The Nuclear Power Thread

[mheslep]

Iirc, the containment was always seen as a protection against external incidents, although in those days the concern was airplanes crashing into the .

Containment now uses 3.5 ft thick walls with volume of several million cubic feet, designed to stay air tight at 80 psi internal pressure in the event of an accident.

Nuclear Engineering Handbook

External security can be met via different structures with far less volume, or perhaps by more subterranean construction. Regulatory insistence going forward on the same 1960 like "containment" structures regardless of reactor design can only have corrupt intentions to my mind, driven by either i) those who would maintain the established light water industry for career protection, or ii) those intent on keeping nuclear power expensive.

 

[wizwom]

Can be untrue depending on nuclides in question. If, say, low-level waste is a result of Pu contamination, "its halflife" is many thousands of years.

Plutonium is not hazardous. multiple people exposed in various ways - even ingestion of fairly large amounts - have had no issues at all.

 

[anorlunda]

Plutonium is not hazardous. multiple people exposed in various ways - even ingestion of fairly large amounts - have had no issues at all.

Huh? Cite your sources please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

 

[nikkkom]

Plutonium is not hazardous.

Depends on what definition of "hazardous" you are using. If you imply that standing 1 meter away from one kg plutonium ingot is not exposing me to any significant radiation and I can stand there for days with no danger, then yes, it's "not dangerous" in that sense.

However, when we talk about environmental contamination, many other different scenarios need to be considered. For example, oxidation, formation of soluble salts, and their movement with water. This is important when we talk about isotopes with centuries or more lifetimes: it is imprudent to leave future generations exposed to the waste we failed to isolate properly.

 

[mheslep]

For comparison:

Plutonium (Argonne):

inhalation (the exposure of highest risk), breathing in 5,000 respirable plutonium particles of about 3 microns each [i.e. a few micrograms] is estimated to increase an individual’s risk of incurring a fatal cancer about 1% above the U.S. average.

Arsenic:
About 70 mg of ingested arsenic, many orders of magnitude more common on Earth than plutonium ever will be, is a lethal dose, and naturally occurring arsenic is not a radioisotope that decays away. Arsenic also is carcinogenic.

 

[nikkkom]

The relevant question is whether or not willful sabotage on a next gen MSR plant could do any more harm than the sabotage of, say, some large chemical factory or refinery. I can only speculate, but it seems to the answer is probably no without the possibility of steam or hydrogen explosions

This is astounding, really.

Chernobyl and Fukushima both *clearly* did more harm than chemical disasters and fires. Even discounting the cost of cleanup work per se, simply removing thousands of sq.km. of land from habitation and economic use for many years translates into many billions of dollars in economic losses.

And with having these real-world, actually occurred events, staring right into our faces, someone is claiming that "willful sabotage" of a reactor (I read "sabotage" as: put 200 kg of C4 next to an operating reactor, and blow it up) probably can't be as dangerous as chemical or petroleum factory sabotage. Really?

And we wonder how TEPCO managed to "gauge away" the possibility of the tsumnami. The above is the example: wishful thinking.

 

[mheslep]

This is astounding, really.

Chernobyl and Fukushima both *clearly* did more harm than chemical disasters and fires. Even discounting the cost of cleanup work per se, simply removing thousands of sq.km. of land from habitation and economic use for many years translates into many billions of dollars in economic losses.

The 1984 Bhopal chemical plant accident in India killed almost 4000, and exposed half a million. The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China killed at least 171,000, displaced 11 million, and obliterated all infrastructure for some 50 km down river. A couple years ago, the fire from a single crude oil train accident destroyed half the town Lac-Megantic in Quebec, killing 42.

By contrast, despite the evacuations and expensive clean up due to the Fukushima LWR accidents, there were no deaths from radiation nor are there likely to be any measurable radiation caused cancers per the WHO.

And with having these real-world, actually occurred events, staring right into our faces, someone is claiming that "willful sabotage" of a reactor (I read "sabotage" as: put 200 kg of C4 next to an operating reactor, and blow it up) probably can't be as dangerous as chemical or petroleum factory sabotage. Really?

A molten salt cooled reactor has most all of the more dangerous fission products chemically trapped in the salt, and a vessel breach releasing molten fuel would immediately drive it sub critical. Granted, knowledgeable saboteurs might well destroy a plant. But in the case of an MSR, with no possibility of 150 ATM primary steam explosion, it is not clear to me how some saboteurs with a few hours of unimpeded hostile action and some hundred kg of explosives could send significant radiation many kilometers away as in Fukushima, especially if the structure is subterranean. And some Gen IV designs would have little if any actinides.

