Nuclear waste disposal
Jamie Jamison
the US was going to lose about 20% of its power grid in the next five
years due to the fact that many nuclear plants would have to shut down
because of waste disposal problems.
I was looking at this and wondering why high level nuclear wastes
aren't diluted before they are disposed of. It seems to me that many
radionuclides would be much safer and easier to handle if you diluted
them about 100 to 1 with iron or some other cheap metal and then disposed
of them that way. Obviously this isn't the case as someone much smarter
than I am would have proposed it long ago and we might be doing it now.
Can anyone enlighten me on the problems with this solution?
Jamie Jamison
Paul Dietz
> I saw an article a few days back where Hazel O'Leary stated that
> the US was going to lose about 20% of its power grid in the next five
> years due to the fact that many nuclear plants would have to shut down
> because of waste disposal problems.
She is probably refering to the "temporary" holding pools at some
reactors filling up with spent fuel elements. It is a measure of the
compactness of the waste that it can be stored on-site without
enormous effort (try that with coal ash). The obvious solution is to
move the older elements to dry cask storage (these are large,
air-cooled, sealed, thick-walled concrete & steel cannisters that can
in some case double as containers for transportation).
> I was looking at this and wondering why high level nuclear wastes
> aren't diluted before they are disposed of.
Well, geological disposal after reprocessing would dilute the waste in
glass, but that is more to make it resistant to chemical attack. You
really don't want to increase the mass of material, if the material is
thereafter still too hot to be easily handle.
Paul
SteveyP
taken it upon themselves to prepare storage (w/ the mill/kwh monies)...
As the government has ruled out reprocessing... As the government
has an undying passion in hiding all Pu in the ground...
How much money will the nuke utilities receive from the government
when the government opts out of its responsibility?
Is it true O'Leary has informed the Japanese she is disappointed with
their effort to inform their people of Pu as a power resource?
Is it true she has informed Argonne they will cease operations at
ANL-West in regards to the IFR? Is it true the Japanese have told her
to Blow and will pursue MONJU and the purex reprocessing process?
--
The tree of liberty must be refreshed | If a due participation of office is
from time to time with the blood | a matter of right, how are vacancies
of patriots and tyrants. It is its | to be obtained? Those by death are
natural manure. -Jefferson | few; by resignation none. -Jefferson
JM Alvis
>In article <2ljg7s$3...@news.u.washington.edu> nit...@u.washington.edu (Jamie Jamison) >writes:
>
> > I saw an article a few days back where Hazel O'Leary stated that
> > the US was going to lose about 20% of its power grid in the next five
> > years due to the fact that many nuclear plants would have to shut down
> > because of waste disposal problems.
>
>She is probably refering to the "temporary" holding pools at some
>reactors filling up with spent fuel elements. It is a measure of the
>compactness of the waste that it can be stored on-site without
>enormous effort (try that with coal ash). The obvious solution is to
>move the older elements to dry cask storage (these are large,
>air-cooled, sealed, thick-walled concrete & steel cannisters that can
>in some case double as containers for transportation).
It is not as simple as you make it sound. The "temporary" holding pools
are called spent fuel pools. This is where the discharged reactor fuel
assemblies are stored. NRC has strict licensing criteria for these pools
including a requirement that the whole reactor core can be discharged to
the pools. As we speak, utilities are trying to find more room in their
pools. NRC has allowed on-site dry cask storage for a very limited number of
facilities. They do not want the storage option to be dry cask storage at
the facility sites. DOE is required to develop a long term storage mechanism
for commercial fuel. I don't think NRC will give generic approval of on-site
dry cask storage and they in fact may reduce operating licenses for some plants
in order to force DOE to act. Whether you like nuclear power or not, I don't
think we as a nation can afford to lose close to 20% (not all plants will be
affected soon, only the older ones) of our electrical generation capacity at
one time.
John M. Alvis
Research Engineer
Nuclear Systems and Materials
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
voice: (509) 376-2099
fax: (509) 376-5824
email: d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
John De Armond
It is important to understand what is going on here. US nuclear plants
were designed to fit into a system whereby the government processes
and enriches uranium, fabricates and/or sells fuel to quasi-private
companies for fabrication into fuel elements. They then sell the
fuel to the utilities to burn. After removal from the reactor,
the utility would store the fuel for 6 mos or so to let the short
lived stuff die off. Then the utility would ship the fuel back
to a government facility for reprocessing into new fuel stock.
Now us libertarians immediately recognize the formula for failure -
getting the government involved in private enterprise but nontheless,
that was the equation.
The first jam-up was that the government turned the reprocessing
project into a boondoggle, typically rife with corruption and waste.
The real monkeywrench in the works, as with the rest of the country,
was Carter. Carter tried to hide his anti-nuke agenda behind
"proliferation". Somehow in Carter's twisted logic, reprocessing
would enable some unnamed terrorist to somehow steal some of
the mixed plutonium isotopes refined from the old fuel and make
a bomb out of it. That the physics involved makes it effectively
impossible was no matter. Carter ordered a moratorium on
reprocessing. This happened in the 77-78 timeframe.
Now the utilities were in a jam. They had built their spent fuel
storage facilities to handle only a couple of core loads because
it was designed only as transient storage until the fuel cooled
enough to ship. These storage facilities consist of a large
and deep swimming pool filled with water. Typically over 100 ft
deep, the fuel is stored in racks in the bottom while the water
cools and shields it. Since there was now no place to send the
spent fuel, the utilities were suddenly faced with on-site
storage of N cores where N could range to as much as the number
of cores consumed during the life of the plant. A plant eats a
whole core every 3 to 5 years so this is a LOT of fuel.
The government funded a rather large amount of research that amounted to
not much more than scientific welfare for a number of labs to look at
things like dry storage and such. Meanwhile, private companies designed
high density racks to go in the spent fuel pits. These racks contained
neutron absorbers between the elements so that they could be stored
closer together without any risk of criticality. Other companies
designed stacking racks that would permit more than one layer.
Many utilities built monstrous spent fuel pits designed to hold
several cores. The underlying assumption (or maybe hope) was that
if we could just get the Georgia White Trash out of office,
a subsequent administration would address the spent fuel issue
with something more than a ban. Unfortunately Reagan did little to
nothing other than to spend a few hundred million on the deep
repository rot.
The problem now, from the utility side, is that even the large, dense
spent fuel pits are filling up. And we have this rabid antinuke kook
in charge of DOE who will use similar logic Reno used to justify
killing those people at Waco to attempt to shut down the nuclear
plants. Her argument will be that no more spent fuel can be allowed
to be generated until a "solution" is found to the problem. What
she won't tell you is that the utilities are prohibited from finding
solutions by the still-in-effect moratorium on reprocessing.
Back to your question. The issue isn't dillution nor is it a question
of the solution being technically difficult. The problem is
there are hundreds of tons of fuel (each core takes about 100 tons)
sitting there in spent fuel pits. The fuel is maybe 3-5% burned.
That means that 95% of the available uranium plus whatever plutonium
was bred is wasted. The short term fission products are decaying
or decayed. What remains is some Cs-137, Sr-90, Kr-85 gas, some bariums
and the actinides. The first 4 have half-lives of 30 years or less
and so will be gone inside a century. Thus, only short term
storage is required. The Actinides, because they are very long lived
are low in activity and thus present little radiation hazard.
Plus they can be burned as fuel in certain kinds of reactors
as the IFR zealots on this group will tell you (and tell you and tell you
and tell you....) The amount of actual waste produced is miniscule perhaps
a gallon per 1000 mwe-year; it is simply dispersed throughout a
huge volume valuable fuel. Recovering all this valuable fuel and
segregating the tiny volume of "high level waste" is what
our government continues to prohibit. Not often mentioned is the
relatively large amount of valuable inert elements produced by
the fission process. I saw a calculation done by Westinghouse in
the late 70s that showed that the precious metals (iridium, gold, etc)
recovered from the fuel would likely pay for the processing. These
metals are pretty far down on the fission products curve but
their high inherent value makes recovery worthwhile. Ditto the noble
gases. Krypton and Xenon have very high market values and demand is
high, particularly since some light bulbs are now using krypton fill and
both gases are ideal fill gases for double pane insulating glass windows.
The Xenon isotopes decay in days and the Kryptons in a few years so
simply "sipping" the gases from the spent fuel and storing it until
it decays is all that is needed.
There is no new technology needed to handle the tiny volume of high
level waste produced by reprocessing. The French, in particular, have
refined glass vitrification, that is, sealing the waste into inert
glass. This is just one of many known fixative methods already researched
and developed. Though it is typically assumed that this glass
would be buried, there may be other uses such as process heat from
the heat of decay. This high level stuff gives off a LOT of heat
and if the gamma emitters are separated, the radiation is easily
shielded.
So when you hear O'leary prattling on about how she'll have to shut
down nuclear plants because of the "waste problem", understand that
she is lying just as much as Clinton is about Whitewater gate. Realize
too that the utilities have been paying into a fund for years to finance
waste disposal so it is NOT a matter of money. It is simply the same
kind of lying and corruption that has marked the Clinton administration
to date.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Tonight, suppose Washington were nuked to atoms. Ask yourself, would you
be better or worse off. This graphically frames the role of the federal
government in destroying the American way of life.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
[...mindless tripe and babble deleted...]
>The government funded a rather large amount of research that amounted to
>not much more than scientific welfare for a number of labs to look at
>things like dry storage and such. Meanwhile, private companies designed
>high density racks to go in the spent fuel pits. These racks contained
>neutron absorbers between the elements so that they could be stored
>closer together without any risk of criticality. Other companies
>designed stacking racks that would permit more than one layer.
>Many utilities built monstrous spent fuel pits designed to hold
>several cores. The underlying assumption (or maybe hope) was that
>if we could just get the Georgia White Trash out of office,
>a subsequent administration would address the spent fuel issue
>with something more than a ban. Unfortunately Reagan did little to
>nothing other than to spend a few hundred million on the deep
>repository rot.
>
The Reagan Administration adopted a laisse-faire attitude wrt nuclear,
however some key projects were born out of the era, and are now coming
into fruition.
The IFR project was conceived in the early 80's (Reagan Admin) to
answer the Carter Admin. position on proliferation, which lead to the
demise of CLinch River. You still don't get it...What about the IFR do
you not understand?? I know you understand the SHRT tests and inherrent
safety. I know you understand that actinide recycle is a much better
way of waste disposal than burial/spent fuel pool. (BTW you left out
a very important point-Burnup Credit-copy?)
The LWR industry is very much interested in the IFR concept that EPRI
(the reasearch arm of the utility industry) has funded project money
(~2M) along with some front-line utilities like SCE and CeCo, to study
and demonstrate LWR recycle via electrorefining. But then again, you allready
knew this.
>The problem now, from the utility side, is that even the large, dense
>spent fuel pits are filling up. And we have this rabid antinuke kook
>in charge of DOE who will use similar logic Reno used to justify
>killing those people at Waco to attempt to shut down the nuclear
>plants. Her argument will be that no more spent fuel can be allowed
>to be generated until a "solution" is found to the problem. What
>she won't tell you is that the utilities are prohibited from finding
>solutions by the still-in-effect moratorium on reprocessing.
>
Now do you see the importance of the IFR? If it can be proven that MOX
fuel can be recycled and reused, then all the anit-nuke ranting and
raving will amount to a hill of beans.
>Back to your question. The issue isn't dillution nor is it a question
>of the solution being technically difficult. The problem is
>there are hundreds of tons of fuel (each core takes about 100 tons)
>sitting there in spent fuel pits. The fuel is maybe 3-5% burned.
>That means that 95% of the available uranium plus whatever plutonium
>was bred is wasted. The short term fission products are decaying
All the more reason to recycle and utilize 99.9% of the U/Pu. So what
is the problem with burning it in an IFR? Hmm?
>or decayed. What remains is some Cs-137, Sr-90, Kr-85 gas, some bariums
>and the actinides. The first 4 have half-lives of 30 years or less
>and so will be gone inside a century. Thus, only short term
>storage is required. The Actinides, because they are very long lived
>are low in activity and thus present little radiation hazard.
The short lived isotopes will amount to an in-residence time of a couple
of hundred years. You can keep the COnstitution in the National Archives
safe for that long. But then again, you are the type who thinks its not
worth the paper its printed on. Its pretty awesome to view the real thing.
>Plus they can be burned as fuel in certain kinds of reactors
>as the IFR zealots on this group will tell you (and tell you and tell you
Better to be heard than not heard...Better to set the record straight,
and defend common sense..Call me a zealot if you desire...Just don't
call me late for dinner...
Yes, and will continue to tell you until you get it through that crusty
skin of yours...Whats your problem, you seem to think that the IFR is a
good idea, whose time has come (ref Sci. American Feb 94; Discover Mag. Ap
94), yet you don't want the government, who got us in this waste/reprocessing
mess, to develop the project. You only like it if some business angel in the
private sector plops 10 billion down or if utilities band to gether to
fund the project in its entirety...Anything but letting the taxpayers foot the
bill, when in fact, its a vital national interest. You fail to realize its
the best chance we have at solving this mess, but in your shortsighted gall,
BY ALLIGNING YOURSELF AGAINST ACTINIDE RECYCLE, YOU ALLIGN YOURSELF WITH
O'LEARY. (Ironic isn't it)...This is why no one on this forum
takes you seriously. I wonder where you studied nuclear engineering (if
in deed you did) You're a real piece of work.
>
>There is no new technology needed to handle the tiny volume of high
>level waste produced by reprocessing. The French, in particular, have
You just refuted what you previoulsy stated; Pyroprocessing actinide fuel
is pretty new, and novel, whats your problem with that?
>
>So when you hear O'leary prattling on about how she'll have to shut
>down nuclear plants because of the "waste problem", understand that
>she is lying just as much as Clinton is about Whitewater gate. Realize
>too that the utilities have been paying into a fund for years to finance
>waste disposal so it is NOT a matter of money. It is simply the same
>kind of lying and corruption that has marked the Clinton administration
>to date.
>
All the more reason to support the IFR. You make a good case for the
project, yet don't want it..you MUST favor burial over burning I suppose,
those ARE your only TWO options.
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>
Noticed you removed your private enterprise advertising...Thank you...
>Tonight, suppose Washington were nuked to atoms. Ask yourself, would you
>be better or worse off. This graphically frames the role of the federal
>government in destroying the American way of life.
Then pack your bags and move to Bosnia.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
"O.K. you guys, coffee break is over, everybody back on their heads.."
(The Univ of Chicago and ANL/DOE are absolved of my sins)
******IFR Information now on the ANLW Gopher (experimental)*******
____________________________________________________________________
Phil Ngai
>spent fuel, the utilities were suddenly faced with on-site
>storage of N cores where N could range to as much as the number
>of cores consumed during the life of the plant. A plant eats a
>whole core every 3 to 5 years so this is a LOT of fuel.
How much does a typical core cost? I'd guess a few tens of millions of
dollars. And the used ones are just sitting around doing nothing but
heating water?
This is really sad.
--
A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free
state, the right of the National Guard to go duck hunting shall
not be infringed.
Paul Dietz
> The problem is
> there are hundreds of tons of fuel (each core takes about 100 tons)
> sitting there in spent fuel pits. The fuel is maybe 3-5% burned.
> That means that 95% of the available uranium plus whatever plutonium
> was bred is wasted.
The 3-5% is misleading, as most of what is not burned is U-238.
Most of the U-235 that started in the fuel is burned, not wasted.
> I saw a calculation done by Westinghouse in
> the late 70s that showed that the precious metals (iridium, gold, etc)
> recovered from the fuel would likely pay for the processing. These
> metals are pretty far down on the fission products curve but
> their high inherent value makes recovery worthwhile. Ditto the noble
> gases. Krypton and Xenon have very high market values and demand is
> high, particularly since some light bulbs are now using krypton fill and
> both gases are ideal fill gases for double pane insulating glass windows.
> The Xenon isotopes decay in days and the Kryptons in a few years so
> simply "sipping" the gases from the spent fuel and storing it until
> it decays is all that is needed.
The yield of gold and the heavy platinum group elements (Pt, Ir, Os,
Re) should be negligible. Rather, the economically important
(non-fuel) elements are ruthenium, rhodium and palladium. Of these,
ruthenium is the most abundant, with about 10% of fissions leading to
a stable ruthenium nucleus. This would be somewhere around 70 kg of
ruthenium per GW(e)-year, or about $2M of metal. The rhodium would be
worth about 1/3 of this, the palladium much less. I believe there is
at least one long-lived palladium radioisotope, which could make
the palladium unsaleable.
As for xenon and krypton: these sell, last I checked, for around
$3/gram and $.3/gram, respectively. Roughly 20% of fissions should
lead to xenon, or about 180 kilograms/year -- worth about half a
million dollars per GW(e)-year. The krypton would be laced with the
10 year halflife isotope Kr-85. I doubt it would be economical to
store the krypton for a century or two, just so you could use it in
windows.
One would have to be careful not to saturate markets. The current
market for xenon is only about 15 tonnes/year. The market is growing,
however.
Whether you could reprocess 1 GW(e)-year's worth of spent fuel for a
few million dollars is not something I am competent to judge.
Paul
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 (b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov) wrote:
>
>Um, Peter? You do actually read John's articles, don't you? As opposed
>to just looking for things to bash him on? You didn't argue any of his
>points, you just cat-called.
Geoff,
A couple of factoids which may clear the air;
1. John De Armond has repeadedly come out against continued funding of the IFR.
As I understand his threads from last year, he feels we are nothing more than
government welfare, and in his opinion, which I can validate with previous threads,
feels that private industry should fully fund this type of research.
2. Although he served in the nuclear industry, in his current capacity, I believe
he is self-employed and working in the automotive literature field. I do not believe
he is currently contracted or consulting in the industry. I do not question his
experience, only the rationale for not supporting "the next logical step" to
commercial nuclear, and tying up the package with inherrant safety/waste recycle.
3. As someone who has plant operations, design,construction, and analysis background,
I am intimately familiar with spent fuel racks, densification, burnup credit and the
arguments surrounding continued operation of these plants. First things first; Hazel
O'Leary can't touch the 110 operating commercial reactors. Her jurisdiction is with
Class A reactors on DOE reservations. Any operations relief/licence stays MUST come
from the NRC, a totally separate entity.
4. The IFR has recently been falsely characterized as a "proliferant technology". THis
erroneous label falls from the fact that Pu, (in a non proliferatable chemical form)
is recycled and put back into the reactor. The Clinton Administration et al has come
out against any Pu based economy/fuel cycle. THis is a radical departure from their
predecessors. It also is inconsistant with the Administrations position to disposition
the wapons grade Pu.
5. THe commercial nuclear industry, and foreign governments (Japan,France) are intimately
familiar with the IFR technology, to the point of upping the financial ante substantially.
