Nuclear Power Stations - Yes or No

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

You will typically find that the people advocating this as a solution can't demonstrate that it's cost-effective, and it indeed adds a significant cost to the already questionable economics of fission reactors. There's a world of difference between what is possible and what is financially sound and when pro-nuclear speakers slide from talking about what is cost-effective to what is possible you need to get on your guard very quickly.

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.

Salt domes (whatever they are) may have been, but civilizations have not been unfortunately. Nuclear advocates also tend to gloss right over the moral issue of leaving behind us wastes that will be dangerous long after the people who benefited from their creation are dead. Yes, our civilization does lots of things that are not in the best interests of future generations, but that doesn't make it okay to do some more.

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.

I'm not at all sure what this oft-repeated line of argument is supposed to prove. So it's small... what follows?

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.)

As I said, breeders are an extra expense which needs to be accounted for before conventional fission is a long-term prospect. Nuclear advocates tend to skate over this. They like to try to establish that conventional fission is cost-effective (which takes some doing), and then very quickly pass over the fact that if conventional fission is to be a long-term, large-scale proposition we are also going to need breeders to fuel them with all their associated problems.

I've seen some people - apparently seriously - suggest that the nuclear club should have an enforced monopoly on breeders and the rest of the world should build fission reactors and be dependant on the nuclear club for fuel for them. I can't see that being sold to the world.

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.

That's assuming we can make this technology widespread without anybody we don't like adapting it to weapons production. Also nobody ever said that breeders were the only proliferation risk, merely that they were one.

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.

That was a 62.5MW experimental breeder designed to do exactly that stunt. It has not been demonstrated that this scales up to 1000+MW reactors, although it's a promising demonstration, since the US government killed that project. The fast breeder designs actually in use today do not have this safety feature to the best of my knowledge.

 

[GlennB]

Modular ... French ...

Finnish new generation reactor

... expensive ... slow

 

[SatanicSheep]

The financial debacle that was the Trojan power plant really soured me on nuclear power.

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

I won't point fingers at eco friendly or pro nuke people. I'll just say that I trust nuclear power more than the clowns who manage it.

 

[Fiona]

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.

I do not really see that as an answer, tyr_13.

See Hindmost is arguing that we do NOT already have a lot of waste. In fact it is a core plank of his argument that there is very little.

Very little is not none and yes, we already seem to have a problem. That does not seem to me to imply we should make that problem bigger.

And again, it seems to be central to his argument that technology will get better and what is now low grade radioactive material can be turned into useable high grade material. That may or may not be true (there seems to be some dispute) but it is essential to the case in favour, so far as I can tell. Unfortunately it seems to blow a hole in your second point

 

[Furcifer]

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.

It seems like a diverse energy profile is what is in order. I haven't researched LK's claim there are few natural gas plants in Australia. A combined cycle HRSG plant gets considerable efficiency with very little environmental impact. I'd be surprised if AU doesn't utilize this to the fullest extent over the next 15 years.

 

[Roboramma]

Fiona,

Just to be clear, you are suggesting that we should be careful with nuclear power because at some point in the future (given that it lasts a long time) someone may use the waste products to build weapons, correct?

 

[Belz...]

NIMBYs, for one.

But that's not an inherent problem of nuclear waste. It's because people think it's a problem, rather.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Which is funny, because waste from coal is dangerous forever, not just a long time. Silly toxicity and all.

 

[lionking]

It seems like a diverse energy profile is what is in order. I haven't researched LK's claim there are few natural gas plants in Australia. A combined cycle HRSG plant gets considerable efficiency with very little environmental impact. I'd be surprised if AU doesn't utilize this to the fullest extent over the next 15 years.

The reason there are relatively few natural gas plants is simply because black and brown coal is so plentiful and cheap. There are certainly on the agenda now, but nuclear plants are not for what I think are irrational, political reasons.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Just to be clear, you are suggesting that we should be careful with nuclear power because at some point in the future (given that it lasts a long time) someone may use the waste products to build weapons, correct?

Partly: I am also saying that even if nobody steals it; or it cannot be made into weapons there is still a danger: there is the fact that it is dangerous and that in circumstances of war or social breakdown it cannot be guaranteed to stay where it is and intact

 

[Fiona]

Which is funny, because waste from coal is dangerous forever, not just a long time. Silly toxicity and all.

You may well be right, Belz. Care to explain what you mean?