As it happens, there has been a large chemical explosion in proximity to a nuclear reactor for comparison. See the Soviet Kursk nuclear submarine disaster, where the accidental detonation involved many tons of chemical explosive, yet the subsequent salvage of the sub showed minimal radiation measurements. I don't draw attention to the Kursk in an attempt to show reactors are somehow bomb proof without more analysis, but the Kursk does show everything nuclear is not fragile, is not another Chernobyl.

So I think astonishment is not warranted, but I am mystified as to the point of twisting every possible new nuclear technology into a Chernobyl (RBMK weapons reactor, no containment, water cooled) or into a Fukushima (largest tsunami and quake), as if the Wright Flyer and a Boeing 777 are much the same technology with much the same safety record. There are no more Chernobyl like reactors. A quake and tsunami shutting down the east coast of Japan, preventing appropriate attention to the reactor, is not similar to an act of sabotage.

 

[jim hardy]

Huh? Cite your sources please.

an article here that's intended to counter hyperbole
http://atomicinsights.com/how-deadly-plutonium/

How Deadly is Plutonium?

May 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

Rarely is the word “plutonium” published in a major news source without the adjective “deadly” nearby. Ralph Nader, noted activist and lawyer, once claimed that plutonium was “the most toxic substance known to mankind.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year in the United States doing studies of the characteristics of a site for long term geologic storage of spent nuclear fuel. Much of the money is aimed at ensuring that no material ever gets out of the storage area. The material that seems to cause the most concern is the small amount of plutonium found in the irradiated fuel assemblies.

Some pundits have suggested that plutonium, even in quantities far too small for a nuclear weapon, could be used as a terrorist weapon to poison water supplies. It is said that such a use could cause thousands of deaths.

Exposure by Ingestion
Other writers and scientists, often with far less publicity, have published detailed analyses of these claims and used statistics and experience to prove them totally false. One man, Dr. Bernard Cohen, went so far as to volunteer to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would caffeine in an attempt to demonstrate the folly of the severe toxicity claims.

Mr. Nader refused the challenge. Many anti-nuclear groups now try to claim that Dr. Cohen is an unreliable source of information since he volunteered to expose himself to such a dangerous substance.

Dr. Cohen, a tenured research professor at the University of Pittsburgh, stated that he had calculated his risk from the challenge as less than that of a typical draftee during World War II. Dr. Cohen feels that wise use of nuclear energy is as important as winning the war. He wanted to do his part in the battle to achieve public acceptance of the low level risk involved.

An indication of the risk one would face from ingesting small amounts of plutonium, of the amounts postulated for accident scenarios at an operating plant (or fuel storage facility) is shown by the following story.

Accidental Ingestion Studied
During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested plutonium in quantities that far exceeded what is now considered to be a lethal dose. Since there has been a consistent interest in the health effects of this brand new substance (first discovered by Glenn Seaborg’s team at the University of California in 1940), these men were closely tracked for medical studies.

Forty Years Later
As of 1987, more than four decades later, only four of the workers had died and only one death was caused by cancer. The expected number of deaths in a random sample of men the age of those in the group is 10. The expected number of deaths from cancer in a similar group is between two and three.

The sample size is quite small; even during a crash wartime program, people normally handle plutonium with extreme care. Even people who work directly with the material in a manufacturing process that involves grinding and shaping can be adequately protected.

It is, of course, possible that the differences between expected deaths and actual deaths is just a statistical aberration. With small sample sizes, it is likely that large variations in mortality rate will be seen.

It has to be considered important, however, to know that at least 22 men have been able to live more than 40 years after ingesting “the most toxic substance known to man.” It should make one question the motives and accuracy of Ralph Nader, a public figure who has actively promoted such an obviously inaccurate statement.

One final thought. Glen Seaborg, Nobel Laurate, discoverer of plutonium, a man who spent much of his professional life determining its chemical properties, has recently been selected the honorary chair of the American Nuclear Society Special Panel on the Protection and Management of Plutonium. Dr. Seaborg is 83 years old and he still maintains an active schedule of committees and speaking.

and a long, long article here that describes scientific investigations during Manhattan project years
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326640.pdf

Plutonium is not for pizza topping,
it deserves same caution as any alpha emitter(read the Americium label on your household smoke detector)
but it makes great scare propaganda .

old jimPS if you're really "green" you'll mail the Americium 'pill' out of your discarded smoke detector back to the manufacturer so it doesn't go in the landfill. Wrap it in tinfoil and a baggie, put in a padded mailer.