However, the current position by Mdm. Sec. is to discourage foreign investment in the
technology. The technology seem to be headed for LWR recycle, a move which would make
utilizing spent fuel pools moot.
6. THere are only two choices for Pu disposition; burial or burning. You allign yourself
with one or the other. There are no other alternatives. If you can thiink of one, please
let me know. On site storage is unacceptable as a permanent solution.
7. My personal attitude towards <<Mr.>> De Armond has been formed from reading and respnding
to his endless anti-governmental tirade. Also, he just doesn't seem to get it...Last year
he and Mike Smith spearheaded a ridiculous thread on Na-H20 reactions. I pointed out the
technology was sound (30 reactor-years power ops). I also pointed out there are certain
technological advances which were proprietary, but they went down the ugly path of baiting
and cajoling...How can I respect someone's position if they are not going to play it straight.
I had better digs with Victor Yod.
8. Whether the IFR is funded or not does not change the fact that the technology is sound,
and currently under benchmark. I am always miscast as a zealot, when the converse is true.
I am only out to provide an answer (viable) to the safety/waste issue in one neat package.
It seems the message falls on deaf ears alot because people have engrained in their heads
from past experiences, that commercial nuclear in the future will be like it was in the 70's
and 80's.
>
>: In article <637...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>:
>: in Peter's opinion:
>: [...mindless tripe and babble deleted...]
>
Here he went on and on about how the Federal Government screwed up and screwed us...just
trying to condense his words.
>: >The government funded a rather large amount of research that amounted to
>: >not much more than scientific welfare for a number of labs to look at
>: >things like dry storage and such. Meanwhile, private companies designed
>: >high density racks to go in the spent fuel pits. These racks contained
>: >neutron absorbers between the elements so that they could be stored
>: >closer together without any risk of criticality. Other companies
>: >designed stacking racks that would permit more than one layer.
>: >Many utilities built monstrous spent fuel pits designed to hold
>: >several cores. The underlying assumption (or maybe hope) was that
>: >if we could just get the Georgia White Trash out of office,
>: >a subsequent administration would address the spent fuel issue
>
>: >with something more than a ban. Unfortunately Reagan did little to
>: >nothing other than to spend a few hundred million on the deep
>: >repository rot.
>: >
>: The Reagan Administration adopted a laisse-faire attitude wrt nuclear,
>: however some key projects were born out of the era, and are now coming
>: into fruition.
>
>Okay, John's contention was that the Carter-imposed moratorium was still in
>effect. Without that, they have precluded the most promising solution. Are
>you disputing this? John was arguing strenously that the fuel should be
>reprocessed so it can be re-used. Technically this is feasible -- it is only
>politics (the moratorium) which keeps this from being developed. Or is this
>the point you are trying to argue (ie, that it would not be feasible)?
If John was arguing that, then why is he against the IFR, since no reprocessing
is necessary. The fuel is directly electrorefinned and recast into fuel pins, all
within the confines of the site, next to the reactor, in a separate facility, which
is connected to the reactor building (any location)
Remember..I sent him alot of info last year and he should be up to speed on the
technical arguments. He knows that the reprocessing of metal fuel is alot simpler
than MOX, and cheaper too. No danger of proliferation..
>
>: The IFR project was conceived in the early 80's (Reagan Admin) to
>: answer the Carter Admin. position on proliferation, which lead to the
>: demise of CLinch River. You still don't get it...What about the IFR do
>: you not understand?? I know you understand the SHRT tests and inherrent
>: safety. I know you understand that actinide recycle is a much better
>: way of waste disposal than burial/spent fuel pool. (BTW you left out
>: a very important point-Burnup Credit-copy?)
>
>He is saying that the IFR is a solution to a gov't imposed problem. It is
>also only a partial solution (unless you expect all the conventional nukes
>to suddenly evaporate?). Or do you think you can build enough IFR's to
>completely burn the waste from all of the nuke plants that has been accumulated
>since their beginnings (and which continues to accumulate). I don't know the
>numbers, but I have no reason to dispute John's -- that only 3-4% of the
>fuel is actually burned. If so, to complete burning the fuel you would need
>an IFR plant 25-30 times as large as a conventional plant (assuming you
>completely burn the fuel) just to keep up with its output. Obviously this
>is not reasonble, so it seems to me an IFR cannot burn up all of a conventional
>plant's waste. Hence you have not offered a solution to the waste problem.
>Sure, you can replace every nuke in the country with an IFR, but how long is
>this going to take? Even *if* you had the money and the political will to do
>this (and your crews weren't delayed by econazi's) how many of these plants do
>you think you can build simultaneously? And while you build them, the pile
>(er, pool) of waste keeps growing. That is why he wants the waste reprocessed.
>(Hoping I'm not putting too many words in his mouth -- that is what I get from
>his postings, anyway). The nuke side always assails the green-energy crowd
>with charges that they don't understand the *scale* of the electrical generation
>needs -- that solar cells, biomass, or wind might keep someone off-grid in
>electricity, but when you try to supply a reasonable fraction of the US supply
>the whole mess collapses under its own weight. I looks to me like you are
>making the same mistake. IFR might be useful to replace old plants as they
>are decommisioned -- perhaps even on an accellerated scale. Just don't forget
>how many of them are out there.
The first strategy is to prove the technology. Then the next step would be to build
a demonstration plant. As the commercial nukes were retired, they would be replaced
with IFR type reactors. The un-utilized fuel from commercial LWRs (97% unused)
would be converted to metal fuel through pyroprocessing. Thus, there would be no
need to mine extra uranium until the un-utilized fuel was burned. I believe the
initial deployment (mid 21st century) called for 20 or so IFRs...
>
>: >The problem now, from the utility side, is that even the large, dense
>: >spent fuel pits are filling up. And we have this rabid antinuke kook
>: >in charge of DOE who will use similar logic Reno used to justify
>: >killing those people at Waco to attempt to shut down the nuclear
>: >plants. Her argument will be that no more spent fuel can be allowed
But she can't. That order has to come from the NRC.
>: >to be generated until a "solution" is found to the problem. What
>: >she won't tell you is that the utilities are prohibited from finding
>: >solutions by the still-in-effect moratorium on reprocessing.
>: >
>: Now do you see the importance of the IFR? If it can be proven that MOX
>: fuel can be recycled and reused, then all the anit-nuke ranting and
>: raving will amount to a hill of beans.
>
>Again, you tout the IFR as a solution to a gov't imposed problem. I program
>computers; I don't crack atoms. I am in no position to judge the merits of
>IFR. It sounds like the greatest thing since sliced bread (er, atoms? :-))
>and maybe it is. It doesn't seem to me like it is going to get us out of the
>current crisis (ie, filled pools), though.
Alot of us who think it is the best thing since sliced bread are scratching our
heads wondering why the Administration and anti's don't see the solution as
we see it. It seems too simple; burn up the nuclear waste in an inherrently
safe reactor...What more do you want?
>
>: >Back to your question. The issue isn't dillution nor is it a question
>: >of the solution being technically difficult. The problem is
>: >there are hundreds of tons of fuel (each core takes about 100 tons)
>: >sitting there in spent fuel pits. The fuel is maybe 3-5% burned.
>: >That means that 95% of the available uranium plus whatever plutonium
>: >was bred is wasted. The short term fission products are decaying
>
>: All the more reason to recycle and utilize 99.9% of the U/Pu. So what
>: is the problem with burning it in an IFR? Hmm?
>
>They don't exist in the quantities required for their to be a solution.
>Maybe someday....
That someday is allready here. We have 5000 mtons of Pu floating around from
weapons work alone.
>
>: The short lived isotopes will amount to an in-residence time of a couple
>: of hundred years. You can keep the COnstitution in the National Archives
>: safe for that long. But then again, you are the type who thinks its not
>: worth the paper its printed on. Its pretty awesome to view the real thing.
>
>: >Plus they can be burned as fuel in certain kinds of reactors
>: >as the IFR zealots on this group will tell you (and tell you and tell you
>
>: Better to be heard than not heard...Better to set the record straight,
>: and defend common sense..Call me a zealot if you desire...Just don't
>: call me late for dinner...
>
>Come on, Peter, he's just pulling your chain a little here. He wasn't
>arguing against IFR -- and he wasn't disputing that the IFR would eliminate
>the problem by burning the waste removed from spent fuel. Do you deny that
>an IFR could do this?
The IFR could burn actinides. The rest of the shorter lived would be treated
as short lived waste (medical isotopes included) and would only need ~300 yrs
monitoring. I maintain that inorder for John to propose his solution, an IFR
must be a part of that solution, and he has come out against it, ergo, he will
never find an acceptable solution under those conditions. His only recourse is
to accept the merit of the project and stop bashing the government and the
science.
>
>: Yes, and will continue to tell you until you get it through that crusty
>: skin of yours...Whats your problem, you seem to think that the IFR is a
>: good idea, whose time has come (ref Sci. American Feb 94; Discover Mag. Ap
>: 94),
>
>I don't ever recall John arguing against IFR. He argues against gov't support
>of it. There is a difference.
This is my whole point..He has argued against it, ad infinitum, not in principle,
but because he dislikes any government welfare program in his opinion. I maintain
it is a worthy investment, something which is needed NOW.
>
>: yet you don't want the government, who got us in this waste/reprocessing
>: mess
>
>They got us into it. Do you really trust them to get us out?
>
Some one has to get us out of it, and right now, its down to this laboratory and
a handful of utilities.
>: to develop the project. You only like it if some business angel in the
>: private sector plops 10 billion down or if utilities band to gether to
>: fund the project in its entirety...Anything but letting the taxpayers foot the
>: bill, when in fact, its a vital national interest. You fail to realize its
>: the best chance we have at solving this mess, but in your shortsighted gall,
>
>You know, the taxpayers are the ones that actually earned the money that you
>so blithely want to take from them. Perhaps they have something that they
>consider to be more important that they want to spend the money on. You don't
>agree with them. Guess what? They don't agree with you, either. Most of
>the crises we face are gov't induced in the first place. And you expect the
>gov't to *solve* them?
>
I think a case can be made for the government starting the nuclear age. I think
the facts speak for themselves. BTW its only *blithley* if you think you wont
get anything out of it, i.e. the S&L debacle. That mess will cost each of us about
2K$/person, without anything in return. Are you saying that actinide recycle is
not worthwhile?
>: BY ALLIGNING YOURSELF AGAINST ACTINIDE RECYCLE, YOU ALLIGN YOURSELF WITH
>: O'LEARY.
>
>He never said this. Can you say 'straw man'? I knew you could. John has
>been one of the strongest pro-nuke voices on this group for many years. You
Oh yes he did. He came out against the IFR, which IS actinide recycle. Thus by
doing so he unwittingly alligned himself with those who do not want actinide
recycle (Md. Sec)
>call him names because he doesn't agree with gov't funding for your pet
>project. So he is anti-nuke. Some logic.
>
No it is not my pet project. It belongs to the American people. They deserve
a decent solution to the reactor safety/waste mess.
You must believe that he is ardently opposed to this technology...
That was the basis for my thread..How can he be against this technology and
cry about spent fuel pools,..etc..
>:(Ironic isn't it)...This is why no one on this forum
>: takes you seriously. I wonder where you studied nuclear engineering (if
>: in deed you did) You're a real piece of work.
>
>Well, you don't take him seriously, anyway. That's one...
>
How can I, he came out against fast reactors without full knowledge or basis.
>: >
>: >There is no new technology needed to handle the tiny volume of high
>: >level waste produced by reprocessing. The French, in particular, have
>
>: You just refuted what you previoulsy stated; Pyroprocessing actinide fuel
>: is pretty new, and novel, whats your problem with that?
>
>He means new as in yet-to-be-developed. The technology exists, even if has
>existed for only a brief period of time. That means it does not require any
>figuring out how to do things we don't yet know how to do. Commercial
o>fusion requires new technology. Come on, Peter. You know better than this.
No it is current, and under bench mark. Read Rhodes' book Nuclear Renewal. Cut
to the last chapter. There you will find the answer to all your questions.
>I think you got into bitch mode and just went fishing. Like I am doing :-).
>
>: >
>: >So when you hear O'leary prattling on about how she'll have to shut
>: >down nuclear plants because of the "waste problem", understand that
>: >she is lying just as much as Clinton is about Whitewater gate. Realize
>: >too that the utilities have been paying into a fund for years to finance
>: >waste disposal so it is NOT a matter of money. It is simply the same
>: >kind of lying and corruption that has marked the Clinton administration
>: >to date.
>: >
>
>: All the more reason to support the IFR. You make a good case for the
>: project, yet don't want it..you MUST favor burial over burning I suppose,
>: those ARE your only TWO options.
>
>Can you say 'false dichotomy'? He thinks gov't screws up anything it touches.
>I agree with him. Gov't consists of taking money from people who don't want
>to give it to you, and using to make them do what they don't want to do. If
>it were anything else gov't wouldn't be needed. You see John's stance against
>the gov't and think it is a personal vendetta against IFR. His response would
>be the same towards just about *any* gov't program arguing that it should get
>more funding.
>
But you see, the government has nothing to do with this project except dole out
the money and ES&H oversight. The real work is being done by a world-class national
laboratory, what Mdm. Secretary called the "crown jewel" of technical resources.
Its the same laboratory in which Fermi's CP-1 reactor ushered in the atomic age more
than 50 years ago. World class scientists and engineers, not beaurocrats.
>Personally, while I agree with John on gov't ineptitude, I disagree with his
>stance on IFR. I think there is a whole list of things that should be cut
>back as far as gov't goes. I would put IFR on that list as well as most other
>things the gov't does, but I would put it at the far end. At least there is
>likely some good to come from your program, and if the rest of the list were
>cut I don't think you'd have to be begging for gov't handouts. Investors
>*would* be in line to pour money into the project. Or don't you have faith
>in the commercial viability of what you do?
>
I have every faith that this technology will eventually deliver the goods.
>: >John
>: >
>: >--
>: >John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>: >Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>: >
>
>: Noticed you removed your private enterprise advertising...Thank you...
>
>This is the ultimate in hypocracy. Well, close enough :-). You spend pages
>arguing in favor of your industry. You try to convince people that it is
>worthy of gov't funding. Something which (amazingly enough) directly benefits
>you and a cause you believe in. And then you get all holier-than-though about
>a line in John's .sig. That is petty.
You forget the charter of the Internet; not to promote COMMERCIAL VENTURES..
>
>: >Tonight, suppose Washington were nuked to atoms. Ask yourself, would you
>: >be better or worse off. This graphically frames the role of the federal
>: >government in destroying the American way of life.
>
>: Then pack your bags and move to Bosnia.
>
>Obviously someone who prays the the great god of government, from whom
>all blessings flow.
>
>Peter (if you are still reading this, which I rather doubt), I think you
>hurt your case as much as John helped his. Normally you are fairly rational
>about stating your beliefs. This time I think you fell down badly.
>
I don't see it that way...You obviously mistaken me and taken some liberties
to extrapolate a false conclusion..I'm sorry for dragging you into this, but
why can't the man just come clean?
>Sure, I expect to either be totally ignored or roundly flamed. Either way,
>I wanted to correct what I thought were gross misrepresentations of John's
>position. He'll probably do it to, but I figure if you didn't listen to him
>the first time you won't listen to a rebuttal, either. Of course, you have
>no reason to listen to me, either, but I do come at this from a different
>angle. Maybe you will think about some of the points I made. Or not -- its
>a free country (or at least we try to believe so).
I just politely and succintly addressed all your points. You seem more receptive
than the brick wall from GA.
>
>geoff sherwood
>
>(Apologies to John de Armond if I misrepresented him, but I described his
>arguments as I understood them).
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
"O.K. you guys, coffee break is over, everybody back on their heads.."
(The Univ of Chicago and ANL/DOE are absolved of my sins)
____________________________________________________________________
Geoffrey Sherwood
: A couple of factoids which may clear the air;
: 1. John De Armond has repeadedly come out against continued funding of the IFR.
: As I understand his threads from last year, he feels we are nothing more than
: government welfare, and in his opinion, which I can validate with previous threads,
: feels that private industry should fully fund this type of research.
I am well aware of that. John has said this over and over. I believe he was very
clear on the point. He opposes US government funding of IFR.
: 2. Although he served in the nuclear industry, in his current capacity, I believe
: he is self-employed and working in the automotive literature field. I do not believe
: he is currently contracted or consulting in the industry. I do not question his
: experience, only the rationale for not supporting "the next logical step" to
: commercial nuclear, and tying up the package with inherrant safety/waste recycle.
I have yet to see John very much against IFR. He opposes US gov't funding.
I know you know this. You have quoted him when he has said so. I think we have
some conceptual problem here. I believe you cannot understand how someone could
applaud the technology and hope for its success, yet want it to be privately funded
and oppose government funding for the same. I applaud charity and oppose welfare. One is
voluntary, one is enforced upon us by people with guns. If Japan and European countries
want to pay for the program, great! What they do with their tax money is a matter between
them and their citizens. We are talking about money taken from us, the US taxpayers, by
force to subsidize your pet project. I know you are a true believer and will consider
that a denigration. We all have pet projects. We call consider them more important
than everybody elses pet projects.
I agree with John in principle. In practice, there are more compelling reasons to keep
funding the IFR than most other things gov't funds. Since the gov't has made it very
difficult to run the IFR program without it, I think it is better to keep funding it
than to kill it. But if the technology is as good as it sounds, and I have no reason
to doubt it, only the gov't is capable of keeping private industry from funding it.
There should be an awful lot of money to be made. I won't be overly enthusiastic about
the gov't giving back a few crumbs.
: 3. As someone who has plant operations, design,construction, and analysis background,
: I am intimately familiar with spent fuel racks, densification, burnup credit and the
: arguments surrounding continued operation of these plants. First things first; Hazel
: O'Leary can't touch the 110 operating commercial reactors. Her jurisdiction is with
: Class A reactors on DOE reservations. Any operations relief/licence stays MUST come
: from the NRC, a totally separate entity.
Okay, she's a zero. Good to hear. The problem is that Clinton put her there and may
begin listening to her. Are you saying he couldn't shut you down if he wanted? The NRC
is totally non-political (in practice, now, not theoretically)?
: 4. The IFR has recently been falsely characterized as a "proliferant technology".
Yeah, this is bogus.
: 5. THe commercial nuclear industry, and foreign governments (Japan,France) are intimately
: familiar with the IFR technology, to the point of upping the financial ante substantially.
Good!
: However, the current position by Mdm. Sec. is to discourage foreign investment in the
: technology.
Figures. Probably a control thing. After all, if it doesn't cost the US much it would
be awfully hard to kill. Perhaps that is what kept you going in the last go-round, and
they want to make sure it doesn't happen again? Sorry to be so cynical, but....
