New nuclear power is going to be very expensive—no matter where the plants are built. The most detailed and transparent recent cost study on the new generation of plants put the cost of power at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour —triple current U.S. electricity rates (see “Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power”).
Some have suggested that other countries will fare better—in spite of Finland’s nightmarish nuclear troubles (see “Satanic nukes? Finnish plant’s cost overruns to $6.66 billion” and below). They should read the story in today’s Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s largest English-language newspaper:
The only company bidding, the Russian-Turkish JSC Atomstroyexport-JSC Inter Rao Ues-Park Teknik joint venture, offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Current electricity prices in the country vary between 4 cents and 14 cents per kWh.
[Wholesale prices in Turkey are 7.9 cents per kWh.]
That gives new meaning to the word “turkey.”
The company apparently offered a revised price “Immediately after the envelope was opened ... that better reflected current market prices” (i.e. the global recession and collapse in commodity prices). But another English language news source, Hurriyet Daily News, reports today:
The tender for Turkey’s first nuclear tender is likely to be cancelled due to the high price offer and a shift in the location of the plant from the south of the country to the northern Black Sea region, Vatan daily reported on Wednesday.
Turkey’s state-run power company, TETAS will submit a “negative” report for the price bid in the nuclear tender and submit it to cabinet for approval, the daily said.
The consortium, formed by Russia’s state-run Atomstroyexport, Inter RAO and Turkish Park Teknik had offered 21.16 cents kWh for the construction and management of nuclear power plant on Monday. The consortium however revised its initial price offer in another letter, but it was returned as such a move is not allowed under tender law.
This should not really come as a shock to anyone. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” And in a December 31 story, Time buried in the penultimate paragraph :
Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.
A Moody’s analysis from last May put the cost of power from new nukes at over 15 cents per kWh (see here [PDF]).
To repeat, new nuclear power is going to be very expensive—no matter where the plants are built.
And that point is underscored by a lengthy article in the current Washington Monthly, “Bad Reactors” (don’t miss the sidebar on Sub-prime Nuclear Loans). The article details Finland’s nightmare experience with its nuclear plant, especially the containment building, which was “lined with a solid layer of steel that was crisscrossed with ropy welds containment vessel” where someone had scrawled the word Titanic:
These marks are the last remaining hints of the problems that have plagued this thick outer shell, the last line of defense in case of a meltdown. The steel liner was hand forged using outdated plans by a Polish subcontractor, which had no prior nuclear experience. As a result, the holes for piping were cut in the wrong spots, and the gaps along the weld joints were too wide. Entire sections had to be ripped apart and rebuilt. And the containment liner is not unique. Virtually every stage of the construction process has been dogged by similar woes, from the nine-foot-thick foundation slab (the concrete was mixed with too much water, making it weaker than had been called for in the plans) to the stainless steel pipes that feed water through the reactor core (they had to be recast because the metal was the wrong consistency).
To date, more than 2,200 “quality deficiencies” have been detected, according to the Finnish nuclear authority, STUK. Largely as a result, the project, which was supposed to be completed in 2009, is three years behind schedule and is expected to cost $6.2 billion, 50 percent more than the original estimate. And the numbers could keep climbing. “There are still some very challenging phases ahead,” says Petteri Tiippana, STUK’s assistant director for projects and operational safety. “Things will have to go extremely well if those responsible for building the project are to hit the new targets.”
And what did this mean for Finland?
... the reactor won’t be completed before 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires. To meet its targets, between now and then Finland will have to buy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of credits through the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. In the meantime, because the country expected the reactor to deliver a bounty of energy and didn’t pursue other options, it’s facing a severe electricity shortage and will have to import even more from abroad, which will drive up power bills. Elfi, a consortium of Finnish heavy industries, has calculated that the project delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users.
This would be the story of the tortoise and the hare, I think, with energy efficiency and renewables in the role of the tortoise:
Because residents believed the new reactor in Olkiluoto would drastically cut emissions, there was little effort to promote renewable energy or boost efficiency, with the result that the country is now lagging behind its neighbors. Despite its long, windswept coast, Finland has less wind power capacity than any central European state except the tiny, landlocked countries of Luxembourg and Switzerland. It also ranks near the bottom on energy efficiency, and its record on greenhouse gas emissions is dismal: between 1990 and 2006 (the most recent year for which data is available) the nation’s carbon output leapt by ten million tons a year, or 13 percent, one of the largest spikes in any developed nation. This means that to meet the European Union goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, Finland will have to either resort to austerity measures or shell out hundreds of millions more dollars for emissions credits.