 

[nikkkom]

The 1984 Bhopal chemical plant accident in India killed almost 4000, and exposed half a million. The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China killed at least 171,000, displaced 11 million, and obliterated all infrastructure for some 50 km down river. A couple years ago, the fire from a single crude oil train accident destroyed half the town Lac-Megantic in Quebec, killing 42.

By contrast, despite the evacuations and expensive clean up due to the Fukushima LWR accidents, there were no deaths from radiation nor are there likely to be any measurable radiation caused cancers per the WHO.

"Harm" is not equal to "deaths" only (even though Chernobyl's indirect death toll is unknown and is likely to go into at least thousands). There is also economic harm. Fukushima is projected to cost upwards of $200 billion. Chernobyl costs are higher. Ukraine still has to spend money to maintain the Zone, and it is still evacuated (loss of economy), more than 30 years after the disaster. Do you know any chemical disaster with _this_ kind of repercussions?

A molten salt cooled reactor has most all of the more dangerous fission products chemically trapped in the salt, and a vessel breach releasing molten fuel would immediately drive it sub critical.

All Fukushima reactors were subcritical at meltdown. Did not help one iota.

it is not clear to me how some saboteurs with a few hours of unimpeded hostile action and some hundred kg of explosives could send significant radiation many kilometers away as in Fukushima

That's because your pro-nuclear stance clouds your judgment and you don't _want_ to see what would happen to any type of reactor vessel if a few 100s of kgs of high explosive would be detonated next to it.

Incidentally, there are plenty of Syrian VBIED videos on youtube which can help you to realize how big such explosions can be. Such as this compilation:

 

[nikkkom]

I am mystified as to the point of twisting every possible new nuclear technology into a Chernobyl (RBMK weapons reactor, no containment, water cooled) or into a Fukushima (largest tsunami and quake)

I can agree about Chernobyl, but not on Fukushima.

Fukushima was not supposed to happen in a properly functioning modern nuclear industry, however you twist it.
Tsunami danger should have been properly anticipated - it was willfully downplayed (very similar to what you just did in your post).
Switchboards should have been protected from flooding - they were not.
Operators should have had procedures how to cool reactors in a SBO - they did not have those.

 

[mheslep]

I can agree about Chernobyl, but not on Fukushima.

Fukushima was not supposed to happen in a properly functioning modern nuclear industry, however you twist it.
Tsunami danger should have been properly anticipated ...

I largely agree with all of this, and your response is nonetheless mysterious. I am not defending the accident mechanism at Fukushima. Instead, I've clearly pointed out that those BWRs are distinctly different from Gen IV salt designs. In response you repeat "Chernobyl", or "Fukushima", as if hydrogen explosions and loss of water cooling are irrelevant, and that only the word "nuclear" is important.

 

[OCR]

Dr. Bernard Cohen ... died at age 88 !

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting perspective on nuclear energy and it's cost.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/less-nuclear-energy-has-meant-higher.html

Note that solar is not available at night, and the further north one lives, the less availability of sunlight during winter.

 

[mheslep]

Michael Shellenberger has become a persuasive and articulate advocate for nuclear power.

... Note that solar is not available at night, and the further north one lives, the less availability of sunlight during winter.

And yet, some never get the word:

The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton's first term

Gov Brown:

"No one has promoted solar energy as much and as long as I have and I will continue to do that."

Typically, such plans have calls for 'magic storage something' in the fine print. I say magic, as so far there is not a single battery based storage facility deployed anywhere in the world that could back up a middling power plant/farm (say 500 MW) for one day, much less a continental power grid for a night or season.

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting and useful reference into NPP operation.

Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf

 

[jim hardy]

An interesting and useful reference into NPP operation.

Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf

That link works today...

 

[Astronuc]

Another good presentation on load-following with NPPs.
http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/64426246/Load_following_capabilities.pdf

 

[gmax137]

Santee Cooper, SCANA abandon Summer nuclear plant construction

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/bre...don-summer-nuclear-plant-construction/448262/

Sad news.

 

[Astronuc]

Santee Cooper, SCANA abandon Summer nuclear plant construction

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/bre...don-summer-nuclear-plant-construction/448262/

Sad news.