:The technology seem to be headed for LWR recycle, a move which would make
: utilizing spent fuel pools moot.
Sorry, not up on the lingo. Is 'LWR recycle' reprocessing spent fuel to remove impurities
so it can be reused?
: 6. THere are only two choices for Pu disposition; burial or burning. You allign yourself
: with one or the other. There are no other alternatives. If you can thiink of one, please
: let me know. On site storage is unacceptable as a permanent solution.
I guess I am curious. Who has been opposed to burning?
: 7. My personal attitude towards <<Mr.>> De Armond has been formed from reading and respnding
: to his endless anti-governmental tirade.
No doubt. He doesn't like gov't projects. Do you have to intertwine that fact with his
opinions on the technology? I've seen him question the wisdom of IFR as opposed to off-site
reprocessing, maybe, but that is a technical issue which should be removed from who is
paying for it. I won't argue that he is not guilty of this as well. You know each others
hot buttons.
: Also, he just doesn't seem to get it...Last year
: he and Mike Smith spearheaded a ridiculous thread on Na-H20 reactions.
Yep, I was there. I was part of it. As I recall you lambasted me for spouting drivel.
Matters not. One of the questions in that thread was whether the sodium could solidify
and if so, could you recover from it? Or perhaps that was another go round. I've been on
this list for about four years and have seen topics cycle periodically.
:I pointed out the
: technology was sound (30 reactor-years power ops). I also pointed out there are certain
: technological advances which were proprietary, but they went down the ugly path of baiting
: and cajoling...How can I respect someone's position if they are not going to play it straight.
Yeah, knowing the answers but not being able to say them does put you in a bit of a bind.
Look at it from the other side, though. If someone were to come to you and say that he had
a magic machine that was absolutely wonderful and was going to save the world, but he really
couldn't tell you anything because it was proprietary, how would you react? Would you take
what he said at face value, or would you probe for the things he *could* tell you about it.
I'm not saying the whole thing was handled well. It was messy. Understand, though, it
was a tough problem from both sides. Sometims tough problems don't have neat solutions.
: 8. Whether the IFR is funded or not does not change the fact that the technology is sound,
: and currently under benchmark.
Of course not.
: I am always miscast as a zealot, when the converse is true.
Well, true believers often come across that way. Note I never said true believers
were always wrong. You may indeed have *the answer*. Its just we've heard that claim
a lot.... I think you are a lot more likely to than most, but you come across
as someone who passionately belives in a cause. As do most zealots. You take umbrage
because you *know* what you are talking about. But from their point of view so do they.
The rest of us wonder sometimes what riled ya'll up.
: I am only out to provide an answer (viable) to the safety/waste issue in one neat package.
: It seems the message falls on deaf ears alot because people have engrained in their heads
: from past experiences, that commercial nuclear in the future will be like it was in the 70's
: and 80's.
Convincing other people that your answer is the one they should be seeking is always a
tough row to hoe, especially when they don't want to listen. It has to be that way, though.
I certainly wouldn't want someone to be able to wave a magic wand and have me suddenly agree
with them. Sometimes new ideas have to fight for their place in the pantheon.
[ most of the remaining post is deleted, I'll just dip here and there. Please call me
if I take something out of context. It is not intentional.
]
: >: [...mindless tripe and babble deleted...]
: >
: Here he went on and on about how the Federal Government screwed up and screwed us...just
: trying to condense his words.
I think your second sentence is a fairer summation than your first....
: >Okay, John's contention was that the Carter-imposed moratorium was still in
: >effect. Without that, they have precluded the most promising solution. Are
: >you disputing this?
: If John was arguing that, then why is he against the IFR, since no reprocessing
: is necessary. The fuel is directly electrorefinned and recast into fuel pins, all
: within the confines of the site, next to the reactor, in a separate facility, which
: is connected to the reactor building (any location)
John is *not against* reprocessing. Why should he jump for a solution which avoids
reprocessing if reprocessing is not made an issue? I read that someone wrote a book which
went to great lengths and completely avoided using the letter 'e'. Yes, you can do it that
way, but unless there is a compelling reason, why? He just doesn't think 'because Carter
said so' is a compelling reason. What does IFR bring to the table that off-site reprocessing
doesn't other than you don't have to truck the fuel back and forth?
: Remember..I sent him alot of info last year and he should be up to speed on the
: technical arguments. He knows that the reprocessing of metal fuel is alot simpler
: than MOX, and cheaper too. No danger of proliferation..
Is proliferation really a threat or merely a strawman? If the metal reprocessing is indeed
much simpler than MOX (and I see no reason not to believe you) that is certainly an argument
in IFRs favor. Is it that much easier to build an IFR than a reprocessing plant (since
we already have quite a few facilites which do the 'produce power' side of the equation)?
: The first strategy is to prove the technology. Then the next step would be to build
: a demonstration plant. As the commercial nukes were retired, they would be replaced
: with IFR type reactors. The un-utilized fuel from commercial LWRs (97% unused)
: would be converted to metal fuel through pyroprocessing. Thus, there would be no
: need to mine extra uranium until the un-utilized fuel was burned. I believe the
: initial deployment (mid 21st century) called for 20 or so IFRs...
So you are saying there is no problem with current storage capacity until enough IFRs
were to come on line to convert the industry to a net consumer of waste (ie, the IFRs
burn up more waste than the remaining LWRs produce).
: >: All the more reason to recycle and utilize 99.9% of the U/Pu. So what
: >: is the problem with burning it in an IFR? Hmm?
: >
: >They don't exist in the quantities required for their to be a solution.
: >Maybe someday....
: That someday is allready here. We have 5000 mtons of Pu floating around from
: weapons work alone.
Other way around. The IFRs don't exist in large enough numbers to solve the waste
problem. Until the 'IFR waste consumption > 'current reactor waste production'
waste will continue to accumulate. The IFR is not a short term solution to this
problem because you won't have enough IFRs to do it. If you dispute the point, fine.
Please just address it.
: No it is not my pet project. It belongs to the American people. They deserve
: a decent solution to the reactor safety/waste mess.
I really hesitate to touch this one. Perhaps pet project is too perjorative? How
about 'cause'. There are a few other terms about as well. They mostly mean the
same to me, so pick which one you like. You believe that is what the American people
should have. A lot of people have a lot of similar notions. Most don't ask the
individuals involved whether *they* want what you've got. This type of thinking
worries me. I have no grudge against the IFR, but I don't want to be force-fed something
against my will 'for my own good'.
: You must believe that he is ardently opposed to this technology...
: That was the basis for my thread..How can he be against this technology and
: cry about spent fuel pools,..etc..
I have said again and again I do not believe so. Why do you think 'I must believe'?
Is my English not clear?
: How can I, he came out against fast reactors without full knowledge or basis.
Again (sigh) he comes out against government funding of *everything*. Do you really
think your niche is special? From his point of view, you feed at the government trough.
That is reason enough to oppose it. Not the ideas behind it, not the technology, but
the government program. On principle. You obviously believe in the concept that
governments should do 'good things'. He (and I) believe that government is inherently
evil. I believe it is a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Given money and power it
will inevitably be corrupted and attract those who believe in corrupting it further.
The only good solution I see is to choke it back to being a servant of the people, not
its master. This means cutting back dramatically on its blood supply (money). This
means chopping out lots of programs who have adherents that will argue as vociferously
as you that their program is essential. Against this backdrop, can you not see where
John is coming from? I don't ask you to agree with this position, but so far you have
shown no understanding of it.
: >: You just refuted what you previoulsy stated; Pyroprocessing actinide fuel
: >: is pretty new, and novel, whats your problem with that?
: >
: >He means new as in yet-to-be-developed.
: No it is current, and under bench mark. Read Rhodes' book Nuclear Renewal. Cut
: to the last chapter. There you will find the answer to all your questions.
If this is meant to address my point I fail to see it. He means we don't have to
rely on 'breakthoughs' such as oft touted for fusion (and solar, and batteries, etc).
Since you say it is under benchmark (by which I assume you mean 'find out precisely how
well it does') I assume it does exist and does work.
: But you see, the government has nothing to do with this project except dole out
: the money
Yep, and there is the crux of the matter. It matters to John whose money is getting
doled out.
: and ES&H oversight. The real work is being done by a world-class national
: laboratory, what Mdm. Secretary called the "crown jewel" of technical resources.
: Its the same laboratory in which Fermi's CP-1 reactor ushered in the atomic age more
: than 50 years ago. World class scientists and engineers, not beaurocrats.
I certainly do not mean to disparage your team. I have no doubt as to your qualifications
and expertise.
: Or don't you have faith
: >in the commercial viability of what you do?
: >
: I have every faith that this technology will eventually deliver the goods.
But you don't have faith in investors believing that it will?
: I don't see it that way...You obviously mistaken me and taken some liberties
: to extrapolate a false conclusion..I'm sorry for dragging you into this, but
: why can't the man just come clean?
Perhaps -- how can I know if I have mistaken you? My opinion of you has not changed in
some time. You react about as I expect you to, though I fail to see why you cannot
understand John's position. I did not say agree, I said understand. I think it is
very consistent and I have read his postings in at least a half dozen newsgroups.
: I just politely and succintly addressed all your points. You seem more receptive
: than the brick wall from GA.
That you did. Thank you.
geoff sherwood
CRA...@brownvm.brown.edu
I would like to better understand the viable answer to the safety/waste issue i
n one neat package.. although it appears difficult to do. Your letter was so mi
xed up with personal issues it was hard to understand you. It seemed written in
a flash of wild anger which is interesting in itself but it doesn't really cla
rify anything for me.
Xena
Jeff Bailey
>...people have engrained in their heads from past experiences, that
>commercial nuclear in the future will be like it was in the 70's and 80's.
This may be a minor point, but here goes:
Are you saying that the commercial nuclear industry in this country
_deserved_ a lousy reputation based on its performance in the 70's and 80's?
If not, then I misunderstood your statement.
If so, then I wonder why you're so willing to believe that an industry
you accuse of (mismanagement, blunders--insert your words here) will turn
itself completely around in the future given its history of misdeeds. I
understand your committment to IFR, but it seems we have two choices here:
entrust IFR to a) government (no thanks), or b) commercial nuke industry.
One or the other.
In principle IFR appears to have some advantages (from what little I know),
but as we've discussed recently, technology does not exist outside of human
limitations. Government-operated nuke plants? Now there's a scary thought.
And if the success of your highly-touted IFR depends upon a soon-to-be-
rehabilitated commercial nuclear industry, then aren't you being a
wee bit optimistic? The technology may be sound, but are the people who
implement it?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------i
| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
| University of California Berkeley |
| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In his previous post Peter Angelo wrote:
>>...people have engrained in their heads from past experiences, that
>>commercial nuclear in the future will be like it was in the 70's and 80's.
>
>This may be a minor point, but here goes:
>Are you saying that the commercial nuclear industry in this country
>_deserved_ a lousy reputation based on its performance in the 70's and 80's?
No. I'm saying it was a mix of bad luck, poor man-machine interface, high interest rates
and the Oil Embargo of the 70's which in effect lead to a glut of oil in
the late 70's/early 80's which actually made large power plants not necessary. Also,
the technology did not have a chance to work though its "growing pains"
Plus the fact that TMI/Chernobyl did nothing to help the image..Read Rhodes' book
Nuclear Renewal. You will come away thinking its all Hyman Rickover's fault.
>If not, then I misunderstood your statement.
True.
>If so, then I wonder why you're so willing to believe that an industry
>you accuse of (mismanagement, blunders--insert your words here) will turn
>itself completely around in the future given its history of misdeeds. I
I think your use of "will turn itself around" is not indicative of reality.
I cite INPO, the USCEA, even NRC statistics of improved operation, reliablility,
and confidence in the industry. But then again, you only believe what you read
in the papers, right Will Rogers?
The point is that like NASA, Chrysler, and other great turnarounds, the nuclear
industry saga will in time, fall in line provided it is continuing to improve
>understand your committment to IFR, but it seems we have two choices here:
>entrust IFR to a) government (no thanks), or b) commercial nuke industry.
>One or the other.
I have always maintained that trust starts from within. If you trust youourlf,
then your work will show it. Confidence follows, and others will see it,
whether you dig graves, sell stock, whatever profession you choose.
Also one must trust somewhat others for their safety and well being. We allready
discussed surgeons, pilots, bus drivers..why the double standard for nuclear
reactor operators. IMHO they are overworked and underpaid for what they have
to guarentee (health and safety of the public)
>In principle IFR appears to have some advantages (from what little I know),
>but as we've discussed recently, technology does not exist outside of human
I will offer you any information made public you desire to make an informed,
intelligent decision on the technology. On the surface, it does sound like
anyone who really wants to solve the problems dogging the industry must address
three issues; 1) Inherrent Safety 2) Waste Recycle 3) Economically competitive.
I am not saying the IFR is the only choice, just one which neatly ties these
three elements together. I believe this is the road commercial nuclear (in
what ever form) must follow. By form I mean whether ALMR, ALWR, or MTGR..
>limitations. Government-operated nuke plants? Now there's a scary thought.
The government has operated nuclear reactors for over 50 years. Alot of good
science and technology has developed as a result. ALot of spin-off technology.
Who else would have done this..THe Boy Scouts? (I do believe they have a
merit badge in atomic energy :*)
>And if the success of your highly-touted IFR depends upon a soon-to-be-
>rehabilitated commercial nuclear industry, then aren't you being a
Allready rehabilitated industry. But then again you will debate me on this
point.
>wee bit optimistic? The technology may be sound, but are the people who
>implement it?
Ask yourself this question..If I have a billion dollar Space Shuttle, what
sort of hoops must I jump through to prove to the "owners" of this piece of
machinery, that I am reliable and trusting? You start to get the picture.
They just don't give junior the keys to the car without knowing he's going
to crash the damn thing.
>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------i
>| Jeff Bailey, Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering |
>| University of California Berkeley |
>| bai...@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu Barney + Rush = Barney |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 (b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov) wrote:
>: Geoff,
>
>: A couple of factoids which may clear the air;
>
>: 1. John De Armond has repeadedly come out against continued funding of the IFR.
>: As I understand his threads from last year, he feels we are nothing more than
>: government welfare, and in his opinion, which I can validate with previous threads,
>: feels that private industry should fully fund this type of research.
>
>I am well aware of that. John has said this over and over. I believe he was very
>clear on the point. He opposes US government funding of IFR.
>
Then please explain to me how someone can be against *government funding* and be
supportive of a project in principle. I would think one would want to muster resources
in whatever form, provided the payback is certain. Maybe I come from a different focus;
I don't believe the commercial world wants to invest in large scale projects without
some certainty or evidence that they would see a return on their investment. Shorham and
Zimmer and Marble Hill have in effect, spanked investors into submission..
I think the "co-alition" or consortium concept of "shared risk" applies here. Would you
expect Thiokol, or Grunman to foot the entire bill of building the Space Shuttle? Who
would benefit? I think that since the American people are the direct beneficiaries of this
research, they should have a stake in this..and they do..Through Congress, the American
people are represented. It took an act of Congress to kill the SuperCollider, the same as
it took Congress to save the IFR.
>
>I have yet to see John very much against IFR. He opposes US gov't funding.
>I know you know this. You have quoted him when he has said so. I think we have
>some conceptual problem here. I believe you cannot understand how someone could
But you just said it in 1) above. He has come out against the project just as he has
come out against the Space Station, Post Office, or any other "shoddily run" government
enterprise.
You are right when you say how I can't understand how someone would be for a project,yet
against its source of support. I think I come from the school of thought that if you believed
something is worthwhile, you would be for its survival...I can't understand why you can
have it both ways..that is be against its continued survival and for it in principle..seems
illogical.
>applaud the technology and hope for its success, yet want it to be privately funded
>and oppose government funding for the same. I applaud charity and oppose welfare. One is
Welfare is in effect, that. The recipients of welfare do not do anything to EARN it, nor
does the government EXPECT anything in return. THere is a difference between a "hand out"
and "lending a hand". I believe this speaks for itself
>voluntary, one is enforced upon us by people with guns. If Japan and European countries
>want to pay for the program, great! What they do with their tax money is a matter between
>them and their citizens. We are talking about money taken from us, the US taxpayers, by
They DO want to pay for it, but Mdm Sec won't authorize funds from them since her position
is (erroneous) that the project is "proliferant"
>force to subsidize your pet project. I know you are a true believer and will consider
>that a denigration. We all have pet projects. We call consider them more important
>than everybody elses pet projects.
There are pet projects..Then there are projects which pay the rent,feed my kids, put clothes
on their backs...Im sure I can get another job..Wall St. is looking for PhDs nowadays. Probably
can make 3-4X as much as I am now.
>
>I agree with John in principle. In practice, there are more compelling reasons to keep
>funding the IFR than most other things gov't funds. Since the gov't has made it very
>difficult to run the IFR program without it, I think it is better to keep funding it
>than to kill it. But if the technology is as good as it sounds, and I have no reason
>to doubt it, only the gov't is capable of keeping private industry from funding it.
Private industry wont involve itself in something that won't guarentee a return on their
investment. This precludes regulatory and intervenors, and the like which made huge
capital investments today, practically impossible
>There should be an awful lot of money to be made. I won't be overly enthusiastic about
>the gov't giving back a few crumbs.
>
>Okay, she's a zero. Good to hear. The problem is that Clinton put her there and may
>begin listening to her. Are you saying he couldn't shut you down if he wanted? The NRC
>is totally non-political (in practice, now, not theoretically)?
It will take Congress to kill it, or save it. You can make your voice known by
writing Congressman Pete Stark (my parents Congressman) and letting him know the
importance of continued funding. BTW, the savings in killing the project are only 1.4$M
over 3 years, since you still have to shut down, de comission. SO why not finish the
job?
>
>: 4. The IFR has recently been falsely characterized as a "proliferant technology".
>
>Yeah, this is bogus.
>
It is the most bogus characterization. It was designed as "anti-proliferant". Clinch
River taught us that one could not dance the reprocessing issue.
>
>:The technology seem to be headed for LWR recycle, a move which would make
>: utilizing spent fuel pools moot.
>
>Sorry, not up on the lingo. Is 'LWR recycle' reprocessing spent fuel to remove impurities
>so it can be reused?
LWR recycle is putting the spent fuel through the pyroprocessing process, and reclaiming
the 99.9% unused uranium/plut for use in the IFR
>
>: 6. THere are only two choices for Pu disposition; burial or burning. You allign yourself
>: with one or the other. There are no other alternatives. If you can thiink of one, please
>: let me know. On site storage is unacceptable as a permanent solution.
>
>I guess I am curious. Who has been opposed to burning?
Mdm Sec. for one. Also anyone against actinide recycle is in effect condeming us to the
never ending stone wall of NIMBY and burial.