“We concentrated so much on nuclear that we lost sight of everything else,” says Oras Tynkynnen, a climate policy adviser in the Finnish prime minister’s office. “And nuclear has failed to deliver. It has turned out to be a costly gamble for Finland, and for the planet.
Precisely.
First comes efficiency, efficiency, efficiency and then come renewables, and once you’ve tried everything else twice as hard as you ever thought possible, then and only then should you consider the the really expensive options that need a lot of technological advances, like nuclear and coal with carbon capture and storage (see “An introduction to the core climate solutions”).
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Comments
View as Flat
Atomicrod Posted 5:05 pm
31 Jan 2009
Thank you for the useful post documenting some of the actions that must be avoided if one is going to produce power reliably and economically with any capital intensive new production facility.
In order to make a go in a competitive industry, you have site the facility in the right location, hire competent workers, provide them with complete, workable designs, purchase the right material, obtain the right permissions at the right time, monitor quality, keep an eye on the competitive landscape, and keep the project on schedule and on budget.
Most of those statements hold true no matter what the technology is, even if you are simply attempting to make already efficient buildings more efficient.
It is pretty easy to be a technology critic if you have spent your career in policy making and writing research papers about other people's efforts. It is also pretty easy to provide seductive advice when you will not be held accountable when the lights or the heater cannot be switched on when necessary or when factories have to routinely interrupt production when the weather changes.
Whether or not you choose to accept this reality, however, there are some extremely competent people out there whose professional experiences are far different from yours. At least some of them will have more positive experiences with some of the proposed ways to capture the useful heat energy that comes from atomic fission.
If the people actually in the game who have responsibilities to serve actual people are not asking for much help other than to let them go about their business in a reasonably efficient manner - the proper response would be to cheer them on and hope that they do not encounter any show stopping obstacles that could have been avoided. Asking real producers to wait until all else has failed is NOT a good strategy. Even for competent people, implementing any kind of major technology is a huge undertaking that requires doing a whole lot of homework and making some intelligent investments years before the first kilowatt can be supplied to meet customer demand.
One difference between you and I is that I am not satisfied with the way that the inevitable customer demand for power is being met TODAY. If you do not like burning coal, oil, and natural gas, you KNOW that we have to build reliable new production facilities and cannot rely on conservation and renewables. That path simply locks us in to continued dependence on billions of tons of coal each year, plus trillions of cubic feet of natural gas even if the totals never increase or even manage to eek out some slow decrements as efficiency encouraged by ever increasing prices and rapidly depleting supplies kicks in.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights (on the web since 1995)
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast (2006)
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. (est. Sept. 1993)
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:12 pm
31 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:33 am
01 Feb 2009
To quote one of your heroes, Reagan, "Trust but verify."
Sorry, no more nuclear priesthood cloistered behind national security excuses need apply. The huge burden of nuclear waste hangs over nuclear power "bidness" as usual like a dark cloud, investors don't want their cash washed away in another Chernobyl (or three-mile island)-like incident.
You will no doubt claim that any Chernobyl-like incident couldn't happen here? It doesn't have to. Any nuclear power disaster anywhere in the world will bankrupt any new nuclear power project in more responsible nations that still operate (at least partially) under the rule of law.
21 cents per kwh? Is that with ot without waste processimg, transportation, and storage costs (for 10,000 years), decommisioning costs, and insurance? Without, no doubt.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 4:33 am
01 Feb 2009
"Just trust us, we're the experts" is not the most compelling response to serious critiques of one's favorite technology, particularly when so much rides on its success or failure, and for so many people. More substance and less camouflage please, or get comfortable with being ignored.
I cannot expect you to know much about me or about how I communicate with people about nuclear power, but please understand that I cannot put everything into a single comment response to a post. If you want to learn more about the substance of what I talk about, please feel free to read some of the material on the sites that I pointed to. With the exception of a few guest columns on the old Atomic Insights - before moving to a blog format - I take personal responsibility for the information and stand ready to answer questions. (You can glean that from the comment stream.)
I am not an "expert" on atomic energy, but I know a few of us that are working toward that status - we might not reach it before we die, but we are trying.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 4:53 am
01 Feb 2009
The regulatory maze creates fabulous expense, and delay, before anything ever happens. The overall effect is outright "obstruction", rather than regulation.
