The Nuclear Power Thread

[mheslep]

I thought it interesting that 6 counties in Nevada petitioned against the DOE withdrawal. I'm sure they want the work and income. DOE has spent $billions in NV.
So whose interest is Reid supposedly protecting?

There is still the matter of reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused U and Pu, or staying direct diposal. The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.

The vast majority of the population must be in Vegas and Reno, i.e. Clark and Washoe counties. I expect they are not included in the six. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Nevada" . Good bet that residents of Nye are very comfortable with the nuclear industry and that Nye is one of the six counties in favor of activating Yucca.

 

[minerva]

The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.

I don't think utilities really care about getting the fuel off-site. What annoys the utilities, though, is that they have been required to pay the money into the Nuclear Waste Fund, but nothing has ever happened. They're paying for nothing. Why should they have to keep paying for the nuclear waste fund?

In practice, dry cask storage at utility sites can be sustained perfectly well for decades - or we could reprocess. This material really isn't a big problem, and it really doesn't take up a large volume.

If the utilities were allowed to take the money back from the nuclear waste fund to fund their own dry cask storage on site, at least for a while, I'm sure they wouldn't really object to it.

 

[Astronuc]

The Canadian province of New Brunswick could host a 'clean energy park' fitted with Areva's nuclear and renewable power generating equipment.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_New_Brunswick_deals_with_Areva_0907101.html

A letter of intent was announced yesterday that could see such a park established alongside the existing Point Lepreau nuclear power plant. The signatories were the New Brunswick government, utility NB Power and Areva, which has similar plans for Piketon and Fresno in the US states of Ohio and California respectively.

The company said the park "would feature a mid-sized Generation III+ nuclear plant and renewable energy sources all built by Areva." Its location alongside Point Lepreau on the North Atlantic would be expected to suit a new reactor, although its qualities for wind or solar generation were not outlined.

Generating 1650 MWe, Areva's flagship EPR model is too big to be described as mid-sized. Instead Areva hinted towards its forthcoming Atmea and Kerena designs at 1100 MWe and 1250 MWe. . . . .

This would be an interesting development, especially if NB starts selling (exporting) power to the US. The EPR is rather expensive, and it puts a lot of assets in one basket, or on one shaft/turbine-generator set. ATMEA is about the same capacity as a Westinghouse AP1000.

Financing will be critical.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear powers to top of the table
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Nuclear_powers_to_top_of_the_table_0607101.html
06 July 2010

Power companies using a lot of nuclear energy have been shown as among America's cleanest by the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) in recently published data. . . . .

The nuclear industry loves this kind of PR. Of course, one does have to compare the complete fuel cycle and waste management to get the whole story.

 

[minerva]

Nuclear powers to top of the table
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Nuclear_powers_to_top_of_the_table_0607101.html
06 July 2010
The nuclear industry loves this kind of PR. Of course, one does have to compare the complete fuel cycle and waste management to get the whole story.

It's quite interesting to see how NRDC has basically admitted the truth here, that nuclear energy is a very effective, very clean, large-scale source of energy, since they have traditionally been something of an anti-nuclear organisation in the past.

With regards to the "Clean Energy Park", I really don't understand why they have to go for the "nuclear plus renewables", when the "renewables" are more expensive than nuclear for a given amount of energy capacity, and generate only a tiny fraction of the energy? Why not save the money and just use the nuclear energy?

 

[Astronuc]

With regards to the "Clean Energy Park", I really don't understand why they have to go for the "nuclear plus renewables", when the "renewables" are more expensive than nuclear for a given amount of energy capacity, and generate only a tiny fraction of the energy? Why not save the money and just use the nuclear energy?

I'm not sure what NB has in mind, but the Pt. Lepreau (CANDU) site sites on the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy, so I imagine they are thinking of tidal power. The Bay of Fundy has tides of about 12 m (~39 ft) up toward Hopewell Rocks.

I'll be passing through the area later this summer.

 

[minerva]

While we're on the subject of Canada, I never could understand for what possible decent reason that one solitary 1.5 MW wind turbine at Pickering exists for, right next door to the 6 reactors which produce ~10,000 times the amount of clean energy.