>
>: 7. My personal attitude towards <<Mr.>> De Armond has been formed from reading and respnding
>: to his endless anti-governmental tirade.
>
>No doubt. He doesn't like gov't projects. Do you have to intertwine that fact with his
>opinions on the technology? I've seen him question the wisdom of IFR as opposed to off-site
>reprocessing, maybe, but that is a technical issue which should be removed from who is
>paying for it. I won't argue that he is not guilty of this as well. You know each others
>hot buttons.
Yeah, guilty as charged. I guess if I apply the "Joe Friday" technique (Just the Facts Ma'am)
Im sure I will still be tagged a "pro-nuke kook"...just want to spice up the posts and
spin him up..You see..I hate to loose...in anything..
>
>: Also, he just doesn't seem to get it...Last year
>: he and Mike Smith spearheaded a ridiculous thread on Na-H20 reactions.
>
>Yep, I was there. I was part of it. As I recall you lambasted me for spouting drivel.
>Matters not. One of the questions in that thread was whether the sodium could solidify
>and if so, could you recover from it? Or perhaps that was another go round. I've been on
>this list for about four years and have seen topics cycle periodically.
Right. As far as Im concerned, its a closed issue.
>
>:I pointed out the
>: technology was sound (30 reactor-years power ops). I also pointed out there are certain
>: technological advances which were proprietary, but they went down the ugly path of baiting
>: and cajoling...How can I respect someone's position if they are not going to play it straight.
>
>Yeah, knowing the answers but not being able to say them does put you in a bit of a bind.
>Look at it from the other side, though. If someone were to come to you and say that he had
>a magic machine that was absolutely wonderful and was going to save the world, but he really
>couldn't tell you anything because it was proprietary, how would you react? Would you take
>what he said at face value, or would you probe for the things he *could* tell you about it.
>I'm not saying the whole thing was handled well. It was messy. Understand, though, it
>was a tough problem from both sides. Sometims tough problems don't have neat solutions.
I wish it were that simple. BUt then again, people who don't understand the culture and
environment I have to live under, try to define thing in terms they understand. I'm sure if
I had some great Computer Secret which would make Apple competetive with the PC market, the
powers to be would guard me from leaking "trade secrets"..Here in lies the double standard...
On the one hand you say its distrusting to withhold information..On the otherhand..its perfectly
OK for other industries to protect their research and technology from misrepresentation.
>
>
>: I am always miscast as a zealot, when the converse is true.
>
>Well, true believers often come across that way. Note I never said true believers
>were always wrong. You may indeed have *the answer*. Its just we've heard that claim
>a lot.... I think you are a lot more likely to than most, but you come across
>as someone who passionately belives in a cause. As do most zealots. You take umbrage
>because you *know* what you are talking about. But from their point of view so do they.
>The rest of us wonder sometimes what riled ya'll up.
>
What riled me up is the fact that someone who bashes the nuclear industries
problems, wont see the solutions, even if it means having to foot some of
the bill.
>: I am only out to provide an answer (viable) to the safety/waste issue in one neat package.
>: It seems the message falls on deaf ears alot because people have engrained in their heads
>: from past experiences, that commercial nuclear in the future will be like it was in the 70's
>: and 80's.
>
>Convincing other people that your answer is the one they should be seeking is always a
>tough row to hoe, especially when they don't want to listen. It has to be that way, though.
>I certainly wouldn't want someone to be able to wave a magic wand and have me suddenly agree
>with them. Sometimes new ideas have to fight for their place in the pantheon.
What the fight iis, is a re-scripting of the nuclear paradigm. Opponents of any thing
nuclear wont let go of the past.. These same people are driving Chryslers and working
for NASA.
>: >Okay, John's contention was that the Carter-imposed moratorium was still in
>: >effect. Without that, they have precluded the most promising solution. Are
>: >you disputing this?
>
>: If John was arguing that, then why is he against the IFR, since no reprocessing
>: is necessary. The fuel is directly electrorefinned and recast into fuel pins, all
>: within the confines of the site, next to the reactor, in a separate facility, which
>: is connected to the reactor building (any location)
>
>John is *not against* reprocessing. Why should he jump for a solution which avoids
>reprocessing if reprocessing is not made an issue? I read that someone wrote a book which
The whole point is that the IFR REMOVES reprocessing from the equation. Its simple
as that. Pyroprocessing is NOT chemical reprocessing. There are technical distinctions
which make Pu recovery very important.
>went to great lengths and completely avoided using the letter 'e'. Yes, you can do it that
>way, but unless there is a compelling reason, why? He just doesn't think 'because Carter
>said so' is a compelling reason. What does IFR bring to the table that off-site reprocessing
>doesn't other than you don't have to truck the fuel back and forth?
It brings to the table the fact that the Pu is chemically and radiologically incompatible
with weapons production. SOmething chemical processing cannot assure.
>
>: Remember..I sent him alot of info last year and he should be up to speed on the
>: technical arguments. He knows that the reprocessing of metal fuel is alot simpler
>: than MOX, and cheaper too. No danger of proliferation..
>
>Is proliferation really a threat or merely a strawman? If the metal reprocessing is indeed
>much simpler than MOX (and I see no reason not to believe you) that is certainly an argument
In so far as Clinton's cronies are concerned, it is just a strawman to
rationalize their anti-nuclear bent. It is a non issue in reality, however,
Mdm Sec wants to falsly characterixe the technology to push her green
adgenda.
>in IFRs favor. Is it that much easier to build an IFR than a reprocessing plant (since
>we already have quite a few facilites which do the 'produce power' side of the equation)?
Much easier. Its all integrated into one site, and fuel can be recast on the
spot. Plus you remove the preverbial middle-man. Thus lowering the cost dramatically
(an often overlooked point)
>
>: The first strategy is to prove the technology. Then the next step would be to build
>: a demonstration plant. As the commercial nukes were retired, they would be replaced
>: with IFR type reactors. The un-utilized fuel from commercial LWRs (97% unused)
>: would be converted to metal fuel through pyroprocessing. Thus, there would be no
>: need to mine extra uranium until the un-utilized fuel was burned. I believe the
>: initial deployment (mid 21st century) called for 20 or so IFRs...
>
>So you are saying there is no problem with current storage capacity until enough IFRs
>were to come on line to convert the industry to a net consumer of waste (ie, the IFRs
>burn up more waste than the remaining LWRs produce).
No. There IS a problem with storage. It is a bone of contention when to
deploy this technology. I think you must realize that the IFR is not just
a waste burner, but a "Utilizer" thus unfissioned LWR fuel is the primary
feedstock for IFR fuel. This accounts for 99.9% of the U/Pu wasted in LWRs.
Thus if all 110 nuclear plants were to shut down this instant, there would
be more than enough fuel for at least one IFR.
>
>: >: All the more reason to recycle and utilize 99.9% of the U/Pu. So what
>: >: is the problem with burning it in an IFR? Hmm?
>: >
>: >They don't exist in the quantities required for their to be a solution.
>: >Maybe someday....
>
>: That someday is allready here. We have 5000 mtons of Pu floating around from
>: weapons work alone.
>
>Other way around. The IFRs don't exist in large enough numbers to solve the waste
>problem. Until the 'IFR waste consumption > 'current reactor waste production'
>waste will continue to accumulate. The IFR is not a short term solution to this
But you left out the most important volume in the equation; unused Uranium. This
is the most volume wise component of the fuel. Plenty allready sitting in spent
fuel pools. The IFR fuel is "ternary" i.e. a mix of U/Pu and Zirconium. You still
need the U to make or burn the Pu.
>problem because you won't have enough IFRs to do it. If you dispute the point, fine.
>Please just address it.
You have plenty of unused uranium as I have indicated.
>I really hesitate to touch this one. Perhaps pet project is too perjorative? How
>about 'cause'. There are a few other terms about as well. They mostly mean the
>same to me, so pick which one you like. You believe that is what the American people
>should have. A lot of people have a lot of similar notions. Most don't ask the
>individuals involved whether *they* want what you've got. This type of thinking
>worries me. I have no grudge against the IFR, but I don't want to be force-fed something
>against my will 'for my own good'.
>
think we as a nation were sold alot (weapons U/Pu) to get something (Russia off
our backs). Now its time to clean up and pay the piper. I also agree that one
should not be force fed any thing. Yet there are those problems which require
immediate attention.
>: You must believe that he is ardently opposed to this technology...
>: That was the basis for my thread..How can he be against this technology and
>: cry about spent fuel pools,..etc..
>
>I have said again and again I do not believe so. Why do you think 'I must believe'?
>Is my English not clear?
Bad choice of words..Let me rephrase..."Every indication he has given clearly
demonstrates that he would rather see the IFR dry up and die (due to govt funding)
than solve the problems of Inherrent Safety/Waste/Economics..
>
>: How can I, he came out against fast reactors without full knowledge or basis.
>
>Again (sigh) he comes out against government funding of *everything*. Do you really
>think your niche is special? From his point of view, you feed at the government trough.
If he thinks govt funding is anathema, he should move to New Hampshire. Live
Free or Die..There are somethings the Govt must do, like protect our security,
promote the common good..etc (What do you want vice a military-rent a cops?)
>That is reason enough to oppose it. Not the ideas behind it, not the technology, but
>the government program. On principle. You obviously believe in the concept that
But you see, he never made that point. He just came out and said..I don't care
if you turn water into wine...if I pay for it (taxes) I don't want it....
>governments should do 'good things'. He (and I) believe that government is inherently
>evil. I believe it is a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Given money and power it
>will inevitably be corrupted and attract those who believe in corrupting it further.
>The only good solution I see is to choke it back to being a servant of the people, not
>its master. This means cutting back dramatically on its blood supply (money). This
>means chopping out lots of programs who have adherents that will argue as vociferously
>as you that their program is essential. Against this backdrop, can you not see where
>John is coming from? I don't ask you to agree with this position, but so far you have
>shown no understanding of it.
Yeah, its a sad backdrop, because I see government as a potential resource for good.
Let me illustrate..I live 90 miles from 2 great national parks..Grand Teton and Yellowstone.
These are magnificent lands, majestic, and beautiful. Theodore Roosevelt wanted to
ensure these "resources" should be protected. Who do you think would be in a better
position to preserve these resources. I'm sure if corportate sponsors were charged
with this duty in the early 1900's, these 2 parks would today, 1) Not be what they are
2) Be a living testament to corporte greed. You see my point..somethings are best left
in the hands of a central authority to promote the "common good"
>
>: >: You just refuted what you previoulsy stated; Pyroprocessing actinide fuel
>: >: is pretty new, and novel, whats your problem with that?
>: >
>: >He means new as in yet-to-be-developed.
>
>: No it is current, and under bench mark. Read Rhodes' book Nuclear Renewal. Cut
>: to the last chapter. There you will find the answer to all your questions.
>
>If this is meant to address my point I fail to see it. He means we don't have to
>rely on 'breakthoughs' such as oft touted for fusion (and solar, and batteries, etc).
We DONT have to rely on breakthroughs!!! Pyroprocessing is a 30 year old technology,
it just was never applied to uranium/plutonium before since there was no METAL
FUEL. You see its the FUEL which is the revolution.
>Since you say it is under benchmark (by which I assume you mean 'find out precisely how
>well it does') I assume it does exist and does work.
Yes. It has been tested and works. Full scale demonstration is months away.
>
>: But you see, the government has nothing to do with this project except dole out
>: the money
>
>Yep, and there is the crux of the matter. It matters to John whose money is getting
>doled out.
If it matters to him, why rely on the SBA to jump start small businesses? Why not get
corporate sponsors and business angels. For that matter..remove all tax incentives.
You see he relies more on the govt more than he thinks...and wont admit it,
>
>: and ES&H oversight. The real work is being done by a world-class national
>: laboratory, what Mdm. Secretary called the "crown jewel" of technical resources.
>: Its the same laboratory in which Fermi's CP-1 reactor ushered in the atomic age more
>: than 50 years ago. World class scientists and engineers, not beaurocrats.
>
>I certainly do not mean to disparage your team. I have no doubt as to your qualifications
>and expertise.
>
THank you
>: Or don't you have faith
>: >in the commercial viability of what you do?
>: >
>: I have every faith that this technology will eventually deliver the goods.
>
>But you don't have faith in investors believing that it will?
Investors are inherrent skeptics and risk avoiders.
>: I don't see it that way...You obviously mistaken me and taken some liberties
>: to extrapolate a false conclusion..I'm sorry for dragging you into this, but
>: why can't the man just come clean?
>
>Perhaps -- how can I know if I have mistaken you? My opinion of you has not changed in
>some time. You react about as I expect you to, though I fail to see why you cannot
>understand John's position. I did not say agree, I said understand. I think it is
I understand his anti-government bent. I don't understand his anti-nuclear anti-advanced
reactor bent. He seems to think Westingouse and GE have unlimited resources to plop
down .5$B for research. He seems to think that if utility execs arent lining up
en-mass for the technology that it isnt worth much. This is wrong think. Its something
which will prevent him from suceeding wildly in business.
>very consistent and I have read his postings in at least a half dozen newsgroups.
Im sure he is in principle pro nuclear, however, in principle, he should allign
himself with a project/concept which will help not hinder nuclear development in
this country..
>
>: I just politely and succintly addressed all your points. You seem more receptive
>: than the brick wall from GA.
>
>That you did. Thank you.
>
>geoff sherwood
Now that wasnt bad was it?
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
Its difficult to jump into something mid-stream, sort of like ease dropping into
a conversation without knowing the initiators..Just the facts ma'am..I will try
and give you information you need.
Not wild anger..just an amusement.
I have ressurected posts on the IFR mainly to get the word out that it is again
in danger of going the way of the SuperCollider, all for the wrong reasons.
I did not want people to think I was flippant or cavalier, my apologies.
I am somwwhat distressed by those who say on the one hand we need these
pressing solutions to nuclear waste storage/safety, yet on the other hand
don't want the government to clean up their mess (or tax us for the bill)
Last I checked, the US Gov't isn't a profit entity and must derive revenue for
undertaking by taxation. There are those on the net who are pro-nuclear yet
anti-government. There are those on the net who are anti-nuclear and anti-
government. There are those on the net who are pro-nuclear and (moderately)
in support of government.
I belong to the latter.
Paul Dietz
I wrote:
> (non-fuel) elements are ruthenium, rhodium and palladium. Of these,
> ruthenium is the most abundant, with about 10% of fissions leading to
> a stable ruthenium nucleus. This would be somewhere around 70 kg of
> ruthenium per GW(e)-year, or about $2M of metal.
This is wrong; I got some bogus information for the price of
ruthenium. Currently it would be less than $100/oz, or
$.2M/GW(e)-year. Rhodium, on the other hand, is more valuable, at
least as of 1991 (> $150/gram), and so would be worth several million
dollars per GW(e)-year -- assuming not too much was destroyed by
neutron activation (its thermal neutron cross section is > 100 barns).
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Andy Holland
>6. THere are only two choices for Pu disposition; burial or burning. You allign yourself
>with one or the other. There are no other alternatives. If you can thiink of one, please
>let me know. On site storage is unacceptable as a permanent solution.
>
>
An interesting side note on this issue. I recall when Calvert Cliffs was discussing a building
permit for cask storage of spent fuel on-site, a traditionally *anti*-nuclear group
(I forgot their specific name) came out *in-favor* of the storage method, because it
was clearly safer than keeping the fuel in the pool (Yes, I must conceed there is at
least one anti-nuke group with some consistency if not a bit of integrity).
Obviously this is not a permanent method, but keeping fuel in spent fuel pools is silly
compared to wet or dry cask storage, burial, or re-processing. Even anti-nuclear groups
realize that this cannot continue. By keeping fuel in the pool, you contaminate water and
cause additional low level radioactive wastes. You also risk exposure to personel, and the
accident analyses for temporary storage methods shows them to be very favorable compared to
spent fuel pools. [I personally never felt comfortable with having to live with anti-
contamination procedures for personel. IMHO, the next generation of reactors should insure
essentially zero contamination; it is possible and economical in the long term - perhaps
these new Na designs meet this criteria?]
As for burial, DOE has yet to get their act together. Re-processing looks better all
the time. Perhaps we should *give* the fuel to the Japanese or French for disposal
(Put In Their Yard - PITY). Perhaps they would take it off our hands, using the Plutonium,
which is very valuable, in their reactors. DOE could then refund the mill/KwHr fee
(extortion ?) they have been receiving from the industry to pay for waste disposal
which is hopelessly delayed :).
Just a thought.
| Andy Holland || Views Expressed here are solely my|
| Westinghouse NMD || own and are not representative of |
| zc...@ncstate.pgh.wec.com || Westinghouse Electric Corporation |
Thomas D. Orth
|> P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 (b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov) wrote:
|>
|> He is saying that the IFR is a solution to a gov't imposed problem. It is
|> also only a partial solution (unless you expect all the conventional nukes
|> to suddenly evaporate?). Or do you think you can build enough IFR's to
|> completely burn the waste from all of the nuke plants that has been accumulated
|> since their beginnings (and which continues to accumulate). I don't know the
|> numbers, but I have no reason to dispute John's -- that only 3-4% of the
|> fuel is actually burned. If so, to complete burning the fuel you would need
|> an IFR plant 25-30 times as large as a conventional plant (assuming you
You're missing the point. The point is not to burn all of the nuclear fuel
available in unreprocessed spent fuel rods ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The point
is to use it over time to generate electricity in technologically superior
modern plants that generate less waste. The IFR is after all a reprocessing
tecnology.
|> is not reasonble, so it seems to me an IFR cannot burn up all of a conventional
|> plant's waste. Hence you have not offered a solution to the waste problem.
What you are calling waste is actually mostly fuel. We keep it around, burning it
as we need it, and it will indeed last for a very long time. Like I said before,
the point isn't to dot the countryside with IFRs in order to burn all of the fuel
just for the sake of burning it. Seems to me that you don't really understand the
greater issue eh?
|> needs -- that solar cells, biomass, or wind might keep someone off-grid in
|> electricity, but when you try to supply a reasonable fraction of the US supply
|> the whole mess collapses under its own weight. I looks to me like you are
|> making the same mistake. IFR might be useful to replace old plants as they
|> are decommisioned -- perhaps even on an accellerated scale. Just don't forget
|> how many of them are out there.
This is not the point. We only need to store fuel retrievably. It's not all or none
as pointed out above.
.
|>
|> Again, you tout the IFR as a solution to a gov't imposed problem. I program
|> computers; I don't crack atoms. I am in no position to judge the merits of
|> IFR. It sounds like the greatest thing since sliced bread (er, atoms? :-))
|> and maybe it is. It doesn't seem to me like it is going to get us out of the
|> current crisis (ie, filled pools), though.