Reactor designs should be standardized, and substantially mass-produced. Much of the expense is in manufacturing custom-designed, one-off plants.
It certainly appears to me that the primary explanation for the extreme expense of nuclear power during the last 30 years is that we have adopted a policy to minimize & marginalize use of the technology.
It is possible that a portion of the expense-escalation (and regulatory-obstruction) in the early years was in aid of the hope that fusion power would emerge as a greatly improved version of nuclear energy.
I am far from sure why fusion technology has proven so elusive & unattainable ... but the fact that fission methods appeared to languish as a matter of policy certainly suggests that fusion could be in the same boat.
If we do decide to go after nuclear energy in a big way, look for costs to fall like a rock.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 5:55 am
01 Feb 2009
Yeah, radioactive waste is bad news.
My 8th grade science teacher slipped me a programmed-learning text on nuclear physics, which was terrific, then late in high school the ill-fated Washington Public Power Supply System (greatest bond-failure in history, at the time) launch an ambitious nuclear plant construction agenda.
WHOOPS, as it's fondly known, considered siting a plant on the Olympic Peninsula near us. In the 2-year 20 credit Chem-Phys class, we took up the study of our new prospective neighbor. WHOOPS sent representatives to shmooz us little scientists.
Out of high school, I joined the Navy Nuclear Power Program, and became a nuke plant operator.
The Navy builds a prototype (or several) for all its proposed plant-designs. Ya know, we don't even build a new kind of chocolate icecream factory, without building a pilot-plant ... much less a new kind of coal-fired generating plant.
Prototypes & pilots are de rigueur throughout industry, so what's with all these experimental nuke designs being built as production versions all over the globe? (Navy prototypes are not infrequently the only example of the design every built because folks get one in front of them and go, whoops.)
Now, nuclear power is all very interesting, and it could even theoretically be useful. There is just that one, as-good-as-unacceptable issue:
Radioactive waste. Eee gad.
Well, I know from basic physics & plant training that in principle, we should be able to "transmute" really obnoxious radioactive waste into other isotopes that are at least less-obnoxious, if not indeed harmless.
I don't think the Patent Office was up online for too long before I got wind of it and started poking around. Turns out, if there is basic industrial capacity & resources in place, no one will have significant difficult using Nuclear Reactor Patents to build their own stuff.
Then, half-holding my breath & squinting through one eye, I typed in "radioactive waste transmutation". Jack pot.
Major/leading U.S. labs have been patenting advanced methods for eliminating nuclear waste species since at least the early 1990s, and more like late '80s. ('Burning' it, as fuel, mainly.) Indeed, the trend & competition now is to develop increasingly profitable ways of turning radioactive waste into ordinary matter. (Could explain Yucca-madness...)
Why aren't we hearing about this? I can only speculate (go ahead, tempt me). But the fact is I can give you the Patents and you can read them yourself, on Google or the Patent & Trade Office.
If anybody has trouble viewing patent documents, I will post pages on my own website so you read them & view the drawings in ordinary web-pages. (The PTO is clunky and Google-Patents is high-band.)
The problem of radioactive waste has clearly been toast for up to a couple decades now.
I'm Amazed! ;-)
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:01 am
01 Feb 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:23 am
01 Feb 2009
Hey, the fastest way to cut costs would be to deregulate.
Definitely not.
Get all those obstructionist federal officials out the way.
A cleverer approach is to look at why they are obstructionist, and remove the underlying cause. I think that underlying cause is oil and gas tax and royalty revenue.
No-one is concerned about nuclear power safety because the relevant authorities clearly are not: they are posted at nuclear power stations as resident inspectors. Requiring them to reside alongside the gas pipelines that bring in so much of their income would be a much tougher sell.
However, when carbon dividend-and-tax goes through, and government no longer is the main fossil fuel profiteer, it will change government employees' and dependents' points of view.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:24 am
01 Feb 2009
Yeah ... but no ... it's not that some of us can't behave ourselves with security & safety concerns ... but indeed some of us can't.
The Spitzers & Blagojevich' we shall always have with us ... and thus, Regulation.
A great deal of regulation-headache relief - for all concerned - will arrive with 'sealed-can' reactor cores. This design-approach is usually combined with a modular-assembly strategy. Individual cores are relatively small (rail & highway transportable) & low-power. Small need, one core, big need, 100. Vast simplification ... and security enhancement. Sealed ... & self-reporting. No report, the Marines come in.