I heard that announced on the radio news this morning. Ouch!

Power Magazine has an article.
http://www.powermag.com/scana-santee-cooper-abandon-v-c-summer-ap1000-units-citing-high-costs/

According to Utility Dive, which has been mentioned in other sources"

At Monday's Santee Cooper board meeting, utility officials reportedly estimated it would cost an additional $11.4 billion to finish the project, adding up to a total cost of about $25 billion. That 75% increase in the original cost estimate proved too much for Santee Cooper,

Putting that in perspective, the SCANA's Market Cap at current stock price is $9.2B.

Someone want to buy a handyman special?

 

[etudiant]

Could someone please give us an update on Vogtle?
Afaik, that is the only other large plant currently under construction in the US and it too has had delays and cost growth.
If it too gets the axe, nuclear power in the US would become a legacy technology pending the approval and sale of some SMR design.

 

[Astronuc]

Could someone please give us an update on Vogtle?

Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article on Thursday, June 15, 2017
http://www.myajc.com/business/kempn...elayed-vogtle-project/aLpv69qqPt6CJDTZhEKdrO/

Vogtle is about 3 years behind schedule, so they have to be considering what SCANA/SCEG and Santee just did at Summer. Summer was a little further ahead, as I recall. I believe Summer had the first pour of the basemat.

 

[PeterDonis]

Someone want to buy a handyman special?

Will it fit in my garage? I could move some stuff around to make room...

 

[jim hardy]

Wow.

Reminiscent of Asimov's "Foundation" which i read about forty five years ago . Nuclear industry crumbled just ahead of civilization.

 

[etudiant]

Wow.

Reminiscent of Asimov's "Foundation" which i read about forty five years ago . Nuclear industry crumbled just ahead of civilization.

Getting to be less unlikely by the day.
Go to a book store and see what crap is getting pushed for our kids to read, all fantasy and magic, devoid of sense. Of course a teacher friend said I should be happy that they are still reading, as opposed to being stuck to games and snapchat. These are no preparation for the next generation of civilized people.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

So they've officially reached the point where the money grabbers have made it impossible to finish a large building project?

I'll be watching other "large building projects" to see if it happens in other industries.

I sure hope this isn't the case.

 

[etudiant]

So they've officially reached the point where the money grabbers have made it impossible to finish a large building project?

I'll be watching other "large building projects" to see if it happens in other industries.

I sure hope this isn't the case.

Sadly you may be right. The mantra of 'shareholder value' has completely replaced that of doing a good job for American management.
So corners are cut at every level.
It creates an insoluble mess when combined with exacting standards and evolving technical requirements.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

Wasn't the new "shelter object" for chernobyl in danger of having this outcome?

I wonder what they did to clear some of the red tape and make it happen?

 

[anorlunda]

Sad news.

I agree sad. But it should have been expected. Fracking for gas was the death stroke for nuclear in the USA.

Some of you may be aware of the huge state versus federal battle ongoing. States want to set renewable (and/or zero carbon) goals as primary and cost as secondary. The feds, i.e. FERC, is legally mandated to consider only reliability at the lowest possible cost. That is what the market-based system delivers, lowest cost with reliability as a constraint. Even at the state level, we have more than 100 years of tradition where electric reliability is mandated, cost as the #1 variable, and all else (including fuel diversity) a distant third. It will take a massive legal and cultural shift to invert those priorities. As a wild guess, I think thousands of laws and millions of pages of regulations would need revision.

Personally, I think that American and European consumers are spoiled by excess reliability. I would set reliability goals lower to achieve other benefits. Few people would agree with me, but more people every day would like to place green priorities higher than cost. But they tend to be well heeled middle class people, not the protectors of the poorest segment.

Those who would politically debate nuclear technology are admonished to remember that the debate is not about technology, or science, or safety. It is about cost. It is about placing things other than cost at the top of the priority heap. They should not lie. It is not a question of "just a few pennies more" it is a question of 3x to 5x the kwh price of electricity. It will force some of the poorest people to go without, unless government pays their bills.

 

[PeterDonis]

more people every day would like to place green priorities higher than cost.

I think that is because they are assuming (not necessarily consciously) that reliability will be held constant. I strongly doubt that the average US middle class consumer would agree with trading lower reliability for "greener" electricity. They simply don't realize that lower reliability is what's going to happen if the most reliable base load power sources are made unviable by "green" initiatives.