It just seems a little silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_7_commemorative_turbine

 

[Astronuc]

It could be a test unit. Perhaps they wish to monitor wind speed and direction over a long period of time. Also, the infrastructure exists at Pickering to tie into the grid.

Maybe a tax credit?

 

[mheslep]

While we're on the subject of Canada, I never could understand for what possible decent reason that one solitary 1.5 MW wind turbine at Pickering exists for, right next door to the 6 reactors which produce ~10,000 times the amount of clean energy.

It just seems a little silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_7_commemorative_turbine

3.1GW / 1.8 MW = 1722X

Surely that particular turbine is iconic, or a test of some kind, but maybe the up front cost was also cheaper than more nuclear per W installed.

 

[Astronuc]

Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee

The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology subcommittee was established to address the question: “Do technical alternatives to today’s once through fuel cycle offer sufficient promise to warrant serious consideration and R&D investment, and do these technologies hold significant potential to influence the way in which used fuel is stored and disposed?”

The membership on the subcommittees overlap to ensure the subcommittees do not operate in isolation from one another. Each subcommittee will also address a series of questions related to governance and institutional arrangements.

http://brc.gov/RFCT_Subcommittee.html


Also of interest at INL

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/careers/282

http://www.mevschool.org/ - should be of interest to graduates and young professionals.

 

[Astronuc]

The joint IEA/NEA Nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap examines the steps that governments and the private sector need to take to reach that goal. It is one of a series being prepared by the IEA in cooperation with other organisations and the industry at the request of the G8.

http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6962-nuclear-roadmap.pdf

Should be interesting in 2050 to look back 40 years to see where we were.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6962-nuclear-roadmap.pdf

Should be interesting in 2050 to look back 40 years to see where we were.

Nice survey of the state of the industry, but I find the 'Roadmap' points in there are generalized to the point of being useless.

 

[Smiley108]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370 where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

I Agree With most of what you have said ,it is the disposal of the spent fuel that gets most of the attention !
We have wave Generators that compress air and run Turbines in Australia !
Can you explain how Radioisotope Batteries Work ?

 

[Astronuc]

Contracts for the next Chinese AP1000s
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Contracts_for_the_next_Chinese_AP1000s_1808101.html
World Nuclear News - 18 August 2010

A framework has been established for two AP1000 units at Xianning as well as a factory for their pre-assembled modules. Shaw will continue its role in support, but Westinghouse has no major involvement.

A round of contracts signed yesterday marked a triple-first for Chinese nuclear. The first inland AP1000 project at Xianning, Hubei province; the first AP1000 project for utility China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) and the country's move to the next phase of its self-sufficiency plan.

Four AP1000s were imported from a Westinghouse-Shaw consortium in December 2006 and these are all now mid-construction. That first phase saw Westinghouse and Shaw lead construction and gradually pass know-how to State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC).
. . . .

How to give away technology - and jobs.

China is now looking at agreements with other states, e.g., Argentina.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Investment_in_Argentine_nuclear_0408101.html

And Korea, with technology developed from Westinghouse technology, hopes to capture about 1/3 of the global market.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=26865
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=26797
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=14302

On the other hand, GE-Hitachi is looking to sell a couple of ESBWRs in India. Again though, there is expected to be a fair amount of technology transfer.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28260

 

[mheslep]

How to give away technology - and jobs.

Give away? Maybe Westinghouse just lost out to the competition? Otherwise why don't they bid in China?

 

[Astronuc]

Give away? Maybe Westinghouse just lost out to the competition? Otherwise why don't they bid in China?

W did bid in China and won. Chinese companies (government) 'require' transfer of technology in their contracts. And they hire retired engineers from the US to reverse engineer US and European technology.

 

[mheslep]

W did bid in China and won. Chinese companies (government) 'require' transfer of technology in their contracts. And they hire retired engineers from the US to reverse engineer US and European technology.

Why 'require' with quotes? Sounds like the cost of doing business in China.

 

[gmax137]

...Sounds like the cost of doing business in China.

It's just business, and nothing new in the nuclear power field: The French sell PWRs descended from the Westinghouse technology, the Japanese sell BWRs descended from the GE plants, and the Koreans sell PWRs based on the CE System 80 design.