No, it's not Regulation that's inherently wrong, it's the weaponization of regulation.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:42 am
01 Feb 2009
My operating assumption is the same as yours - that nuclear power is hog-tied & dipped in peanut brittle because - for the time being anyway - the main game is fossil fuels.
We're going to play the fossil fuels racket until we decide it's the right time to step away from the table, and not a second less.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 pm
01 Feb 2009
So I guess you would want one in your back yard? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:06 pm
01 Feb 2009
Once they are used up, much like giant radioactive flashlight batteries they can be discarded in the ocean, that's cheap waste disposal indeed.
I bet Putin would love this scheme. Vend all of his left over nuclear fuel in big cans that make heat.
These can serve as portable dirty bombs too. It will greatly advance terrorism worldwide.
Would these "marines" that are supposed to watch over and recover the rad cans when they get in terrorist hands be US soldiers or Blackwater soldiers? I'm pretty sure the US will not lend out real Marines to the nuclear industry?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 3:22 pm
01 Feb 2009
Standardization sounds all well and good, except for the fact that it obviously removes the potential for real technological advancement by competition. Are you sure deciding upfront whether all Gen III+ plants should be ESBWR's, AP1000's, APWR's will yield a better result than letting different utilities try different ones and see which ones are most profitable to build and operate?
The NRC has taken I think a wise half-step towards such standardization, by offering to certify designs and then let utility applicants reference approved designs in their COL's (Construction and Operating Licenses). Problem is, NRC is way too understaffed/under-resourced to deal with them in a timely manner. Its been running on CR's (Continuing Resolutions - no new budget/improved funding) for years, and when resources are tight they've been very clear that monitoring the existing reactor fleet is their priority. Docketed design certs get pushed to the backburner, and preapp technical work on the Gen IV's (Hyperion, IRIS, 4S, PBMR), including non LWR's that NRC really should be gathering technical capacity on, get pushed way back.
I think the best return on investment in terms of public funds towards nuclear (or even energy broadly, I would say) would be increased resources for the NRC. Allowing utilities to get their COL's fasttracked by having an approved III+ certified design would improve scheduling outlook and timing far more than an extra subsidy, for less public money. I support nuclear power but I'm afraid the industry lobbyists are a bit too shortsighted and no ones seeing the big picture.
Max Epstein
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:28 pm
01 Feb 2009
You got a hunch how many of us are out diggin' ditches 'n stocking grocery shelves? That's right, a bunch! ;-)
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:51 pm
01 Feb 2009
When a core-module gets tired it goes back to the factory (Yucca Mtn?), it's refurbished like a master brake cylinder and sent back to a nuke-plant. Nuclear-powered recycling! ;-)
Putin does love it ... and he already vended his left-over fuel - to us.
There is opposition to the transport of both reactor components and waste. Remember the guy who sat down with his legs across the rail in front of train carrying nuclear material, and let them get squished off?
You tell me about your dirty-bomb design, and I'll tell you whether it's feasible. But you should probably have a look at the record, first.
Security has been consistent & reliable.
At this point, you're not about to be invaded by The Reactor-Modules from the Black Lagoon, but you may want make Google-News feeds for "toshiba 4s" and "galena alaska".
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:04 pm
01 Feb 2009
A complete R and D and testing program must be completed, in full transparent view of regulators and the public, proving the efficacey of new improved waste neutralizing reactors that are cost competitive with renewable energy.
Then and only then should any new nuclear reactors be deployed.
Have you heard about the "glow trains"?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun/29/glow-train-go ...
Check it out, waste can't even be safely transported, the treatment reactors must travel to the waste instead.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 4:10 pm
01 Feb 2009
Yeah, it does seem like inadequate funding of the NRC is the primary bottleneck. Since it's been like this for a long time, the consequences must have been satisfactory to those in a position to better-fund them.
... So, our best indication that things are about to break loose for nuclear power will be that the NRC starts to grow and meet the needs it was intended to service, but can't in a timely way.
Yes, the certified NRC designs are a fine compromise approach.
Ted
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:28 pm
01 Feb 2009
The price Andersen Act only requires $5.55 million in liability coverage to protect the 700 people and their property in a 5 mile radius of the plant. Around $8000 per person? Hmmm.
When an earthquake opens up the can and the molten sodium reacts violently with the soil and water, producing a guge exoplosuion, how far will the radioactive cloud extend? Will it be equal to 300 Chernobyl-level releases like one cask on a "glow train"?
