of the pros and cons of nuclear power, particularly fast breeder technology, they usually end up figuring out that they are better off putting their money elsewhere.

I'm not saying there aren't specific situations where nuclear power is the best solution, but as a solution to the global need for electricity existing nuclear technologies are inferior to existing renewables overall, and pie in the sky technology from any camp has to prove itself before it's worth discussing.

I guess we have been through this before, but I have to inform others.

First, the reason breeder reactors have not been developed is because they have not been needed. The once through fuel cycle is cheaper and since uranium has been plentiful and cheap, breeders were abandoned. Any long term use of nuclear power will require breeders to extend the useful like of the planet's uranium. (initially, the first plants built were breeders as the amount of uranium available was unknown.)

Commercial breeders would not bomb builders due to contamination of the fuel during the cycle. It would be stupid to build a giant commerciall plant to make pu for weapons as it would require new technology to build the weapons.

To breed pu for weapons, one needs is a small uranium pile, a bunch of very pure graphite and you can make pu for weapons. Bomb material must be relatively pure pu239 and therefore the reactors must operate at low burnup. A commercial breeder would not make weapons grade pu. The US and France and others already have nuclear weapons and had them without using commercial breeder technology--production plants specifically designed to produce plutonium. The US can build all the breeder plants we need...we already have thousands of nukes. Pakistan built weapons by enriching uranium--no breeder necessary. The proliferation game is just nonsense.

Now, about the 1000MW plant dismantling itself if the sodium cooling is lost...this is just wrong. Completely wrong. EBRII performed loss of sodium coolant testing that proved the inherent safety of the system. The sodium was dumped and the fuel remained intact and was able to stop the reaction and maintain integrity. A loss of sodium accident is unlikely as the sodium is at low pressure anyhow.

glenn

 

[tyr_13]

If we need to store truly dangerous material with any possibility of military use (perhaps the LLW does not have any such capability, I do not know) for 300 years or more then I do not see where we can put it and be sure it will be safe in that time scale.

I've snipped a lot but this seems to be a core argument and one I feel I can address. The genie is already out of the bottle on that one. First off, we already have a lot of the waste and not building new plants will do nothing for the stuff already created. If someone wanted to weaponize it, for something like a dirty bomb, there is already plenty. Second, it would be a poor choice to weaponize compared to many much more common chemicals such as chlorine.

 

[linusrichard]

As for track records Timothy Treadwell has a perfect track record living with Alaskan Grizzly Bears for 13 years and then they ate him and his girlfriend.

Let's extend that metaphor a bit, eh? If nuclear power is like living with bears who eat two people every thirteen years, then coal power is like living with vicious weasels who kill and eat a couple of people every week. Do you want to live with the bears? Of course not. Do you want to live with the bears compared to the weasels?

 

[arthwollipot]

If Australia has coal reserves and no natural gas, then clean coal is probably the best investment over the next 25 years. Use the cheapest energy you can and let the others figure nuke out. Be smart, conserve and boost efficiency in the mean time. Consider a few 5000 MW low pressure reactors, wind turbine farms and some solar.

Australia has coal, natural gas and uranium. Also lots of wind, lots of coastline and a vast almost-empty desert that is baked by the sun a lot.