None of this technology is 'rocket science,' it's just good old-fashion solid engineering, and American engineers have no monopoly on that.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Here is a website that dispels nuclear power 'safety'.

[old, dead crackpot link deleted]

OK, I give up! What is the connection? Glowing green teddy bears or something? I cannot find anything even remotely science- or technology-literate on that site. If it is a joke it is too subtle for me and I don't have time to work it out. It is is not a joke it is a sick joke and, radiation or not, I am too healthy for it.

 

[Astronuc]

The United States Is Going Nuclear
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/14/the-united-states-is-going-nuclear/

but
Exelon Tightens Its Belt
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/health-care-cost-cutting-nuclear-intelligent-investing-exelon.html

Exelon has the largest portfolio of nuclear units in the US.

 

[mheslep]

The United States Is Going Nuclear
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/14/the-united-states-is-going-nuclear/

That NEI PR guy mentions Vogtle (3,4). The site still has not received final NRC approval, and won't before http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/timeline.aspx, if then. Vogtle has grant money, has early this, early that, but no Combined Operating License in hand even after all these years. And this is an addition to an existing nuclear site. Good luck with brand new sites.

 

[russ_watters]

OK, I give up! What is the connection? Glowing green teddy bears or something? I cannot find anything even remotely science- or technology-literate on that site. If it is a joke it is too subtle for me and I don't have time to work it out. It is is not a joke it is a sick joke and, radiation or not, I am too healthy for it.

Old crackpot link, apparently now dead.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Old crackpot link, apparently now dead.

Riiight... Couldn't be dead enough for me!
I have a question about nuclear waste safety that for years has struck me as grossly under-emphasised. Rather than jam it in here, I'll start a new thread. I invite everyone interested to have a look for... say: "Nuclear waste waste". Don't cry if you can't find it immediately; I still have to write the intro. If you happen to know something about nuclear power or have informed views on its pros and cons, consider yourself and your contributions doubly welcome. If not, well, welcome anyway. Who knows; we might both learn something.
Cheers,
Jon

 

[Astronuc]

That NEI PR guy mentions Vogtle (3,4). The site still has not received final NRC approval, and won't before http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/timeline.aspx" , if then. Vogtle has grant money, has early this, early that, but no Combined Operating License in hand even after all these years. And this is an addition to an existing nuclear site. Good luck with brand new sites.

To see the status of Vogtle -
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

It is the lead AP-1000 in the US.

In accordance with Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52), "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants," a COL application may reference a standard design certification, an early site permit, both, or neither. Many COL applications have referenced an application for design certification, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.55(c). On that basis, SNC referenced Westinghouse's application to amend the AP1000 standard design certification and cited the following amended design control document (DCD) in its COL original application for Vogtle, Units 3 & 4:

AP1000 DCD - Westinghouse Revision 16
Vogtle Early Site Permit Application - Revision 4
In Revision 1 to the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 COL application dated May 22, 2009 SNC updated the application to reflect that its application now incorporates by reference AP1000 DCD Revision 17, and the Vogtle Early Site (ESP) Application, Revision 5.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle_units.aspx

 

[Astronuc]

I caught a news item on a small reactor called CAREM.

The CAREM nuclear power plant is aimed at increasing the Argentine technological capacity in the nuclear field and developing the nation NPP export capacity, making use of favourable market conditions and enhancing Argentina insertion to this field.

The CAREM reactor is an advanced 27 MW electric-power-generation nuclear station, of inherent safety characteristics based on passive safety systems. It has a high level of intrinsic reliability, which translates into simple operation and maintenance.

In view of its simple design and low power, the reactor presents few operational requirements and calls for a limited support structure, which makes it apt for electricity generation and other applications in cities of up to 100,000 inhabitants.

. . . .

http://www.invap.net/nuclear/carem/carem_index-e.html

 

[mheslep]

To see the status of Vogtle -
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

It is the lead AP-1000 in the US.


http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle_units.aspx

I had a conversation with a friend the other day who works at the NRC, and expressed my concerns about nuclear cost which, I believe, is in part due to the inertia and uncertainty of the licensing process. The friend said immediately that a license takes four years, indicating to me that's the standard talking point at NRC. Well sorry, not true, not for Vogtle.