I wonder if the radioactive cloud will stop at 5 miles? Or continue on the wind to contaminate 100s of billions of dollars of property and kill 100s of thousands of Alaskans?
Maybe you can gelp me but I don't see 10 years of safety testing on this unit either. That would seem prudent, given the loophole on insurance and the fact that it would take 100 cans to equal one regular reactor output. Will we have 100s of thousands of these cans all over the planet?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 4:42 pm
01 Feb 2009
The nuke-waste transmutation patents I referred to are normal, everyday U.S. Patents. A patent - by law - is written so that a person or company with ordinary skills & resources to work within the field of the patent can replicate the patented item.
Patents don't hide information - they reveal it. Patents aren't secret - they're public documents.
Pull up Los Alamos lab, and you will be truly amazed at the information available.
I know that some folks oppose nuclear power & technology in any form, any time, anywhere. Nothing new in that.
At the moment, nuclear power continues to be effectively suppressed, so - from the point of view of the opposition - so far, so good.
What might change the status quo on nukes isn't that I'm familiar with the basics, or that I can make a case on a blog, but rather that the national & global situation changes in ways that persuade leaders & authorities that it's time to go nuke.
If, as I & GRLCowan have speculated, the reason we are suppressing nukes is to run a global fossil-carbon game until we decide it's time to change the game, then in terms of maintaining supplies of carbon, we could continue on with our present 'token' nuke-lineup for many years.
G'night!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:43 pm
01 Feb 2009
Just look around... flash! Goes the sodium, when it hits water. Click to watch the science experiment.
Do you want a reactor load of molten sodium leaking into groundwater? Are you willing to take that chance? With only 8k in insurance?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 5:08 pm
01 Feb 2009
First thing to know is, the people of Galena are for the plant. They are having a severe energy problem, and they think this is a good idea.
The Toshiba 4S is a small, transportable, 'sealed-can' reactor, similar to the "modular" design I have discussed. I suspect strongly that Toshiba already has plans to convert the 4S to a modular-ready configuration. They have also announced bigger versions. Toshiba wants to market this plant to operators on the Alberta Tar Sands.
The reactor is a long, slender cylinder, and is up-ended & slid down into a concrete housing similar to an old missile silo.
Sure folks, go read the link that Amazingdrx provided - it's good background on the all-round process.
But - as with all other nuke projects - believe it when ya see it! ;-)
now i'm outa here ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:05 am
02 Feb 2009
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ ...
A theoretical statistical risk evaluation. That's probably good enough for Galena, heck it's only 700 population and they all want one, right?
And there is that 8000 in insurance per person, required by US law. But will Sarah waive that insurance? Alaska...it's like a whole other country.
It takes a radioactive village...to raise a cloud of contamination. Go for it Galena.
Grist I think this story bears (hehey, alaska..bears) examination. Better send Kate to Alaska. main stream delusional media seems to gave overlooked it.
On the positive side, these are fast neutron reactors, as James hansen recently called for to treat nuclear waste, they can be modular and portable (maybe?) and moved to existing nuclear power sites to treat waste onsite, hook up to the turbine systems already in place, and generate power as a side benefit.
With proper R&D and testing they might just be the design that could deal with nuclear waste cost effectively and safely. Without rigorous testing first, in a safely controlled containment labaratory, why would anyone want one of these in their back yard? "Where their children come to play with their toys?" (to quote "The Godfather").
Toshiba nuclear power plant factories all over the southland? Sure why not? They will employ americans right? Yikes!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 6:02 am
02 Feb 2009
You wrote:
"The Price-Anderson Act requires only $5.55 million in liability coverage to protect the 700 people and their property within a 5 mile radius of the plant."
You cherry picked the phrases you wanted out of the linked document, which goes on a few paragraphs later to state:
"Based on past exemptions granted by the NRC, the maximum amount of property insurance that should be required for a 10 MWe 4SNPF would be on the order of $180 million. Galena should seek to confirm in discussions with the NRC that it would be possible to obtain an exemption for the Galena 4S NPF that would reduce the amount of property insurance coverage required for the facil-ity to $180 million, or less, due to its small size."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the liability insurance situation today for the diesel generators and the multimillion gallon tanks required to provide electricity and heating oil during long winter months without fuel deliveries? Do you think there might be a chance that diesel fuel could ignite and cause death and destruction, or does that never happen?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:06 am
02 Feb 2009
I think if your side got behind a comprehensive testing progtam with full transparency for fast neutron waste neutralizing modular reactors to replace aging nuclear reactors, right in the present containment buildings, these would get built.