Nobody claimed that it would..however, it would make the notion of permanent
unretrievable burial seem silly though wouldn't it?
|>
|> They don't exist in the quantities required for their to be a solution.
|> Maybe someday....
More of the same point being missed.
|> They got us into it. Do you really trust them to get us out?
Who's they? The government funds the research but they don't do it. Scientists
do it and we hate the beurocracy as much if not more than anyone.
|> the crises we face are gov't induced in the first place. And you expect the
|> gov't to *solve* them?
|>
No, O'Leary, Clinton, or Congress will not solve the problem. Scientists and
engineers will solve the problem. Question, who is doing all of the superconducter
research right now? Small business? IBM? Hell, IBM is too busy laying off their
engineers, scientists, and programmers and promoting all of the ass kissers to do
any research and development!
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
Geoffrey Sherwood
: Then please explain to me how someone can be against *government funding*
: and be supportive of a project in principle.
Because they are orthogonal issues. I can be in favor of libraries and not
want the gov't to build one, preferring it to be done privately instead (yes,
there are private libraries). I tried to illustrate the difference with
the welfare/charity analogy. Analogies are slippery things, and you didn't
see mine in the way I meant it. The fault is mine, of course. I'll try again:
: I applaud charity and oppose welfare.
: Welfare is in effect, that. The recipients of welfare do not do anything to
: EARN it, nor does the government EXPECT anything in return. THere is a
: difference between a "hand out" and "lending a hand". I believe this speaks
: for itself
Well, no. Charity recipients often don't do anything to 'earn' it, either.
How does a hurricane victim 'earn' what the Red Cross provides? It is a gift,
freely given. Charity is the voluntary contributions of people who care enough
about their fellow man to contribute. Welfare is the forced redistribution of
money from one group to another. The person making charitable contributions
does it because he *wants to*. The taxpayer does it because he will be put in
jail if he doesn't. If you don't think so, abolish the enforcement arm of the
IRS, publicize this fact, and see what happens to your revenues. One is a
gift, one is extortion. Maybe there is a way to say this more clearly, but I
don't know how.
: I would think one would want to muster resources
: in whatever form, provided the payback is certain.
If you are the one receiving them, perhaps. If the mafia decided it wanted to
buy in, would you let them? Or do you care, perhaps just a little, where the
$$ comes from?
:Maybe I come from a different focus;
: I don't believe the commercial world wants to invest in large scale projects
: without some certainty or evidence that they would see a return on their
: investment. Shorham and Zimmer and Marble Hill have in effect, spanked
: investors into submission..
I believe you are seeing the end result of a gov't created problem. It is why,
while I disagree with gov't funding on principle I would not oppose it for
IFR -- it is too important to let the gov't take it down the drain. I would
cut it further down the road once much of the rest of the gov't was dismantled.
: I think the "co-alition" or consortium concept of "shared risk" applies here.
: Would you expect Thiokol, or Grunman to foot the entire bill of building the
: Space Shuttle? Who would benefit?
Good question. Was the space shuttle the proper technology for the problem
it solved? Big dumb boosters could have done most of what the shuttle did
at a fraction of its price. Satellite launches are done commercially, are
they not?
: I think that since the American people are the direct beneficiaries of this
: research, they should have a stake in this..and they do..Through Congress,
: the American people are represented. It took an act of Congress to kill the
: SuperCollider, the same as it took Congress to save the IFR.
Yeah, I took civics, too. The American people don't give a rat's ass about
IFR. Sorry to be so blunt, but I bet 99% of them don't have the slightest
clue about it. (me, I have the slightest clue about it :-)). As for
Congresscritters, considering the political machine that is required to
elect one, we have the privilege of choosing our masters. Better than
nothing, but only slightly. Saying that they 'represent' us is hopelessly
naive. They are there, first and foremost, to get re-elected.
: But you just said it in 1) above. He has come out against the project just
: as he has come out against the Space Station, Post Office, or any other
: "shoddily run" government enterprise.
Does he really call out 'shoddily run' projects specifically, or does he say
that he is against all projects, and gov't ones are usually shoddily run,
anyway. There is a big distinction between the two positions, being that
the former position would be in *favor* of a *well-run* gov't project, and
the latter would be against it as well.
: You are right when you say how I can't understand how someone would be for a
: project,yet against its source of support. I think I come from the school of
: thought that if you believed something is worthwhile, you would be for its
: survival...I can't understand why you can have it both ways..that is be
: against its continued survival and for it in principle..seems illogical.
I believe you have described a concrete example of the end justifies the means.
Say somebody runs an extortion racket and builds a hospital with the proceeds.
Are you in favor of the extortion continuing because it is getting you the
hospital you want?
: >voluntary, one is enforced upon us by people with guns. If Japan and
: >European countries want to pay for the program, great! What they do with
: >their tax money is a matter between them and their citizens.
: They DO want to pay for it, but Mdm Sec won't authorize funds from them
: since her position is (erroneous) that the project is "proliferant"
Yeah, she's a bozo. I think it is a ploy to make the IFR easier to kill,
because foreign participation was used to help keep it alive last time.
This is based totally on cynicism, but is it unjustified?
: There are pet projects..Then there are projects which pay the rent,feed my
: kids, put clothes on their backs...Im sure I can get another job..Wall St.
: is looking for PhDs nowadays. Probably can make 3-4X as much as I am now.
Look, I never said you were unemployable. The fact that you are willing to
take the pay cut is because you believe in your cause. Am I wrong? If so,
*that* would be totally illogical! That is all I meant by pet projects.
: Private industry wont involve itself in something that won't guarentee a
; return on their investment. This precludes regulatory and intervenors, and
: the like which made huge capital investments today, practically impossible
Won't involve itself in risky enterprises? *Snort*. There are an awful lot
of risky startups out there. There are an awful lot of people betting they
will get rich (or richer) by getting in early on a hot prospect. I cannot
parse your second sentence at all. I assume you mean that government makes
it impossible to get a good return on large commercial investments of this
nature (I have to add 'of this nature' because companies *do* make very large
commercial investments). In any event, we have government trying to solve
a problem government created. I would prefer that they just got out of the
way.
: LWR recycle is putting the spent fuel through the pyroprocessing process,
: and reclaiming the 99.9% unused uranium/plut for use in the IFR
Could it not be used to repower a standard commercial reactor? You may
wonder why I harp on this (though I don't understand, I thought I was clear)?
Twenty percent of our power comes from commercial reactors. It will get awful
cold if we shut them down (or hot, come summer :-)). They also represent an
enormous captial investment. You cannot wave a magic wand and make them all
become IFRs. Even if IFR were now commercially available switchover would
take a long time. This whole thread started with what to do with the waste.
It seems to me you do not have a solution. In fifty years, maybe, if all of
our power comes from IFRs so we don't produce any more waste. But that is
a long time in the future. Even optimistically, how fast do you think these
will be built?
: >Yeah, knowing the answers but not being able to say them does put you in
a bit of a bind. Look at it from the other side, though. If someone were to
come to you and say that he had a magic machine that was absolutely wonderful
and was going to save the world, but he really couldn't tell you anything
because it was proprietary, how would you react?
: I wish it were that simple. BUt then again, people who don't understand the
: culture and environment I have to live under, try to define thing in terms
: they understand. I'm sure if I had some great Computer Secret which would
: make Apple competetive with the PC market, the powers to be would guard me
: from leaking "trade secrets"..Here in lies the double standard...
Wrongo. There is no double standard. Haven't you read the flames about the
'free energy' machines and such in this group (what was it, Testakia or
something like that) where precisely how it worked was a trade secret? You
are being held to the same standard everyone else is. It is a tough issue.
You can get all paranoid about it if you want, but you have a bunch of
engineers in this group. They aren't likely to take things on faith. Do you
blame them? If you were one of us on the outside looking in, do you really
think you'd turn off your engineering sense just because somebody made a claim?
Do you believe one of the free energy machines is going to put the IFR out of
business by making elecricity too cheap to meter? (yeah, I know. gotta get
my jollies somehow).
: On the one hand you say its distrusting to withhold information..
I did? Where?
: On the otherhand..its perfectly OK for other industries to protect their
: research and technology from misrepresentation.
Yep. You can do it, too. Just don't expect claims supported by 'I can't tell
you' to be taken too seriously. Look at your example -- if someone said
they had this great Computer Secret, but couldn't tell you what it was, how
many of thier claims would you believe? You'd look for the things they can tell
you, and look at what claims those facts support, wouldn't you?
: >John is *not against* reprocessing. Why should he jump for a solution
: >which avoids reprocessing if reprocessing is not made an issue? I read that
: >someone wrote a book which
: The whole point is that the IFR REMOVES reprocessing from the equation. Its
: simple as that. Pyroprocessing is NOT chemical reprocessing. There are
: technical distinctions which make Pu recovery very important.
You did not answer my question. Why is reprocessing bad so it is something
to be avoided? Each time I ask you tell me that IFR avoids it. Why bother
avoiding it?
: > What does IFR bring to the table that off-site reprocessing
: >doesn't other than you don't have to truck the fuel back and forth?
: It brings to the table the fact that the Pu is chemically and radiologically
: incompatible with weapons production. SOmething chemical processing cannot
: assure.
But is proliferation a serious concern with chemical reprocessing? 'Carter
said so' does not qualify as a serious concern.... If your process avoids a
non-issue, who cares?
: >Is proliferation really a threat or merely a strawman? If the metal
: >reprocessing is indeed much simpler than MOX (and I see no reason not to
: >believe you) that is certainly an argument
: In so far as Clinton's cronies are concerned, it is just a strawman to
: rationalize their anti-nuclear bent. It is a non issue in reality, however,
: Mdm Sec wants to falsly characterixe the technology to push her green
: adgenda.
Again, I was asking about proliferation due to reprocessing of any sort, not
just IFR. I do specifically include chemical processing. Is this really a
threat or just a straw man? I seem to recall that everyone who has wanted
to make a bomb (and succeeded) has done it through building a dedicated
reactor to breed their fissile material (Manhattan project and perhaps the
Soviet projects excepted, because they had a rather massive infrastructure
behind them). Does chemical reprocessing really add to the proliferation
threat, or are there much easier methods by which someone wishing to make
a bomb would surely use?
: >in IFRs favor. Is it that much easier to build an IFR than a reprocessing
: >plant (since we already have quite a few facilites which do the 'produce
: >power' side of the equation)?
: Much easier. Its all integrated into one site, and fuel can be recast on the
: spot. Plus you remove the preverbial middle-man. Thus lowering the cost
: dramatically (an often overlooked point)
I don't think you answered my question. Your answer seems to be that it is
cheaper to build an IFR than a distinct processing plant plus a conventional
reactor, plus the cost of shipping the material. Is that an accurate
restatement? Since we already have commercial reactors which are producing
waste they cannot get rid of, and we already have a trucking infrastructure,
is it cheaper to
: No. There IS a problem with storage. It is a bone of contention when to
: deploy this technology. I think you must realize that the IFR is not just
: a waste burner, but a "Utilizer" thus unfissioned LWR fuel is the primary
: feedstock for IFR fuel. This accounts for 99.9% of the U/Pu wasted in LWRs.
: Thus if all 110 nuclear plants were to shut down this instant, there would
: be more than enough fuel for at least one IFR.
And it would be awfully cold. Shutting down the nuclear plants is not an
option. Even most eco-nazis agree with this. (Phasing out, maybe, but not
just turning them off).
: >Other way around. The IFRs don't exist in large enough numbers to solve
: >the waste problem. Until the 'IFR waste consumption > 'current reactor
: >waste production' waste will continue to accumulate. The IFR is not a short
: >term solution to this
: But you left out the most important volume in the equation; unused Uranium.
: This is the most volume wise component of the fuel. Plenty allready sitting
: in spent fuel pools. The IFR fuel is "ternary" i.e. a mix of U/Pu and
: Zirconium. You still need the U to make or burn the Pu.
How does this relate to what I said?
: >problem because you won't have enough IFRs to do it. If you dispute the
: >point, fine. Please just address it.
: You have plenty of unused uranium as I have indicated.
You ducked again. You have a shitload of waste around. It continues to
accumulate. Shutting down our commercial power production is not an option.
You see everything from such an IFR-centric viewpoint is it hard to communicate.
Yes, this provides lots of fuel for an IFR. Fine. (Analogy alert). Its like
a town with its landfill almost full, with a maggot in the garbage saying "I
don't see what the problem is, I've got plenty to eat'. You look at the waste
as a ready source of fuel for the IFR. We see the volume of it (compared to
storage available) as a major problem in and of itself. Maybe the maggots will
multiply and eventully eat all the garbage, but we have to do something in the
meantime. If chemical reprocessing of the fuel enables it to be reburned in
a conventional reactor, it both reduces the pile of garbage and generates
power to boot. Even if IFR will eventually take over, it gives us time to
get to that point.
: If he thinks govt funding is anathema, he should move to New Hampshire. Live
: Free or Die..There are somethings the Govt must do, like protect our security,
: promote the common good..etc (What do you want vice a military-rent a cops?)
I agree it should do a few basic things. I think you could drive a truck
through our differences of what 'promote the common good' means, though.
: >That is reason enough to oppose it. Not the ideas behind it, not the
: >technology, but the government program. On principle.
: But you see, he never made that point. He just came out and said..I don't care
: if you turn water into wine...if I pay for it (taxes) I don't want it....
Again, the question is whether the ends justify the means. The 'if I pay for
it' means involuntarily. The difference is that you believe that what you have
is so good that people should be forced to support it whether they want to or
not. Maybe he didn't say it clearly, I don't know. Maybe I'm putting words
in his mouth, I don't know. I don't think so, though. He is pretty consistent
across all of his postings.
[ long diatribe from yours truly about the evils of gov't deleted ]
: Yeah, its a sad backdrop, because I see government as a potential resource
: for good.
That I was able to surmise...
: Let me illustrate..I live 90 miles from 2 great national parks..Grand Teton
: and Yellowstone. These are magnificent lands, majestic, and beautiful.
: Theodore Roosevelt wanted to ensure these "resources" should be protected.
: Who do you think would be in a better position to preserve these resources.
: I'm sure if corportate sponsors were charged with this duty in the early
: 1900's, these 2 parks would today, 1) Not be what they are 2) Be a living
: testament to corporte greed.
Have you seen the Curry Co in operation in Yosemite?
The Gov't drowned another gorgeous valley in Hetch Hetchy to provide a
water supply for California (which some considered more spectacular than
Yosemite).
The gov't does not have an unblemished record on this. There are private
parks which charge admissions, too. They certainly have incentives to maintain
their grounds.
Regardless, I'm not going to say that the government has not done good things.
All in all, the National Park system is probably a good thing. Correct me if
I am wrong, though, but an awful lot of maintenance is being put off because
of budget considerations, and parks do not get the benefit of the admissions
that are charged by people visiting them. I believe both of these to be
true. If so, you will see the quality of the parks deteriorate because there
is no incentive to keep them up.
: You see my point..somethings are best left
: in the hands of a central authority to promote the "common good"
I understand where you are coming from. I agree somewhat, and grudgingly
at that. On balance, the gov't is still a major loss.
: >: But you see, the government has nothing to do with this project except
: >: dole out the money
: >
: >Yep, and there is the crux of the matter. It matters to John whose money
: >is getting doled out.
: If it matters to him, why rely on the SBA to jump start small businesses?
Are you assuming in some small way that he *approves* of the SBA????
: Why not get
: corporate sponsors and business angels. For that matter..remove all tax
: incentives.
Good idea!! Let people figure out what is profitable without the gov't
distorting the market! Let *them* decide what the market wants!
: You see he relies more on the govt more than he thinks...and wont admit it,
He does?
: >But you don't have faith in investors believing that it will?
: Investors are inherrent skeptics and risk avoiders.
Skeptics, yes. If you were spending your money wouldn't you be somewhat
skeptical? But risk avoiders? Hah! Ever hear of the stock market? People
risk large sums all the time. Sure, they try to balance risk vs potential
profit. If they are going for a risky venture they want to be well rewarded
if it works out. Its called 'risk premium'. Check out Silicon Valley for
a *bunch* of start-ups which people have invested in. Look at 3DO, a company
with no product (well, not when they went public) which raised inordinate
sums of money by selling stock in their venture. Who knows if it will be
able to take over from Sega, Nintendo, and the like? They could lose their
investments. But they hope to make a killing. That is why the money isn't
in CDs somewhere.
[ back to John ]
: I understand his anti-government bent. I don't understand his anti-nuclear
: anti-advanced reactor bent. He seems to think Westingouse and GE have
: unlimited resources to plop down .5$B for research. He seems to think that
: if utility execs arent lining up en-mass for the technology that it isnt
: worth much.
Worth much to whom? The gov't has completely distorted the market to the
extent that such a question is even possible. Gov't whim is all the matters.
Right now they think it is a good thing (but just barely). Tomorrow they
may decide to kill it. Does that make it good or bad? If the IFR is as
good as you say, and it really serves a need, and the gov't were not involved.
1) it would already be in commercial operation; gov't always studies everything
to deat. 2) Utilities would see this as way to make a killing. They would
be falling all over themselves to get a piece of the pie.
The problem is that you look at gov't and see the check that funds IFR and
say 'govt is good'. I look at the immense distortions which the gov't has
imposed on the market so that the only way IFR can continue is through a gov't
handout (irrevocable at any time) and say the gov't is the problem, not the
solution. You get your crumbs, but the gov't takes the cake.
: This is wrong think. Its something which will prevent him from
: suceeding wildly in business.
I believe he already has, actually.
geoff sherwood
Geoffrey Sherwood
: In article <1994Mar10.1...@adobe.com>, sher...@adobe.com (Geoffrey Sherwood) writes:
: |> an IFR plant 25-30 times as large as a conventional plant (assuming you
: You're missing the point. The point is not to burn all of the nuclear fuel
: available in unreprocessed spent fuel rods ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The point
: is to use it over time to generate electricity in technologically superior
: modern plants that generate less waste. The IFR is after all a reprocessing
: tecnology.
Yes, I am well aware of this. I have read both yours and Peter's posts. This
whole thread started with the apparent imminent lack of storage for waste.
I did not say the waste was worthless, only that it cannot be burned in
a conventional reactor.
: |> is not reasonble, so it seems to me an IFR cannot burn up all of a
: |> conventional plant's waste. Hence you have not offered a solution to
: |> the waste problem.
: What you are calling waste is actually mostly fuel. We keep it around,
: burning it as we need it, and it will indeed last for a very long time.
: Like I said before, the point isn't to dot the countryside with IFRs in
: order to burn all of the fuel just for the sake of burning it. Seems to me
: that you don't really understand the greater issue eh?