I support new US nuclear in theory; given this current state of affairs I don't want to pay for it.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting development -

Egypt to seek tenders for 1st nuclear plant in December
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE67Q08Z20100827

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt plans to start an international bidding process for its first nuclear power plant in December, after choosing the Dabaa site on the Mediterranean coast, news papers reported on Friday.

The Arab world's most populous country, which signed a deal with Australia's WorleyParsons for a nuclear power consultancy last year, aims to set up four nuclear plants by 2025, with the first to start operating in 2019.
. . . .

 

[Astronuc]

FYI - https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=442&mode=2

The Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program is a research and development (R&D) program sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE), performed in close collaboration with industry R&D programs, to provide the technical foundations for licensing and managing the long-term, safe and economical operation of current nuclear power plants. DOE’s program focus is on longer-term and higher-risk/reward research that contributes to the National Policy objectives of energy security and environmental security.

The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Nuclear Energy Systems Support Program supporting R&D activities addressing reliability, availability, productivity, component aging, safety, and security of existing nuclear power plants.

Possible second license extension: most currently operating nuclear power plants will begin reaching the end of their 60-year operating licenses. If these plants do not operate beyond 60 years, the total fraction of generated electrical energy from nuclear power will begin to decline - even with the addition of new nuclear generating capacity.

Projected nuclear power generation. The red line represents the total generating capacity of current and planned nuclear power plants, assuming extended operation to 80 years. The unshaded area below the line represents lost capacity if the current nuclear power plant fleet is decommissioned after 60 years.

 

[mheslep]

FYI - https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=442&mode=2

Great idea, why not? Why not 100, 120 years? Seems to me the absolute cheapest nuclear move to make with a given dollar is to extend the life of existing plants, even that eventually means replacing every brick and pipe. Still cheaper than a new plant, new legal challenges, new six year NRC approval process.

 

[law&theorem]

There is at least one major unsolved problem with nuclear power. What do you do with the spent fuel? Right now it just accumulates at the various plant sites. Yucca mountain is still iffy as a long term solution.

use fast reactor to burn up most of the spent fuel
Yucca mountain problem is the bad result of ONCE-THROUGH fuel policy

 

[Jon Richfield]

use fast reactor to burn up most of the spent fuel
Yucca mountain problem is the bad result of ONCE-THROUGH fuel policy

Right. Our current nuclear impasse and general problem is the result of letting political hysteria arousing out of bigotry and ignorance mess up what should have been a scientific and technological/engineering challenge.

 

[gmax137]

...bigotry...

whaat??

 

[Jon Richfield]

whaat??

Hm? Is there a problem?

You have of course surely observed the attitude of the anti-nuke Nazis?

Or do I misunderstand?

 

[Astronuc]

Germany agrees to extend nuclear plant life span
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117

Germany's coalition government has decided to extend the life span of the country's nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years, officials say.

Under the agreement, some plants will now remain in production until the 2030s, instead of being phased out by 2021 as the previous government wanted.

There will also be new fees on utility companies to fund renewable energy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that renewable sources are not developed enough to abandon nuclear power.

She acknowledged that there were widespread concerns about nuclear energy, but said it was needed as a "bridge technology" until renewables were more viable.

. . .

Nuclear a cash cow for Germany's plans
http://world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_a_cash_cow_for_Germanys_plans_0609101.html
06 September 2010

German nuclear power plants are set to operate for longer after a policy change from Angela Merkel's government gave them a short-term extension in return for billions in taxes.

. . . .

 

[Astronuc]

First contracts for first new plant
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_First_contracts_for_first_new_plant_1409101.html
14 September 2010

At a supply chain event for UK contractors yesterday, EDF Energy announced that it has awarded over £50 million ($77 million) worth of contracts for the first nuclear power plant it plans to build in the UK.

Together with its investment partner, Centrica, EDF Energy plans to build four Areva EPR reactors by 2025, two each at its Hinkley Point and Sizewell sites. The company expects the first unit, at Hinkley Point C, to be operating by 2018.
. . . .

Nuclear utilities in global sustainability index
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Nuclear_utilities_in_global_sustainability_index-1409104.html
13 September 2010

A number of US and European nuclear power utilities have been included in the latest review of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI World), one of the leading international benchmarks for corporate contribution to sustainable development.
. . . .