It is necessary to deal with nuclear waste and it should be doable with reasonable safety and insurance. But putting modular reactors in an Alaskan wilderness village? Or tar sands? or proliferating small nuclear "batteries" all over the planet? Not prudent.
I say give nuclear scientists and engineers a chance to clean up this mess and keep the industry honest with reasonable oversight and nuclear power will have another generation. And matbe remain at or near present percentages of our grid power until fusion comes along. Just prove the safety and make them clean up the waste onsite.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 12:04 pm
02 Feb 2009
I read your Glow Trains link on the Las Vegas Sun. You had said of it, "Check it out, waste can't even be safely transported, the treatment reactors must travel to the waste instead." I was especially interested to read about the traveling treatment reactors, and looked for it, but there is not mention like that in this article. Maybe it's another of your links? I'd like to see it if you can find it.
The Glow Trains piece has 3 comments, all of them pointing out gross errors. But I do know - from way-back & on-going, that rail-transport of waste generates protest-reactions. Meanwhile - as pointed out in the comments - we transport this stuff on highway trucks instead ...
Nuke waste on trains is in massively heavy-duty casks. I once saw a video of them testing these casks in high-speed head-on railroad collisions. Highly recreational & amusing. The rail car & cask hit a solid cement wall at a rippin' speed, and the cask bounces off and goes flying way off up in the air. The railroad flat-car is demolished, but the cask remains sealed.
As for liability in the event something happens with a nuke plant - you know, utilities companies are normally exempt from all liability. If someone is on a dialysis machine or medical support device and the power goes out - that's tough. If wind or ice storms put millions in the cold & dark in the middle of winter, and some are dying - there ya go. If there's a voltage spike on the utility powerlines and 10s of thousands of computers and other equipment are fried - "We don't wanna hear about it".
If a nuke facility provides one dime of coverage for people nearby, that's infinitely more than utilities are normally willing to pony up. And you'll notice, natural gas pipelines explode, people are electrocuted by high-voltage wires dangling all over the place in residential neighborhoods, and tanker fuel trucks jackknife in busy freeways and go up in a giant fireball.
You raised questions about Safety & Testing of new reactor plants. This is done under the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are infamous for the severity with which they shake-down a candidate reactor.
I hadn't yet mentioned an important feature of the Toshiba 4S reactor: It's automated and there is no operator. Poof - I'm out of a job. ;-)
This feature is extra-germane to this post since it's about the high cost of nuclear energy. Automated functioning and no operator(s) will certainly help lower prices.
Although I have not heard of the Toshiba 4S being set up to treat nuclear waste, your observation that it seems already partly-configured for that role is true & astute.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:04 pm
02 Feb 2009
Trucks can't haul the weight necessary in a timely economical fashion, and anyway they are more dangerous than trains as far as accidents.
The casks are built with bumpers front and back, but a bridge collapse will open one up, a lot of rail accidents involve trains derailing and hitting bridges that then collapse on the train.
Each cask has the potential for 300 times the contamination from chernobyl.
The part about needing to treat the waste in place was my conclusion after watching the documentary.
Since these smaller easier to move reactors would also be fast neutron design, they could concievably treat waste. That's also my conclusion.
The NRC's oversight has been seriously flawed due to revolving door industry appointments and secrecy couched in national security. We have a leaky dangerous mess they have left behind, new leadership and a whole new ethical regime needs to be installed.
My favorite book as a kid was about the Manhattan Project and anything on the nuclear sub and polaris missle programs. It was Jules Verne come to life somehow.
I can understand your enthusiam, if the industry could admit its mistakes and correct them, there would be a place for nuclear power.
But as the obstructionism continues that time is passing. Shape up or close down, the waste will have to stay in the old containment structures. I doubt anyone will trust fusion either if it is successful.
As time goes on genetic research will show in more detail the exponentially increasing genetic defects and diseases already caused by nuclear power. Helen Caldicott busted nukes on that score years ago.
I'm arguing for a pragmatic safe compromise that would give the nuclear power industry a chance to fix the mess it made, but no one on the industry side wants any compromise. They want bidness as usual where everyone "trusts the experts" with no oversight. That just won't work.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:28 pm
02 Feb 2009
ABC News Strange New World: Tech Picks of the Week
"Bring the Nukes Home
If homeowners are looking to get off the power grid and make their own green energy, they basically have two options: solar or wind.