 

[gmax137]

Those who would politically debate nuclear technology are admonished to remember that the debate is not about technology, or science, or safety. It is about cost. It is about placing things other than cost at the top of the priority heap. They should not lie. It is not a question of "just a few pennies more" it is a question of 3x to 5x the kwh price of electricity. It will force some of the poorest people to go without, unless government pays their bills.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the nuclear generation is 3 to 5 times the cost of others? I don't think that's the case.

Still, if the $25 billion number is right (for a pair of 1100 MWe units), it certainly is expensive. I figured 2200 MWe for 60 years at 90% capacity; that is right at one billion MW-hr, so the capital cost alone is $25 per MW-hr. OTOH, maybe that will seem a bargain a few decades hence.

 

[russ_watters]

I I strongly doubt that the average US middle class consumer would agree with trading lower reliability for "greener" electricity.

Even worse would be businesses. I doubt most businesses have enough uninterruptible power to not be severely harmed if reliability over time went from 1 outage every 5 years to 5 outages a year. Reliability is so high today that the issue is largely ignored except for the most critical infrastructure (IT, security). It would be a big problem if that had to change.

 

[gmax137]

I strongly doubt that the average US middle class consumer would agree with trading lower reliability for "greener" electricity.

What does it take to convince the average US middle class consumer that nuclear generated electricity is green? I have been trying for 40 years now, in day-to-day conversations with people I meet, but frankly I'm about giving up on it.

Many of the people I speak with think the nuclear power plants are run by the government, and they extend their distrust of the gov't to the power plants.

 

[anorlunda]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the nuclear generation is 3 to 5 times the cost of others?

I am saying that the cost of all-green electric power will be 3-5x times more expensive than today. That includes generation, transmission, distribution, overhead, and it assumes a large fraction of the power will be rooftop solar.

Note that the instant we say that nuclear does not have to compete with the cost of other generation sources, but rather it is decleared to be a mandated fraction of the generation mix, then the manufacturers, regulators, owners, and greens will all get a new bite at the apple making nuclear more expensive. A pragmatist would expect x2 to x3 increase in the price of nuclear in those circumstances.

I strongly doubt that the average US middle class consumer would agree with trading lower reliability for "greener" electricity.

There is zero evidence so far that green energy, will reduce reliability, so we shouldn't be implying that in public.

The only number I have seen confirmed is a study for the USA Northeast that found that up to 25% of the generation could be wind+solar without negative impact on reliability or existing infrastructure. That says nothing pro or con about higher numbers. Numbers higher than 25% have not been studied yet.

In the power field, authoritative data are not published in journals of peer reviewed papers. Rather, it is the reports of the electric reliability councils and the independent system operators, that give authoritative and verified data. For example:

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/services/planning/Planning_Studies/Reliability_Planning_Studies/Reliability_Assessment_Documents/2016CRP_Report_Final_Apr11_2017.pdf

 

[PeterDonis]

There is zero evidence so far that green energy, will reduce reliability

Who says "won't reduce reliability" gets to be the null hypothesis? The key feature of wind and solar is lack of control over the source: we don't control when the sun shines or when the wind blows. That in itself indicates to me that, once the fraction of power from such sources gets high enough, we should expect negative impact on reliability. So I want evidence that such sources, at high enough fraction, won't reduce reliability before I'll be comfortable with that as a long term plan.

(OTOH, if nuclear were allowed to be included as "green", then there would be no problem, since we control the source in that case.)

 

[anorlunda]

So I want evidence that such sources, at high enough fraction, won't reduce reliability before I'll be comfortable with that as a long term plan.

The evidence will come in a timely fashion. If it is negative, then "progress" will not be allowed to proceed. We simply won't publish infeasible plans. Many people don't understand that the operators and system planners aren't allowed to compromise reliability no matter what the cost. Reliability is king, even to the extent where it it stupid. Nor do they understand how insulated the power planning and operations are from the public and political pressure.

In NY, where I'm most familiar with, there was a state law saying that power providers weren't even allowed to consider cost when assuring reliability. That's absurd. Imagine the emergency case where only 1 more MW was needed to assure reliability for the next 15 minutes, and that the only remaining provider demanded a trillion dollars to provide that. According to that NY law, they would have to accept his offer and bankrupt the whole state. Rigid inflexibility in engineering matters is always stupid, but lawyers and congressmen have no such compunctions.