 

[Roboramma]

Partly: I am also saying that even if nobody steals it; or it cannot be made into weapons there is still a danger: there is the fact that it is dangerous and that in circumstances of war or social breakdown it cannot be guaranteed to stay where it is and intact

Okay, but if it no one wanted to steal it or use it to make weapons, why couldn't it be guaranteed to stay where it is and intact?

I'm not arguing here, just trying to understand what the concern is. Is nuclear waste valuable in some way? Or does its storage require some sort of upkeep that you're worried would be forgotten about in those sorts of circumstances?

 

[Fiona]

As I said I know nothing about this Robaramma: it is very possible I am worrying for no good reason and I am happy to be set straight

The reason that I do not think it can be guaranteed to stay where it is put and intact, is because wars and revolutions (and earthquakes and heavy rain and all kinds of things) cause major disruption and major damage. In desperate conflicts we already know that people can decide that any action which will shorten a war can be justified. So as an example, can you tell me why it is impossible for an enemy in war to bomb open a storage facility buried 15 metres down in clay? Can you tell me why such an attack would not lead to the scattering of radioactive material across a very large area and why wind would not make that scattering unpredictable?. Can you show me why a government at war would not decide that this "very small" amount of material would primarily kill or maim the enemy and would not have significant adverse impact in their own country (being far way): and could not be wrong about that? Or could be right but why the consequences woulld not be the same as in hiroshoma in the long term?

Can you tell me why we could not have desperate insurgents, perhaps of a suicidal mindset, who would not be prepared to attack such a storage facility by any imaginable means (fly a plane into them perhaps- I haven't the imagination really) with same result

Can you tell me why, over the course of 300 years, it is not possible for a government which currently seems secure could not be utterly overthrown and a country thrown into total chaos whereby the records of where and what such facilities are could not be lost? Perhaps we can detect radiation using technology: but in a country fallen into lawlessness who will do that? who will ensure that whoever does it will not use what they find to some purpose which threatens us all?

It is 300 years, Robaramma. I am told that we have changed the climate in less time than that to quite a significant extent. We did not mean to. But does this not say we are not great at predicting the impact of what we do? At least for global warming there is the excuse we did not know because the problem had not arisen before: but my concern is based on things that have happened before: in fact they happen all the time.

And while this technology is desirable if it truly can reverse the climate change we have brought about I do not see that is certain: it can arrest it perhaps: but meantime what changes are still to work through? what effects if any will those changes have on our "safe and stable" regions over 300 years?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

What are the obstacles to US nuclear industry developing, implementing, the techniques the French use for fuel disposa/recycling?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

The reason that I do not think it can be guaranteed ... snip the rest ...

Fiona, you can't bubble wrap the world. If that is your standard, then it is best to assume the fetal position and not leave the house.

The process of risk identification and neutralization is not fixed, it is iterative. If you have any faith in science and the scientific method applied, then there is ample opportunity for better and improved risk reduction and improved processes for each of these concerns. For example, don't store nuclear waste on fault lines.

Wars that dismantle society to the point that the waste is lost track of are such an outlier as to be an exercise in paranoia. That level of immense, and far broad reaching a war brings with it a mountain of problems for us all that render the nuclear waste storage problem microscopic in comparison. Given our security level as of this morning, the nuclear waste seems a risk to our high level of comfort and infrastructure, as well as social cohesion. With the utter breakdown of social structure, the risks of significantly more mundane and simple issues force that risk management problem into the basement until the orderly nature of social structure recovers.

DR

 

[Belz...]

You may well be right, Belz. Care to explain what you mean?

Coal plants produce toxic waste. Lots more of it than nuclear plants. And toxic material remains toxic forever, whereas radioactive waste eventually stops being radioactive (for all intents and purposes).

Besides, coal plants also produce radioactive waste:

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

 

[tyr_13]

I do not really see that as an answer, tyr_13.

See Hindmost is arguing that we do NOT already have a lot of waste. In fact it is a core plank of his argument that there is very little.

Very little is not none and yes, we already seem to have a problem. That does not seem to me to imply we should make that problem bigger.

And again, it seems to be central to his argument that technology will get better and what is now low grade radioactive material can be turned into useable high grade material. That may or may not be true (there seems to be some dispute) but it is essential to the case in favour, so far as I can tell. Unfortunately it seems to blow a hole in your second point

Usable high grade material for reactors is not the same as usable high grade material for weapons. To be clear, I was talking about dirty bombs and not fission bombs.

What Hindmost is saying is perfectly compatible with what I'm saying because we are using relative terms. If we go with waste recycling and breeders, then we have already created most of the waste we are ever going to create. So we already have 'a lot' in terms of how much there could be. Hindmost is saying we a a little on a different scale. That is, that the physical amount and effort needed store or manage that amount makes it a little.