Depending on location, there might be a few other options, including hydro and geothermal heat pumps. But what about nuclear?
We don't mean backing the local utility's plan to build a reactor but rather one that powers a single home or, at most, a subdivision. Scaling down a reactor isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. There have been a few commercial home nukes over the years.
In the 1980s, presumably before 1986, Japanese residents could buy the Chernobyl Household Nuclear Generator. But, recently, there have been some advances in the personal nuclear reactor market.
One recent product is Toshiba's 4S, which can power a small community for about 30 years at a cost of 5 cents per kilowatt hour. [emph. added]
Galena, Alaska, is among the communities that has been considering deploying the 4S. No word on when 4S will finally be commercially available but we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss nuclear power as a possible local power source."
I have read that the NRC has scheduled Toshiba for early to mid 2009, and site-preparation may begin the next year, with installation maybe 2012-13.
¢5/kWh!
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 6:27 pm
02 Feb 2009
"Each cask has the potential for 300 times the contamination from chernobyl."
Since a significant portion of the core at the Chernobyl power station burned up and vented to atmosphere, I have some difficulty believing this statement considering the fact that it takes about 9 casks to contain the core material from a large light water reactor.
Can you tell me how exposing the solid, corrosion resistant fuel material from one cask (1/9th of a light water core) - assuming for a moment that I believe that the cask can be readily penetrated - could possibly release 300 times the contamination from Chernobyl? The math just does not work for me, but perhaps you are younger and learned "new math" that got developed after I graduated.
BTW - though the bumpers are only front and back, the casks are also tested with side impact collisions. The test I saw was set up to simulate a rail car at a road crossing with a full speed impact from a tractor trailer. I think, but I am not sure, that test provides more risk of container damage than a collapsing bridge.
The cask in the test video I saw came through with "flying" colors - no breach was found when the container stopped flying through the air after being hit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:17 am
03 Feb 2009
You really have a titanic task on your hands if you want to try and respond point by point to "Glow Trains". It's a popular web topic.
I can't find a transcript of the original presentation on google
http://www.google.com/search?q=glow+trains+history+channe ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
03 Feb 2009
At Chernobyl? It's not too clear, lots of experts disagree on that:
The U.S. government's Argonne National Lab has said that 30 percent of the reactor's total radioactivity -- 3 billion of an estimated 9 billion curies -- was released.[6] And scientists at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Lab suggested that one-half of the core's radioactivity was spewed -- 4.5 billion curies, according the World Information Service on Energy, quoting Science, 6-13-86.
Vladimir Chernousenko, the chief scientific supervisor of the "clean up" team responsible for a 10-kilometer zone around the exploded reactor, says that 80 percent of the reactor's radioactivity escaped, something like seven billion curies.[7] At the Union of Concerned Scientists, senior energy analyst Kennedy Maize, concluded that "the core vaporized" -- all 190 tons of fuel, and all 9 billion curies.[8]
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/Chernobyl@10p2 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:50 am
03 Feb 2009
Yes Rod, I have also seen video of the side-impact cask-test. Quite comforting.
===
As we know, a nuclear material containment cask is nothing more than the pressure-hull of an infant submarine. ;-)
Diesel subs played a big part in World War II, where they often survived intensive depth-charge carpet-bombing. Hundreds of blasts at close range, for days.
Now, we have nuke subs making the figurative Journey to 20,000 Leagues Below the Sea, at much higher pressures than the old subs. We not only know how to make strong casks that can take huge pressures and shock-impact, but we put 1,000s of people inside of them.
Jules Verne on nuke-casks: "Been there, done that". ;-)
No guys, this idea that designing a cylinder to withstand side-forces or impact etc is going to be some kind of head-scratcher or a 'Bridge Too Far' ... nah, give it up.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:55 am
03 Feb 2009
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energ ...
So almost 2 billion curies per cask is about right? A Chernobyl low end release estimate from a russian scientist is 50 million curies.
As far as the main effect, from Cesium-137, maybe the 300x figure makes sense? Another source said that 4% of the cesium-137 in the Chernobyl reactor was released.
The "Glow Trains" transcript would be helpful.
But who wants a "Glow Train" with 10 casks and a total of 19 billion curies of radiation onboard traveling near their town? Not McCain. He is pro-nuclear power, larding it up with more pork, but opposes transporting nuclear waste through his state.