I guess you really don't understand the thread, do you? The problem that
was posed is that we have a bunch of waste being generated. This will
continue for quite some time unless you can magically turn all the nuke
plants into IFRs which doesn't seem overly likely. There is apparently
a problem in storing it. That was postulated for the discussion, and
Peter said this was the case. I am sure this is another gov't generated
problem, and that if they would actually try to solve problems instead of
mug for the cameras they would just allow the utilities to build more storage
facilities, or whatever they need to do. Regardless, it was the premise the
discussion was founded on. Peter jumped in hawking the IFR. It seems the
IFR will not solve this problem, though Peter has not said this yet. It
may well be a long term solution if and when aging conventional nukes are
replaced by IFR nukes so the amount of waste generated gradually slows.
One short term solution seems to be chemical reprocessing, currently forbidden
by the US gov't becuase of the supposed threat of proliferation. If allowed,
the waste would be reprocessed into fuel, which would then be burnable in a
conventional nuke. Is this not correct? I would assume this cycle could be
repeated many times. If not, please correct me. This solution would
eliminate the growing store of waste (or at least greatly reduce the growth).
The impurities removed need to be handled, and it sounds like an IFR could
eliminate those by burning them.
: This is not the point. We only need to store fuel retrievably. It's not
: all or none as pointed out above.
Well, yes, but the question remains which is more politically feasible --
building a reprocessing plant or storing ever-increasing amounts of waste?
And it is waste until it can be made useful again, is it not?
: Nobody claimed that it would..however, it would make the notion of permanent
: unretrievable burial seem silly though wouldn't it?
Yes. I don't understand why the question seems to come down to IFR or
burial. If reprocessing for reuse in a conventional plant just won't work
I wish somebody would bloody well say so. Otherwise, there is a third
choice. From where I sit it seems the question has been ignored because
it presents a non-IFR alternative in a discussion with IFR proponents.
: No, O'Leary, Clinton, or Congress will not solve the problem. Scientists and
: engineers will solve the problem.
No, the problem is a political one. Perhaps you IFR folks can give an option
congresscritters will find politically acceptible. You are just finding one
more solution to the problem, though.
: Question, who is doing all of the superconducter research right now?
Maybe nobody thinks it is going to amount to a hill of beans in the real
world? Just because you think research in this direction should be funded
doesn't mean it should be.
: Small business? IBM? Hell, IBM is too busy laying off their
: engineers, scientists, and programmers and promoting all of the ass kissers
: to do any research and development!
Well, that is their perogative. If that is true the marketplace will judge
them accordingly.
geoff sherwood
John De Armond
>The government has operated nuclear reactors for over 50 years. Alot of good
>science and technology has developed as a result. ALot of spin-off technology.
C'mon Peter. Government nuclear operations practically define nuclear
criminal liability. If the civilian nuclear operators did even a tenth
of what the government routinely has gotten away with under the holy
shield of national security, they'd NEVER see the other side of the jail
bars. Not just little shit either. Things like the several million
gallons of high level waste they pumped into the aquifer at Hanford or
the tritium at Savannah River or the section of deer antler one
spectroscopy lab where I consulted at Oak Ridge used as a high deadtime
test source because of the Cs-137 or on-line water sampler my company built
that was installed on that little creek near the old graphite reactor at
Oak Ridge that required special techniques to keep the high level crap
from plating out on the sample chamber wall or ..... Shall I go on?
I have yet to see ANYTHING detectable leave the site boundary of a US
plant, even at TMI. Based ONLY on its past record, the last entity in
the world qualified to run a nuclear reactor is the government.
>Who else would have done this..THe Boy Scouts? (I do believe they have a
>merit badge in atomic energy :*)
Something you seem to be completely unfamiliar with. The private sector.
Why not contrast the computer industry with the nuclear industry. Both
were outgrowths of WWII military work. Both involved state-of-the-art,
gee-whiz technology. Both hold the capability of profoundly changing
and improving the plight mankind. The computer industry had minimal
government intereference. Nuclear was smothered by the government.
The cost of computing drops an order of magnitude every 5 years or so.
The cost of nuclear escalated about as fast because of government
oversight (sic). Computers have permeated into every facet of society.
Nuclear plants unfortunately have become endangered species mostly
because of the government's "help" in painting them as boogeymen.
Shall I go on?
"But but but but", I can hear Peter sputter. "Nuclear R&D just costs
too much for private industry." To answer that, I pose another question.
How the hell did America manage to build the REST of its industrial base
without goverment "help"? Nuclear development is expensive, after all,
mainly because the goverment has made it that way. It cost $300 million
a unit to build Browns Ferry, one of the last of the plants built
before the antinuclear convulsions of the 70s. Even at the bottom
basement power rates of the time, it paid for itself in under
10 years. BFD. And one has to wonder how utilities and the
industry can possibility develop modern dinosaur burners without
Big Brother "helping". After all, the capital cost of a large
dirt burner isn't that much different than that of a nuclear plant
pre-convulsion.
About the only thing that can be said for government nuclear research
scientific welfare at this point is that it keeps a bunch of government
employees off the street. White collar panhandlers are soooo disgusting,
after all.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Tonight, suppose Washington were nuked to atoms. Ask yourself, would you
Alan R. Gross
>: Geoff,
>
>: A couple of factoids which may clear the air;
>
>: 1. John De Armond has repeadedly come out against continued funding of the IFR.
>: As I understand his threads from last year, he feels we are nothing more than
>: government welfare, and in his opinion, which I can validate with previous threads,
>: feels that private industry should fully fund this type of research.
>
>I am well aware of that. John has said this over and over. I believe he was very
I have been following this discussion with great interest, and have
learned quite a bit from both sides. However, I wish to make a plea to all
parties involved. Most of the folks reading this don't have "wonder
terminals" and therefore get your arguments in weirdly wrapped forms, as
above. Please keep line length in mind -- after several pages of full
lines interposed with one word lines, my finger heads towards the
"n" key. Keep in mind that you probably will be quoted, and keep your lines
to 70-75 characters, if you would please.
--
# Randall A. Gross A.R.Gros...@Sprint.com #
# Sacramento Public Access UNIX maka...@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US #
# "Never give a rifle to a melancholic bore." W.H. Auden Ego Loquito #
Jeremy Whitlock
>
> [...previous stuff deleted...]
>
>The 3-5% is misleading, as most of what is not burned is U-238.
>Most of the U-235 that started in the fuel is burned, not wasted.
But with the burned-in Plutonium and the remaining U-235 in the fuel (at
least in a CANDU), the spent fuel still has approx. 99% of the potential
energy production that it started with when it is removed from the core.
Perhaps this is a better way to state the situation.
--
Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
Thomas D. Orth
|>
|> Yes, I am well aware of this. I have read both yours and Peter's posts. This
|> whole thread started with the apparent imminent lack of storage for waste.
|> I did not say the waste was worthless, only that it cannot be burned in
|> a conventional reactor.
No. When we were discussing the lack of storage, we were discussing the lack of
permanent storage. Utilities will move to dry cask storage etcetera as opposed
to throwing the fuel out on the front lawn like they do in downtown Aurora with
there broken lawnmowers.
|>
|> I guess you really don't understand the thread, do you? The problem that
|> was posed is that we have a bunch of waste being generated. This will
|> continue for quite some time unless you can magically turn all the nuke
|> plants into IFRs which doesn't seem overly likely. There is apparently
|> a problem in storing it. That was postulated for the discussion, and
|> Peter said this was the case. I am sure this is another gov't generated
|> problem, and that if they would actually try to solve problems instead of
|> mug for the cameras they would just allow the utilities to build more storage
|> facilities, or whatever they need to do. Regardless, it was the premise the
|> discussion was founded on. Peter jumped in hawking the IFR. It seems the
|> IFR will not solve this problem, though Peter has not said this yet. It
|> may well be a long term solution if and when aging conventional nukes are
|> replaced by IFR nukes so the amount of waste generated gradually slows.
There are actually two threads that started. One was referring to the IFR as
a waste burning technology. This thread was resurected by Peter to remind the
net community that the IFR was again in danger of losing its funding. This thread
dealt with the merits of the IFR as a waste burner as a means of burning both
plutonium (as opposed to permanent burial), and transmutation of actinides in the
blanket section (waste from other reactors), and actinides left in the fuel during
pyroprocessing (waste generated by the IFR itself), thus killing two birds with
one stone (or maybe 3 or 4). Peter argued that since this project only needs
about 3 more years to demonstrate everything, we should fund it. Then, if the
political climate is right, the Japanese and a few American utilities can use
the technology.
Another thread began in response to O'Leary's statement that 20% of our electricity
capacity would be gone shortly because the "waste issue was not solved". This
problem was correctly described (with a lot references to souther white trash presidents
and the government in general) by John De Armond. However, John, with his brilliant
writing style, managed to squeak in some attacks on the IFR as well. Now, for the
most part, I have agreed with John in most technical areas. But his posts are
usually filled with unrelated interjections such as the IFR and Georgia white trash.
Mor on this below.
|> One short term solution seems to be chemical reprocessing, currently forbidden
|> by the US gov't becuase of the supposed threat of proliferation. If allowed,
|> the waste would be reprocessed into fuel, which would then be burnable in a
|> conventional nuke. Is this not correct? I would assume this cycle could be
|> repeated many times. If not, please correct me. This solution would
|> eliminate the growing store of waste (or at least greatly reduce the growth).
|> The impurities removed need to be handled, and it sounds like an IFR could
|> eliminate those by burning them.
You see, I don't disagree with Chemical reprocessing. In fact,you won't find anybody
at Argonne that disagrees either. Carter's treaty is unpopular with nuclear
engineers everywhere, be they at national labs or GE, Westinghouse, or B&W. The IFR
is intended to be a long term solution to energy needs that is actually feasable
in the near future, especially relative to something like fusion which has enourmous
engineering obstacles let alone plasma physics obstacles. But, your asertion that
current reactors could have a semi-closed fuel cycle is basically correct, although
they don't provide a means for burning actinides. Furthermore, O'Leary was correct
essentially in that within 30 years, most if not all of the current generation of
nuclear plants will not have their licenses renewed due to age. Pressure vessels
and other components could be replaced, but why not build a new generation of
reactor? Why would you trade in your 88 Camry for another brand new 88 Camry?
Sure, it was a good car, but why not get a 94 and get the ABS and dual airbags and
the smooth V-6? Finally, it would not be an ideal situtation to have IFR's burning
waste from LWR's. They could, but the reprocessing would be much simpler if one
did not have to deal with the wildly different fuel elements from the LWR's which
are massive and oxide to boot. In other words, chemical reprocessing is necessary
to do anything with those monsters. Only IFR fuel can be pyroprocessed as far as
I know. Some guy from CTD may blast for that, but that is my impression.
The basic idea is to burn actinides in the blanket section where one would normally
breed plutonium from depleted or natural U238. This region of the core could act
as a reflector as well for neutronics purposes. This is how you would change
something that could be a breeder into a burner. Secondly, the waste generated within
the fuel elements themselves would not be seperated out during reprocessing accept to
perhaps bring it down to levels which do not alter the transient response of the
core in cases of sodium voids or temperature transients.
Additionally, I don't want you or anyone else to think that I am unsupportive
of the current nuclear industry. I in fact feel that it is the best thing
we do right now in terms of generating electricity, especially in light of
the political and regulatory nightmare that it operates under. However, I
think that the future of nuclear depends on new technology, be it ABWR's or
IFR's.
|> : This is not the point. We only need to store fuel retrievably. It's not
|> : all or none as pointed out above.
|>
|> Well, yes, but the question remains which is more politically feasible --
|> building a reprocessing plant or storing ever-increasing amounts of waste?
|> And it is waste until it can be made useful again, is it not?
Well, I think we are running up against the two storage issues, namely: permanent
burial, or temporary storage ponds. I think I have properly clarified the
confusion which existed on all sides wrt this issue.
|> : Nobody claimed that it would..however, it would make the notion of permanent
|> : unretrievable burial seem silly though wouldn't it?
|>
|> Yes. I don't understand why the question seems to come down to IFR or
|> burial. If reprocessing for reuse in a conventional plant just won't work
|> I wish somebody would bloody well say so. Otherwise, there is a third
|> choice. From where I sit it seems the question has been ignored because
|> it presents a non-IFR alternative in a discussion with IFR proponents.
This is a straw man. I have not suggested that it is an all or none type of
deal. Reprocessing in a conventional plant works just fine and virtually
eliminates the storage problem as it exists today. However the fission products
and actinides still require permanent disposal, which is what the IFR attempts
to solve.
|> : No, O'Leary, Clinton, or Congress will not solve the problem. Scientists and
|> : engineers will solve the problem.
|>
|> No, the problem is a political one. Perhaps you IFR folks can give an option
|> congresscritters will find politically acceptible. You are just finding one
|> more solution to the problem, though.
Again, you and I are talking about different problems. Permanent long term storage
versus the immediate (relatively) issue of spent fuel ponds. Somehow I get the
feeling that you have just enough knowledge to bullshit on this issue without
understanding anything in depth. We have never suggested that we're going to
take all of the spent fuel off the hands of the utilities this summer. To suggest
that that is our plan is to construct a straw man that you can beat the straw out of
with junior high level arguments. But, the other issue, which is permanent storage
of fission products and actinides, will remain regardless, and this is the issue
that we are dealing with. You are right however that the temporary storage issue
is 100% political. The permanent storage issue is perhaps 80% political, and it is
the 20% technical that the IFR is dealing with.
|> : Question, who is doing all of the superconducter research right now?
|>
|> Maybe nobody thinks it is going to amount to a hill of beans in the real
|> world? Just because you think research in this direction should be funded
|> doesn't mean it should be.
|>
|> : Small business? IBM? Hell, IBM is too busy laying off their
|> : engineers, scientists, and programmers and promoting all of the ass kissers
|> : to do any research and development!
|>
|> Well, that is their perogative. If that is true the marketplace will judge
|> them accordingly.
Well, small business is increasingly turning to the service sector, and IBM is
turning into a follower rather than the leader it once was. Yes, I would say that
IBM is serving a rather appropriate sentence right now. I'm sure that a lot of it
simply has to do with the maturation of the company.
|> geoff sherwood
Your fascination with the marketplace is truly idealism in its most pure form. Perhaps
more so than even Lenin or Stalin could have mustered. There are enormous technological
advances to be made if we put forth the effort. Business is in the position of having to
turn a relatively immediate profit or go bankrupt. This is why most of the small
superconducting firms have gone out of business. Do you honestly think John De Armond is
going to accomplish anything in his basement with his home made Van De Graff generator?
I doubt it. The fact is that some projects are worthwhile, even though private business
cannot afford to fund them individually. There is most likely a better solution than
the national lab system..perhaps governmant industry partnerships, or international
cooperation.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
>: Welfare is in effect, that. The recipients of welfare do not do anything to
>: EARN it, nor does the government EXPECT anything in return. THere is a
>: difference between a "hand out" and "lending a hand". I believe this speaks
>: for itself
>
>Well, no. Charity recipients often don't do anything to 'earn' it, either.
>How does a hurricane victim 'earn' what the Red Cross provides? It is a gift,
>freely given. Charity is the voluntary contributions of people who care enough
>about their fellow man to contribute. Welfare is the forced redistribution of
>money from one group to another. The person making charitable contributions
>does it because he *wants to*. The taxpayer does it because he will be put in
>jail if he doesn't. If you don't think so, abolish the enforcement arm of the
>IRS, publicize this fact, and see what happens to your revenues. One is a
>gift, one is extortion. Maybe there is a way to say this more clearly, but I
>don't know how.
>
When you fill out your 1040 form you deduct for charitable contributions,
with the two fold intent of 1) genuinly helping those more needy, and
2) lowering your adjusted gross income. Neverthe less, you come away
thinking that your money is going to a worthy cause, with the psychological
feeling you have helped both yourself and someone else. Applying this
to the subject of what is "pork" and what has merit, I believe that
the continued funding of advanced nuclear energy/waste remediation technologgies
has merit, not because I derive a paycheck from it, but it is a necessary
element of any responsible solution to nuclear technology challenges
>: I would think one would want to muster resources
>: in whatever form, provided the payback is certain.
>
>If you are the one receiving them, perhaps. If the mafia decided it wanted to
>buy in, would you let them? Or do you care, perhaps just a little, where the
>$$ comes from?
To compare the nuclear industry and environment to the mafia (or
reasonable facilimile) is a little far fetching. I would care where
the money comes from since the commitment to see the project through
would be backed up with this commitment. Now this opens the issue of
funding a project to 90% completion, only to abandon it (SHorham) over
political or ideological differences. Which is fiscally more (irr)responsible?
I have pointed out that cancelling the IFR at this juncture actually
wastes money since the shutdown costs over the next 5 years amounts to
only 1.4$M less than it would take to complete the remaining 5% of
the project. (1.4$M is about 1% of the total investment so far)
>
>:Maybe I come from a different focus;
>: I don't believe the commercial world wants to invest in large scale projects
>: without some certainty or evidence that they would see a return on their
>: investment. Shorham and Zimmer and Marble Hill have in effect, spanked
>: investors into submission..
>
>I believe you are seeing the end result of a gov't created problem. It is why,
>while I disagree with gov't funding on principle I would not oppose it for
>IFR -- it is too important to let the gov't take it down the drain. I would
>cut it further down the road once much of the rest of the gov't was dismantled.
>
I do not advocate anarchy. The problems of our government can be solved
by each of us owning up and taking responsibility for our actions.
>: I think the "co-alition" or consortium concept of "shared risk" applies here.
>: Would you expect Thiokol, or Grunman to foot the entire bill of building the
>: Space Shuttle? Who would benefit?
>
>Good question. Was the space shuttle the proper technology for the problem
>it solved? Big dumb boosters could have done most of what the shuttle did
>at a fraction of its price. Satellite launches are done commercially, are
>they not?
>
Actually, yes. While at Rensselaer, I perused through George Low's (NASA
Adminsitrator under Nixon,Carter) archives. There is an interesting figure
he drew up illustrating that a "reusable shuttle" in fact delivered the
most efficient, technically versitile solution to low gravity research/
experimentation. Look at the Hubble repair. It would have been
inconceivable to think a non-shuttle could have delivered the type
of repairs done, nor at that cost.
>: I think that since the American people are the direct beneficiaries of this
>: research, they should have a stake in this..and they do..Through Congress,
>: the American people are represented. It took an act of Congress to kill the
>: SuperCollider, the same as it took Congress to save the IFR.
>
>Yeah, I took civics, too. The American people don't give a rat's ass about
>IFR. Sorry to be so blunt, but I bet 99% of them don't have the slightest
>clue about it. (me, I have the slightest clue about it :-)). As for
>Congresscritters, considering the political machine that is required to
>elect one, we have the privilege of choosing our masters. Better than
>nothing, but only slightly. Saying that they 'represent' us is hopelessly
>naive. They are there, first and foremost, to get re-elected.