Otherwise DR is making good points as well. In figuring out how to make things better, we also learn how to make things worse. This has always been the case and it is the case with nuclear power. The thing is, how can you complain that there will be waste for a few hundred years when coal is already doing that and already putting those toxins and carbon into the air? I don't think anyone is saying that nuclear is a perfect solution. Perfect solutions don't exist though.

 

[richardm]

The French appear to have decided that this stuff is to be buried in clay to a depth of about 15 metres[which could be susceptible to being bombed up]

the stuff they're considering putting into that repository is Low Level Waste, which isn't (for the most part) highly radioactive, and which is stored at pretty low stocking density to boot. A concentrated bombing campaign could liberate some of this material, but it wouldn't be a cataclysmic release - not like scattering spent fuel rods around the countryside.

Things that are highly radioactive should get a much more secure storage option - like, for example, disused Anhydrite mines for the UK which are 1500 feet down in solid rock and in France they're considering something in Granite, but I'm not quite sure what. (Quite a lot of the plans haven't gone ahead, mind you).

So people aren't quite as casual about the really dicey stuff as it may seem. If you've not read about the plans the Americans had to warn future generations 10,000 years hence about the dangers of nuclear waste storage sites, they're worth checking out since they're rather interesting. (Check the PDFs at the end, too).

 

[Cuddles]

So as an example, can you tell me why it is impossible for an enemy in war to bomb open a storage facility buried 15 metres down in clay?

Bunker buster bombs generally penetrate on the order of a couple of metres. The most extreme ones get to around 6m. If you're looking at the kind of war where people are using bombs big enough to not only penetrate a 15m deep storage facility, but also with enough explosives to send significant amounts of material back up through that 15m of ground, the existence of nuclear waste is really the least of your problems.

Or could be right but why the consequences woulld not be the same as in hiroshoma in the long term?

Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate quite nicely how people's fears over things nuclear are mostly extremely exaggerated. The cancer rate is far lower than people expect, and unless you were actually there at the time of the blast or very shorty after, there's essentially no increased risk at all.

Can you tell me why we could not have desperate insurgents, perhaps of a suicidal mindset, who would not be prepared to attack such a storage facility by any imaginable means (fly a plane into them perhaps- I haven't the imagination really) with same result

See above. The most powerful bombs specifically designed to penetrate the ground could not cause a serious problem to a facility that far underground. Flying a plane into the ground results in a broken plane and a rather small dent in the ground. Incidentally, flying a plane into the concrete reinforcement around a nuclear power plant results in a broken plane and essentially no damage to the concrete at all. That's actually been tested.

Can you tell me why, over the course of 300 years, it is not possible for a government which currently seems secure could not be utterly overthrown and a country thrown into total chaos whereby the records of where and what such facilities are could not be lost? Perhaps we can detect radiation using technology: but in a country fallen into lawlessness who will do that? who will ensure that whoever does it will not use what they find to some purpose which threatens us all?

But again, this is the same kind of worry as the war involving bombs bigger than anything that has ever been used. If you're already postulating a post-apocalyptic scenario, why would a bit of waste stored in an out of the way place be your primary concern?

It is 300 years, Robaramma. I am told that we have changed the climate in less time than that to quite a significant extent. We did not mean to. But does this not say we are not great at predicting the impact of what we do? At least for global warming there is the excuse we did not know because the problem had not arisen before

Bolding mine. Exactly. No one could even conceive of the idea that humans could affect the environment. But clearly people are aware of the problems nuclear waste could cause, and are actively trying to come up with solutions. The situations are not even remotely comparable.

but my concern is based on things that have happened before: in fact they happen all the time.

What happens all the time? Massive wars involving the biggest bombs ever created? Terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities? The collapse of civilisation as we know it leading to people forgetting about radiation? When has anything you suggested actually happened?

And while this technology is desirable if it truly can reverse the climate change

Actually, climate change is not, or at least shouldn't be, the major factor for nuclear. Far more important is the simple fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. No matter which estimates you believe, we will run out of fossil fuels well before we run out of nuclear fuel. Even if you ignore any issues with climate change, pollution, and anything else, nuclear is pretty much the only option we currently have for providing baseload power in the medium term.

 

[Furcifer]

Even if you ignore any issues with climate change, pollution, and anything else, nuclear is pretty much the only option we currently have for providing baseload power in the medium term.

What's medium term? 50-100 years? That seems about right.