BTW, check out the GHG measurements on nuclear power plants:
In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
And the probable health disaster:
It has been scientifically established that low-level radiation damages tissues, cells, DNA and other vital molecules. Effects of low-level radiation doses cause cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.
How do you insure such a train? Carrying mutagenic material?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:04 am
03 Feb 2009
The realities of nuclear physics makes safely shielded transport impractical.
Could safe casks be built? On a (taxpayer) money-is-no-object nuclear industry/defense contractor scale?
Who knows until it is too late, until a catastrophe happens? A misrouted acid or propane fuel train could be the first test. 3000 serious rail accidents per year, would an insurance company take those odds, or would Price Anderen Act waivers make insurance unecessary?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 5:10 am
03 Feb 2009
Before we continue on here (it appears we could have an endless dialog going ;), please let me clear up some important points that might not be clear to all.
I am neither a big supporter of, nor a big opponent of, nuke power. The core fact about nuclear energy, for myself, is that we as a society have chosen to systematically suppress it, across a span of 3 decades now.
There are people who are angry about the effective ban on new nuke plants, and there are those who are delighted. Me, I moved on. Kenny Rodgers sang, "Know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em".
There could theoretically be issues that would stimulate me to struggle against longstanding policies of the Federal government, CIA and Pentagon ... but nuclear power isn't among them. It is neither terribly important to me that it succeed, nor necessary that it be blocked, from my point of view.
As it happens, I took a dim view of nuclear power for many years and saw it as irresponsible, based on the inability or unwillingness (or policy) of the industry and/or government to tackle the problem of radioactive waste head-on.
Today, it has become evident that we have the capacity to 'burn' waste and actually generate some power doing it. We are on-track to remove the waste-issue as a point of contention. But the policy-factor has continued to hold nuclear back.
Although I am a natural-born 'little scientist', I am also a natural country-boy. I don't want to live in highly-technical and/or institutionalized environments ... such as academia, the military, fancy-industry, or (above all) urbanization.
I live far out in the forested rural Olympic Peninsula (near where I was born) and eke out a living in forestry-support, a little low-key logging, some low-tech road-work, plumbing (preferably frozen, leaking, septic or all 3), cutting firewood, and lawn mowing/grounds-keeping. Those who want fancy jobs & fancy money, need to look elsewhere. ;-)
I currently have a great gig hand-building recreational forest-trail (I did this formerly with the forest on fire...) in a private hillside canyon timber-stand. Gorgeous. Like to see pictures?
Trying to plug me into the role of nuclear power industry surrogate or straw-man won't work. I've known this game for a very long time. I know my physics & engineering, and I am trained & experienced in nuclear plants, but that doesn't make me a mouth-piece for the nuke-industry, or an effective target for anti-nuke activism.
When you take nuclear submarines under the oceans (and Arctic Icecap!) the premium is on identifying & applying the right knowledge & skills, at the right time & place. That is the essence of coming home alive and not losing a billion dollar boat.
The attributes of a good nuke-submariner are also valuable in the wider world of normal human social activity ... like right here in this blog-thread.
What I am really handy at is cutting through the 'noise' and getting the real signal. There's plenty of evidence that actually, a key operational opposition-tactic is to amp-up the noise-factor. There are consequences - weaknesses - in this approach.
Making fabricated noise that cannot ultimately be distinguished from natural noise is at best very difficult. One has to be very good, to make noise that does not sound unnatural - and actually, it may be that fundamentally it is impossible to make any kind of noise that cannot be identified as artificial.
For example, take the Wikipedia entry for Helen Caldicott. Caldicott (earlier referenced by Amazingdrx) is a Physician and nuclear-opposition activist. She is proposing a highly unlikely genetic degeneration scenario, among other ideas & accusations.
Well, the thing to notice about Caldicott's Wiki entry is that almost half of it falls under the "Criticisms of her work" section. Even on Wikipedia, which is rather heavily 'anti', acknowledging that Caldicott is 'controversial' is unavoidable. Caldicott has tried injecting so much noise on the signal, that even her supporters find themselves preoccupied with it.
Helen Caldicott 'got carried away' saying things to make nuclear look bad, and as a result impaired & limited her own effectiveness.
The key point of this post is that nuclear is extremely expensive and is priced out of the market. It turns out, though, that Toshiba is offering a plant at less than one-fourth the kWh cost of the plant used as the main example here in Joseph Romm's article.
Permalink