>
I think that if and when the IFR becomes more visable, and its
implications are popularized (Ap.94 Discover Magazine, Rhodes' book)
then the same proportion of the population which understands the problems
and issues plaguing commercial nuclear, will come to understand what
this technology actually means, and could in fact solve. I ask
you what proportion of the population knows how an airplane
works, or how electricity gets into their homes- probably very low,
however they don't care as long as they enjoy all the amenities and
benefits the technology derives.
>: But you just said it in 1) above. He has come out against the project just
>: as he has come out against the Space Station, Post Office, or any other
>: "shoddily run" government enterprise.
>
>Does he really call out 'shoddily run' projects specifically, or does he say
>that he is against all projects, and gov't ones are usually shoddily run,
>anyway. There is a big distinction between the two positions, being that
>the former position would be in *favor* of a *well-run* gov't project, and
>the latter would be against it as well.
Once again, are you advocating anarchy, or just a more responsible
government? I believe one can't judge the overall effect of a project or
funding it without understanding the socio-economic impact of it. I ask
you, how much is it worth to you knowing that we may have a solution
to long term waste/reactor safety issues. SOmethings you just cant
put a price on. My kids' future will be brighter and greener knowing
theri energy needs may posibly be met while ridding the planet of
long-lived radionuclides.
>
>: You are right when you say how I can't understand how someone would be for a
>: project,yet against its source of support. I think I come from the school of
>: thought that if you believed something is worthwhile, you would be for its
>: survival...I can't understand why you can have it both ways..that is be
>: against its continued survival and for it in principle..seems illogical.
>
>I believe you have described a concrete example of the end justifies the means.
>Say somebody runs an extortion racket and builds a hospital with the proceeds.
>Are you in favor of the extortion continuing because it is getting you the
>hospital you want?
But that is not the issue here. The government is not extorting the
AMerican people into supporting this technology because it wants to
continue the "pork cycle".
>
>: >voluntary, one is enforced upon us by people with guns. If Japan and
>: >European countries want to pay for the program, great! What they do with
>: >their tax money is a matter between them and their citizens.
>
>: They DO want to pay for it, but Mdm Sec won't authorize funds from them
>: since her position is (erroneous) that the project is "proliferant"
>
>Yeah, she's a bozo. I think it is a ploy to make the IFR easier to kill,
>because foreign participation was used to help keep it alive last time.
>This is based totally on cynicism, but is it unjustified?
o>
THe reactor at Monju in Japan will pass us, and implement this technology.
Twenty years from now, we will be shaking our heads, having not made
any progress with burial, or reprocessing...
>: There are pet projects..Then there are projects which pay the rent,feed my
>: kids, put clothes on their backs...Im sure I can get another job..Wall St.
>: is looking for PhDs nowadays. Probably can make 3-4X as much as I am now.
>
>Look, I never said you were unemployable. The fact that you are willing to
>take the pay cut is because you believe in your cause. Am I wrong? If so,
>*that* would be totally illogical! That is all I meant by pet projects.
>
I was making more $ in 1986, pre-grad school, than I am now, but
that doenst change the fact that somethings, you just can't put a
price tag on. If you were 65 or older, would you call social security
a pet project? (Its different when you are paying for someone elses RV)
There are pet projects, yes, but then there is honest science which
unbenound to the layman, will actually serve all, and not just the
select few.
>: Private industry wont involve itself in something that won't guarentee a
>; return on their investment. This precludes regulatory and intervenors, and
>: the like which made huge capital investments today, practically impossible
>
>Won't involve itself in risky enterprises? *Snort*. There are an awful lot
>of risky startups out there. There are an awful lot of people betting they
>will get rich (or richer) by getting in early on a hot prospect. I cannot
>parse your second sentence at all. I assume you mean that government makes
>it impossible to get a good return on large commercial investments of this
>nature (I have to add 'of this nature' because companies *do* make very large
>commercial investments). In any event, we have government trying to solve
>a problem government created. I would prefer that they just got out of the
>way.
No. You miss the point. No one is going to plop down 5-10$B for commercial
development of any capital intensive project without some return immediatly.
Its the nature of the beast with large, capital intensive projects!
We have seen that regulators and intervenors like to muck up the
works, drag out and delay projects to the point that time itself, ends up
choking the porject off, and not some philosophic or idealistic bent.
When you are forking out $1M/day in interest payments alone, you get
nervous as to when you can start generating revenue. ANd when the
time table is not controlled by you, it makes project management very
hard.
>
>: LWR recycle is putting the spent fuel through the pyroprocessing process,
>: and reclaiming the 99.9% unused uranium/plut for use in the IFR
>
>Could it not be used to repower a standard commercial reactor? You may
>wonder why I harp on this (though I don't understand, I thought I was clear)?
>Twenty percent of our power comes from commercial reactors. It will get awful
>cold if we shut them down (or hot, come summer :-)). They also represent an
>enormous captial investment. You cannot wave a magic wand and make them all
>become IFRs. Even if IFR were now commercially available switchover would
>take a long time. This whole thread started with what to do with the waste.
>It seems to me you do not have a solution. In fifty years, maybe, if all of
>our power comes from IFRs so we don't produce any more waste. But that is
>a long time in the future. Even optimistically, how fast do you think these
>will be built?
>
I don't think you understand the physics of LWRs and LMRs. Unused uranium
must first be chemically reprocessed before it reenters the fuel stream
in LWRs. The fact that U235 must be enriched to 3% further limits an
LWR (standard commercial reactor) capability to fully utilize the
fuel. I don't believe a "switchover" would take a long time. I am not
in any way advocating a cessation of nuclear electric generation. Let
me clarify..A commercial IFR can be designed and built by 2005. One is
on the books allready. It is a derivitave of a GE PRISM fast reactor,
and is designed for about 400-600 MWe.
>: >Yeah, knowing the answers but not being able to say them does put you in
>a bit of a bind. Look at it from the other side, though. If someone were to
>come to you and say that he had a magic machine that was absolutely wonderful
>and was going to save the world, but he really couldn't tell you anything
>because it was proprietary, how would you react?
I think even the Wright Brothers functionally tested and demonstrated
their technology before releasing it to the public, but then again,
they had their skeptics too...
>
>: I wish it were that simple. BUt then again, people who don't understand the
>: culture and environment I have to live under, try to define thing in terms
>: they understand. I'm sure if I had some great Computer Secret which would
>: make Apple competetive with the PC market, the powers to be would guard me
>: from leaking "trade secrets"..Here in lies the double standard...
>
>Wrongo. There is no double standard. Haven't you read the flames about the
>'free energy' machines and such in this group (what was it, Testakia or
>something like that) where precisely how it worked was a trade secret? You
>are being held to the same standard everyone else is. It is a tough issue.
>You can get all paranoid about it if you want, but you have a bunch of
>engineers in this group. They aren't likely to take things on faith. Do you
>blame them? If you were one of us on the outside looking in, do you really
>think you'd turn off your engineering sense just because somebody made a claim?
>Do you believe one of the free energy machines is going to put the IFR out of
>business by making elecricity too cheap to meter? (yeah, I know. gotta get
>my jollies somehow).
No time to read all the threads. I ve got an 8 hour work day.
A short answer to above; There is a double standard when on the onehand
we cry for openness, and the other hand try to protect information from
being misrepresented. Case in point. I sit about 100 yards from the
Reactor Building. How many times have I read threads of people trying to
tell me how my plant is layed out and how H20 and Na can explode...
These same people are thousands of miles away, and have no possible
clue as to the nature, culture, and physical layout of this plant. Now
I can give fundamental and theoretical information, but to justify
an answer to a question with potentially divulging (inadvertant)
information which a foreign or unfreindly interest can use is pretty
dumb. Look at what those Earth-First Whacko's did at Palo Verde..
Just by snipping outside transmission lines, they were able to
upset the energy production, and ironically and unwittingly, place
the plant in a vunerable state. No thanks. Too much at stake for me
to accomidate anyone on an open forum. I have offered all the public
information at my disposal. There should be plenty to digest and draw
an intelligent conclusion.
>
>: On the one hand you say its distrusting to withhold information..
>
>I did? Where?
>
SOrry...Speaking generically. I think E. Michael said it actually.
>: On the otherhand..its perfectly OK for other industries to protect their
>: research and technology from misrepresentation.
>
>Yep. You can do it, too. Just don't expect claims supported by 'I can't tell
>you' to be taken too seriously. Look at your example -- if someone said
>they had this great Computer Secret, but couldn't tell you what it was, how
>many of thier claims would you believe? You'd look for the things they can tell
Wrong. You can tell them what it was, but I think they would draw the line as
to how they made it and their proprietary not general design principles.
>you, and look at what claims those facts support, wouldn't you?
>
>: >John is *not against* reprocessing. Why should he jump for a solution
>: >which avoids reprocessing if reprocessing is not made an issue? I read that
>: >someone wrote a book which
>
>: The whole point is that the IFR REMOVES reprocessing from the equation. Its
>: simple as that. Pyroprocessing is NOT chemical reprocessing. There are
>: technical distinctions which make Pu recovery very important.
>
>You did not answer my question. Why is reprocessing bad so it is something
>to be avoided? Each time I ask you tell me that IFR avoids it. Why bother
>avoiding it?
It should not be avoided. But in the current political climate, it is
not seen as a vehicle that it truly can be used (increased fuel utilization)
>
>
>: > What does IFR bring to the table that off-site reprocessing
>: >doesn't other than you don't have to truck the fuel back and forth?
>
>: It brings to the table the fact that the Pu is chemically and radiologically
>: incompatible with weapons production. SOmething chemical processing cannot
>: assure.
>
>But is proliferation a serious concern with chemical reprocessing? 'Carter
>said so' does not qualify as a serious concern.... If your process avoids a
>non-issue, who cares?
Everone cares if by not adopting it, it still remains an issue. Would seat
belt usage be an issue if airbags were demonstrated that they were 100%
reliable?
>
>: >Is proliferation really a threat or merely a strawman? If the metal
>: >reprocessing is indeed much simpler than MOX (and I see no reason not to
>: >believe you) that is certainly an argument
>
>: In so far as Clinton's cronies are concerned, it is just a strawman to
>: rationalize their anti-nuclear bent. It is a non issue in reality, however,
>: Mdm Sec wants to falsly characterixe the technology to push her green
>: adgenda.
>
>Again, I was asking about proliferation due to reprocessing of any sort, not
>just IFR. I do specifically include chemical processing. Is this really a
>threat or just a straw man? I seem to recall that everyone who has wanted
>to make a bomb (and succeeded) has done it through building a dedicated
>reactor to breed their fissile material (Manhattan project and perhaps the
>Soviet projects excepted, because they had a rather massive infrastructure
>behind them). Does chemical reprocessing really add to the proliferation
>threat, or are there much easier methods by which someone wishing to make
>a bomb would surely use?
Actually, you can make Pu from n+U reactions in an accelerator. To argue
the need for reprocessing for weopons grade plute is beyond the scope of
this thread at this time. People are squeemish about chem reprocessing not
because of us, but because of the Pakistans, Indias, and Iraqs out there.
Heck, even Iraq was making Pu from calutron processing of U, a 40 year
technology.
>
>
>: >in IFRs favor. Is it that much easier to build an IFR than a reprocessing
>: >plant (since we already have quite a few facilites which do the 'produce
>: >power' side of the equation)?
>
>: Much easier. Its all integrated into one site, and fuel can be recast on the
>: spot. Plus you remove the preverbial middle-man. Thus lowering the cost
>: dramatically (an often overlooked point)
>
>I don't think you answered my question. Your answer seems to be that it is
>cheaper to build an IFR than a distinct processing plant plus a conventional
>reactor, plus the cost of shipping the material. Is that an accurate
>restatement? Since we already have commercial reactors which are producing
>waste they cannot get rid of, and we already have a trucking infrastructure,
>is it cheaper to
>
I just stated that it would be cheaper to make fuel more conducive to the
reprocessing effort. The metal fuel in the IFR simply makes chem reprocessing
(PUREX,TRUEX) a non issue, since electrorefining is a workstation event which
is then followed by cathode processing and recasting the fuel meat back into
fuel pins. With chem reprocessing, you have to buy the spent fuel, then you have
to put it though allot of chemical separation, then you have to separate out
product, then you have to ship that product to a fuel supplier, then that supplier
has to make your specific fuel bundle for you specific plant...get the picture?
>
>: No. There IS a problem with storage. It is a bone of contention when to
>: deploy this technology. I think you must realize that the IFR is not just
>: a waste burner, but a "Utilizer" thus unfissioned LWR fuel is the primary
>: feedstock for IFR fuel. This accounts for 99.9% of the U/Pu wasted in LWRs.
>
>: Thus if all 110 nuclear plants were to shut down this instant, there would
>: be more than enough fuel for at least one IFR.
>
>And it would be awfully cold. Shutting down the nuclear plants is not an
>option. Even most eco-nazis agree with this. (Phasing out, maybe, but not
>just turning them off).
>
Let me reiterate. I in no way advocate closing any current nuclear plant
this day, on the basis of current storage problems.
>
>: >Other way around. The IFRs don't exist in large enough numbers to solve
>: >the waste problem. Until the 'IFR waste consumption > 'current reactor
>: >waste production' waste will continue to accumulate. The IFR is not a short
>: >term solution to this
>
>: But you left out the most important volume in the equation; unused Uranium.
>: This is the most volume wise component of the fuel. Plenty allready sitting
>: in spent fuel pools. The IFR fuel is "ternary" i.e. a mix of U/Pu and
>: Zirconium. You still need the U to make or burn the Pu.
>
>How does this relate to what I said?
>
It relates plenty. First you state that it would be more desireable to
reprocess the unused Uranium by conventional reprocessing. This in fact
does render the Pu in a weapons grade Pu. Next you stated that given
this reproccesed U/Pu that there is enough fuel for the current crop of
LWRs. THis is ok in principle, but as you have pointed out, we are
not currently chemically reprocessing spent fuel. An IFR fuel mix must
contain BOTH U and PU. The U will be feedstock from LWR spent fuel.
The Pu will be recovered from the same spent fuel. There will be more
U than Pu, initially but thats OK.
>
>: >problem because you won't have enough IFRs to do it. If you dispute the
>: >point, fine. Please just address it.
>
>: You have plenty of unused uranium as I have indicated.
>
>You ducked again. You have a shitload of waste around. It continues to
>accumulate. Shutting down our commercial power production is not an option.
Right. All the more reason to truck the waste over to an IFR to be
burned up in a fast reactor. What more do you want? When you take your
kids' poop diapers to the landfill, they stay around forever...Are
you advocating the same fate for spent fuel?
>You see everything from such an IFR-centric viewpoint is it hard to communicate.
>Yes, this provides lots of fuel for an IFR. Fine. (Analogy alert). Its like
>a town with its landfill almost full, with a maggot in the garbage saying "I
>don't see what the problem is, I've got plenty to eat'. You look at the waste
>as a ready source of fuel for the IFR. We see the volume of it (compared to
>storage available) as a major problem in and of itself. Maybe the maggots will
>multiply and eventully eat all the garbage, but we have to do something in the
>meantime. If chemical reprocessing of the fuel enables it to be reburned in
>a conventional reactor, it both reduces the pile of garbage and generates
>power to boot. Even if IFR will eventually take over, it gives us time to
>get to that point.
Actually, kids in elementary schools are dumping their garbage in
barrels of worms..
Your scenario for reprocessing is not as efficient as IFR burning, since after
your reprocessing step, you are still putting the fuel in LWRs which has
been demonstrated as a very inefficient fuel utilizer. The physical structures
of the plant would wear out before many core reloads were fully utilized and
reprocessed. All I am advocating is the most effective burnup of actinides
over the time constraints given. We don't have 100 years to play with.
>
>: If he thinks govt funding is anathema, he should move to New Hampshire. Live
>: Free or Die..There are somethings the Govt must do, like protect our security,
>: promote the common good..etc (What do you want vice a military-rent a cops?)
>
>I agree it should do a few basic things. I think you could drive a truck
>through our differences of what 'promote the common good' means, though.
>
>: >That is reason enough to oppose it. Not the ideas behind it, not the
>: >technology, but the government program. On principle.
>
>: But you see, he never made that point. He just came out and said..I don't care
>: if you turn water into wine...if I pay for it (taxes) I don't want it....
>
>Again, the question is whether the ends justify the means. The 'if I pay for
>it' means involuntarily. The difference is that you believe that what you have
>is so good that people should be forced to support it whether they want to or
I think the ends does justify the means because its the most sensible
solution to reactor safety, and an intelligent alternative to spent fuel
disposition.
Are you still advocating anarchy? I believe the govt has and will be
a bone of contention with fierce individualists. I believe the majority
of the American people are followers though, and need some overseeing
else what is to prevent the truly unscrupulous from plundering us all.
I survived the 80's. No thanks for a re-run. I don't need to bail out any
more S&L's.
>
>: >: But you see, the government has nothing to do with this project except
>: >: dole out the money
>: >
>: >Yep, and there is the crux of the matter. It matters to John whose money
>: >is getting doled out.
>
>: If it matters to him, why rely on the SBA to jump start small businesses?
>
>Are you assuming in some small way that he *approves* of the SBA????
If he is a small businessman, then he somehow is inextricalbly tied to the
SBA. If not him, then his bank, or his business angel, or his partners,
or his backers..H
>
>: Why not get
>: corporate sponsors and business angels. For that matter..remove all tax
>: incentives.
>
>Good idea!! Let people figure out what is profitable without the gov't
>distorting the market! Let *them* decide what the market wants!
The market is driven by 1) what is popular 2) what is perceived popular
Thus nuclear comes out behind. Now how do we make it popular so taht
the market wants it? We do it by sellling the positives, and
illustrating the alternatives if the projects arent moved ahead. I
have long advocated that there are no alternatives to fuel burial,
under the current political climate.
I do agree that a return to reprocessing is a first step to
fuel cycle closure.
>
>: You see he relies more on the govt more than he thinks...and wont admit it,
>
>He does?
>
>: >But you don't have faith in investors believing that it will?
>
>: Investors are inherrent skeptics and risk avoiders.
>
>Skeptics, yes. If you were spending your money wouldn't you be somewhat
>skeptical? But risk avoiders? Hah! Ever hear of the stock market? People
>risk large sums all the time. Sure, they try to balance risk vs potential
>profit. If they are going for a risky venture they want to be well rewarded
>if it works out. Its called 'risk premium'. Check out Silicon Valley for
>a *bunch* of start-ups which people have invested in. Look at 3DO, a company
>with no product (well, not when they went public) which raised inordinate
>sums of money by selling stock in their venture. Who knows if it will be
>able to take over from Sega, Nintendo, and the like? They could lose their
>investments. But they hope to make a killing. That is why the money isn't
>in CDs somewhere.
You are forgetting the fact that the more "sexy" technologies are
more socially acceptable and thus more likely to succeed in a pure
market environment. I am saying that someone has to speak up for
the "Ugly" technologies, those technologies that are like brussel sprouts;
good for you but tastes like crap...
BTW 3DO is not doing too well these days I hear...Virtual Reality is
not the glamour and glitz that it touts. There still will be bugs to
iron out with any venture.
>
>[ back to John ]
>
>: I understand his anti-government bent. I don't understand his anti-nuclear
>: anti-advanced reactor bent. He seems to think Westingouse and GE have
>: unlimited resources to plop down .5$B for research. He seems to think that
>: if utility execs arent lining up en-mass for the technology that it isnt
>: worth much.
>
>Worth much to whom? The gov't has completely distorted the market to the
>extent that such a question is even possible. Gov't whim is all the matters.
>Right now they think it is a good thing (but just barely). Tomorrow they
>may decide to kill it. Does that make it good or bad? If the IFR is as
>good as you say, and it really serves a need, and the gov't were not involved.
>1) it would already be in commercial operation; gov't always studies everything
>to deat. 2) Utilities would see this as way to make a killing. They would
>be falling all over themselves to get a piece of the pie.
They are starting to come around, but you forget, they are not going
to plop down the $$ only to have some PUC disallow capital cost writeoffs
in progress, nor are they going to build a plant without the assurance
that they can operate it (Shoreham)
>
>The problem is that you look at gov't and see the check that funds IFR and
>say 'govt is good'. I look at the immense distortions which the gov't has
No. I look at the IFR and say, IFR is good..Its only that the govt has
the CURRENT resources to get the job done. Using an allready existing
reactor (EBR-II) has saved BILLIONS in constructing a new plant.
>imposed on the market so that the only way IFR can continue is through a gov't
>handout (irrevocable at any time) and say the gov't is the problem, not the
>solution. You get your crumbs, but the gov't takes the cake.
I think the American public will judge whether the project was worthwhile.
If you surveyed the public right after Challenger, and today, you would
expect different opinions on how NASA is viewed and whether or not it is
worth keeping.
>
>: This is wrong think. Its something which will prevent him from
>: suceeding wildly in business.
>
>I believe he already has, actually.
I don't know that for a fact, but then again, I have not seen him
on Inc, or Forbes...By "wildly" I mean Bill Gates level of sucess....
Get the picture..
>
>geoff sherwood
Paul Dietz
>>The 3-5% is misleading, as most of what is not burned is U-238.
>>Most of the U-235 that started in the fuel is burned, not wasted.
>
> But with the burned-in Plutonium and the remaining U-235 in the fuel (at
> least in a CANDU), the spent fuel still has approx. 99% of the potential
> energy production that it started with when it is removed from the core.
> Perhaps this is a better way to state the situation.
Yes -- but most of that U-238 cannot be burned in today's thermal
reactors, since the breeding ratio is too low. And John has let his
opinion of today's fast reactors be known.
Paul
Jeremy Whitlock
Actually, I'm referring to Plutonium and Uranium recycling in thermal
reactors, specifically CANDU. It's a theoretical estimate that ignores
economics, but it's a good illustration of the inherent value of spent fuel
(and the foolishness of permanent disposal).
Griff Miller - X7114
Say, Peter, could you possibly wrap your lines at about 75 characters (or
less)? It would make things a little easier to read on 80-column terminals.
>Then please explain to me how someone can be against
>*government funding* and be
>supportive of a project in principle.
I don't find it illogical. I, too, am for IFR (and nuclear energy in general)
but also dislike the idea of government funding of it.
I think we need to check premises. My (and John's, I think) belief is that
government funding would ultimately be detrimental to IFR. So you see,
it's not that he and I are against IFR at all, rather something that
could be bad for it.
>I would think one would want to muster resources
>in whatever form, provided the payback is certain.
Hmm, "in whatever form" sounds a lot like "at all costs". No, thanks.
>Maybe I come from
>a different focus;
>I don't believe the commercial world wants to invest in large scale
>projects without
>some certainty or evidence that they would see a return on their investment.
I think that if you'd stand back a second and look at what you wrote
here, you'd get a feel for what John is getting at. If IFR is not good
enough to be commercially feasible (can't stand on its own two feet) then
neither should the government fool around with it, because it would be
a waste of money. Now, before you go off half-cocked, I am NOT saying
that IFR is not feasible. I haven't the slightest idea one way or the
other. But I do know that it had better be before we start spending
time and money on it.
In short, if private enterprise can do IFR, we don't need the
government, If private enterprise cannot do IFR, it's not cheap
enough to be efficient no matter who does it. So the government is
not needed in either case.
>But you just said it in 1) above. He has come out against the
>project just as he has
>come out against the Space Station, Post Office, or any other
>"shoddily run" government
>enterprise.
Look, Peter, do you suppose John is against people sending letters? Of
course, he's not. But that doesn't stop him from grousing about the post
office.
In other words, complaining about the post office's public nature
does not make him "against" postal service in general.
One other ingredient in all this, I think, is another case of
different premises. You, I think, see that the government has made
it about impossible for IFR to survive as a private venture, so you're
willing to accept IFR on the government's terms, because you see IFR's
existence as being the more important thing. Put another way, IFR by
the government's rules is better than no IFR at all. John, on the
other hand, is more of an all-or-nothing kind of guy, which I can
respect. I often am the same way. I'd rather do something not at all
rather than halfway. So he'd rather wait until the government looses
its reins on IFR to see IFR as a private thing. Admittedly, this may
be about the time hell freezes, but THAT is the lesser of two
evils to John. I think.
Anyway, I've used up my rambling allocation for one day, so I'll close.
Apologies to John and you if I interpreted your thoughts incorrectly.
--
Griff Miller - Resident Programmer - Western Geophysical
*** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***
"A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against
the Lord." - Proverbs 19:3
Jeremy Whitlock
>
> [...] Based ONLY on its past record, the last entity in
Make that "U.S. government". Many governments in the world, including
Canada at the provincial level, operate civilian nuclear plants to a high
level of safety and efficiency.
In my view a government is the only body that *should* be operating
nuclear power plants because of the strict need for regulation (comparing
with the computer industry is ludicrous). You also avoid the cost-cutting
blunders and other downfalls that unfortunately go hand in hand with private
sector competition -- not to mention the economic disaster of
non-standardization in design. These things can be tolerated with other
technologies, but nuclear power is different and I think we all agree with
that.
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
McMaster University, 1280 Main West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <763402...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>Say, Peter, could you possibly wrap your lines at about 75 characters (or
>less)? It would make things a little easier to read on 80-column terminals.
>
No problem. I just had to reset from 132 column mode to 80 column mode.
Sorry for the inconvinience.
>>Then please explain to me how someone can be against
>>*government funding* and be
>>supportive of a project in principle.
>
>I don't find it illogical. I, too, am for IFR (and nuclear energy in general)
>but also dislike the idea of government funding of it.
>
OK granted the government may not have prudency as a virtue, look at the
SSC debacle. My only bone of contention is that, since this reactor
demonstration is being done with an existing Class A fast reactor
(the only one), that it would take billions to build a commercial fast
reactor or prototype in this country, and Clinch River was the commer-
cial ends last gasp. I believe that once the reactor technology is
benchmarked, then you could see a consortium of private money. Before
that ever happens, private industry would want some assurance that
it could proceed with its investment WITHOUT the fear that the govern-
ment will pull the rug out at the 11th hour ala' Shoreham.
>I think we need to check premises. My (and John's, I think) belief is that
>government funding would ultimately be detrimental to IFR. So you see,
>it's not that he and I are against IFR at all, rather something that
>could be bad for it.
What would be bad for IFR is NO funding. Period. First lets adopt
your premise that it should stand on its commercial merits. There
are some fatal flaws with this logic. Inorder to commercially de-
velop the IFR, like commercial software ventures, you need a)
seed capital, b) facility organization and infrastructure of labor-
atories and facilities. There is currently NO private comppany or
consideration which even remotely has facilities to do IFR research.
If all you want are computer studies, any of the vendors can
oblige you. THe only operating fast reactor in the US is EBR-II.
The only feasable metal fuel recycle facility is right next door,
in fact, they are a joined, closed structure. Now if you want
your venture to suceed you would either a) make use of existing
facilities or b) build new ones. Choice B is out of the question
since by the time the NIMBYs and regulators get a hold of the
works, you have lost any investment you put in.
We are not talking about starting up a small magazine. Even
the Internet is government subsidized..I read where the US is
ready to pour 250$B (thats Billion) into the Information Highway.
You could build 25-50 new reactors with that kind of money..
>
>>I would think one would want to muster resources
>>in whatever form, provided the payback is certain.
>
>Hmm, "in whatever form" sounds a lot like "at all costs". No, thanks.
>
I think if the government supports bench research and development of
other technologies (Internet, Mag-Lev trains, cancer drug product-
ion, etc..) which lead to commercial technology transfer and spinoff,
then why should nuclear be any different? Billions have been spent
on the Internet by the government, and ATT/MCI and the like are now
poised to take advantage of the government-subsidized Information
Highway.
Would it have been reasonable to think a private corporation
could have linked all these universites and sites on its own
resources? I don't understand your double standard. If the general
public is to gain by the Internet base research, and companies like
ATT stand to gain (without initial monetary investment) from the
government sponsored development, then should you not hold nuclear
reactor development on the same playing field? What is so special
about the "sexy technologies" such that they get the government
hand, while you cry foul if nuclear gets one dime? I submit that
the government has both 1) the current infrastructure 2) facilities
then THAT is what I mean by resources. Plus the fact that they are
chartered to find a solution to the waste/safety problem.
When TMI happened, the NRC mandated that B&W fix their reactor
designs. The respnsibility fell on B&W. (ALso the rest of the
industry). I submit the govt MUST take ownership of the waste
problem. Aside from the 110 operating reactors, they would not
have received their Operating Licenses had the govt not promised
support in waste disposition. Plus the fact that the weapons grade
plut is the governments responsibility to disposition. So whats
the problem with them trying to clean house, and help ressurect
the next generation of reactors?? They ressurected NASA and
Chrysler, are they not any different? Where was the gov't served
by Lee Iacocca?
>
>I think that if you'd stand back a second and look at what you wrote
>here, you'd get a feel for what John is getting at. If IFR is not good
>enough to be commercially feasible (can't stand on its own two feet) then
That is not the point. It is good enough to be commercially feasable,
but you have to prove the technology first before you can spin it
off. Else you wouldnt have teflon or velcro or any other commercial
product originally found in govt labs.
>neither should the government fool around with it, because it would be
>a waste of money. Now, before you go off half-cocked, I am NOT saying
>that IFR is not feasible. I haven't the slightest idea one way or the
>other. But I do know that it had better be before we start spending
>time and money on it.
We have allready spent about 1.5$B over 10 years (1984-94). To
abandon something promising as this, when its 95% complete, is
truly wasteful. Look at it from that end. This isn't some new
reactor concept just drummed up last year..Its been on the books
for 15 years, and under various levels of development for the
past 10. Thus to close the project based on money alone is a
straw man argument.
>
>In short, if private enterprise can do IFR, we don't need the
>government, If private enterprise cannot do IFR, it's not cheap
>enough to be efficient no matter who does it. So the government is
>not needed in either case.
>
If private enterprise could go to the moon, instead of Neil Armstrong,
do you think we would be there? Or do you think the Russians would
have beat us?
>>But you just said it in 1) above. He has come out against the
>>project just as he has
>>come out against the Space Station, Post Office, or any other
>>"shoddily run" government
>>enterprise.
>
>Look, Peter, do you suppose John is against people sending letters? Of
>course, he's not. But that doesn't stop him from grousing about the post
>office.
>
>In other words, complaining about the post office's public nature
>does not make him "against" postal service in general.
No but he failed to cite an alternative which is acceptable on
a mass scale. He failed to recognize that although inefficient
at times, the US mail system is still preferred over private
carriers for door-to-door daily mail. Suppose you wanted to write
a letter to someone. Not only would you need to know your company's
services for your mail, you would not be assured that they could
delliver your mail to its recipient. Extrapolate this from the
phone service you get. If your favorite long distance carrier doesnt
go to where you want to go, good ol' ATT steps in. THanks
de-regulation
>
>One other ingredient in all this, I think, is another case of
>different premises. You, I think, see that the government has made
>it about impossible for IFR to survive as a private venture, so you're
>willing to accept IFR on the government's terms, because you see IFR's
>existence as being the more important thing. Put another way, IFR by
>the government's rules is better than no IFR at all. John, on the
No. IFR can survive as a private venture. A 400-600 MWe version.
Currently, 62.5 MW is sufficient to run the physics tests to
validate the technology. But to build a small reactor today would
take 10 years and 10$B, if everything went smoothly.
>other hand, is more of an all-or-nothing kind of guy, which I can
>respect. I often am the same way. I'd rather do something not at all
>rather than halfway. So he'd rather wait until the government looses
>its reins on IFR to see IFR as a private thing. Admittedly, this may
>be about the time hell freezes, but THAT is the lesser of two
>evils to John. I think.
You anarchists still don't get it. There are things the government
does better than private enterprise. This wont change tomorrow, or
200 years from now. If you have a better solution, cite specifics
about how you could in this day and age, conduct the same quality
of research in the commercial industry, with equivalent facilities
which must functionally prove the technology. THis isn't a GM lab
testing air-bags..There is alot more oversight, environment, health,
and safety to consider..
>--
>Griff Miller - Resident Programmer - Western Geophysical
>
>"A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against
> the Lord." - Proverbs 19:3
John De Armond
>>I think we need to check premises. My (and John's, I think) belief is that
>>government funding would ultimately be detrimental to IFR. So you see,
>>it's not that he and I are against IFR at all, rather something that
>>could be bad for it.
Let me clarify my position. While fully supporting the concept of an
actinide burner/fuel breeder, I am opposed to the boondogle called
IFR. IFR is an example of an unconstrained and uncontrolled
government agency trying to develop a solution to a problem that
doesn't exist except in politics. The "problem" is the postulation
that current reactors are not safe enough and could catastrophically
melt down, kill millions, break off a chunk of the planet, etc.
This is a problem only in theory and in the minds of some anti-nukes.
Any anti-nuke who believes the current generation of reactors is
basing that belief on fiction and nothing technical will change that,
IFR or otherwise.
A commercial sized IFR-type sodium cooled reactor would be an operational
nightmare, would never withstand the pedantic, almost irrational
level of "safety analysis" LWRs now must withstand and would be
prohibitively expensive to maintain.
Peter's claim of vast operational experience notwithstanding,
a sodium cooled reactor would be a nightmare. Peter glosses
over the criticisms with a level of denial that would make an alcoholic
proud. Just a few examples:
* How do you guarantee with the same degree of certainty required of
LWR safety analysis that the hot liquid sodium will never, ever
contact water? Let's forget about the big stuff like heat exchanger
failure. Let's consider small, probable operational screwups
like a lab technician accidentally piping a water line to a
sample or vent line that communicates with a sodium line?
Exactly this, the only difference being the interconnection
was between water and instrument air, was the initiating event
at TMI.
* What do you do when something breaks off or gets dropped into the
reactor or primary coolant loop? With current reactors, you
send a diver down and/or underwater TV cameras and/or underwater
robots to find and fix the problem. What do you do when the coolant
is an opaque, thermally hot, highly chemically reactive metal?
Shit'er'go blind, I guess.
* What do you do after (not if, but when) you fail some fuel and
crap up the primary coolant? Water coolant can be easily purified
and dissolves fission products only sparingly; and gas neither
dissolves, suspends or transports anything except the noble gases
and perhaps some iodine. Sodium will dissolve many of the fission
products (remember cesium is also an alkali metal) and will suspend
much more and cannot easily be chemically purified. Maintenance
would be nightmarish and the man-REM of the workforce would go
through the roof. It is important to remember that it does not
take a reactor accident to fail fuel. It only takes bad
core hydraulics or some bad cladding metallurgy, things that
have caused rather massive fuel failure in LWRs.
* After an accident, rare and incredible as it may seem now, how
do you clean all this mess up? Peter will scream that an
accident is impossible; Murphy will scream "Oh yeah?" Before
TMI, the prospect that simultaneously an operator would flood
the instrument air system with water, the condenser would flood
its vacuum pump, a PORV valve would stick open, the operator would
miss the indication, one redundant pressurizer level indicator
would stick while the other one was out of service for calibration
and the emergency feedwater pump discharge valving would be chained
and locked shut would have been outright dismissed by the experts
as the raving of a lunatic paranoid anti-nuke. I suggest the
same mindset is at work with IFR, particularly with respect to
matters that might put funding at risk.
At TMI, the DOE wasted (and I use that term precisely here)
billions playing with various means of removing the damaged fuel.
This was done in an environment where one could see through
the coolant and could work above the water pool without undue
radiation exposure. Imagine doing that with an opaque,
reactive, thermally and radiologically hot liquid metal coolant.
Peter will no doubt wave his arms and scream and shout but I'll
bet a dollar to a donut that he'll not even attempt to address
these issues because they cannot be addressed.
>What would be bad for IFR is NO funding. Period. First lets adopt
>your premise that it should stand on its commercial merits. There
>are some fatal flaws with this logic. Inorder to commercially de-
>velop the IFR, like commercial software ventures, you need a)
>seed capital, b) facility organization and infrastructure of labor-
>atories and facilities. There is currently NO private comppany or
>consideration which even remotely has facilities to do IFR research.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the statist, justifying the govenrment
stealing the wealth of the people to spend on boondogle projects
by saying that the boondogle is necessary because private industry
won't do it. A clue, Peter. If private industry won't do it,
it doesn't need doing. You know, if the government wasn't stealing
half the citizens' wealth and borrowing half again as much, perhaps
entrepreneurs would be a bit more willing to take high risks.
>If all you want are computer studies, any of the vendors can
>oblige you. THe only operating fast reactor in the US is EBR-II.
>The only feasable metal fuel recycle facility is right next door,
>in fact, they are a joined, closed structure. Now if you want
>your venture to suceed you would either a) make use of existing
>facilities or b) build new ones. Choice B is out of the question
>since by the time the NIMBYs and regulators get a hold of the
>works, you have lost any investment you put in.
Sunk costs aren't investments and they are lost regardless.
Oh, I forget. What the government calls "investment", we
call "tax and spend." And you think NIMBY and the regulators are
bad with LWRs, just wait until they unite with those of us who
are pro-nuclear but who want this scientific welfare dinasaur killed.
>We are not talking about starting up a small magazine. Even
>the Internet is government subsidized..I read where the US is
>ready to pour 250$B (thats Billion) into the Information Highway.
>You could build 25-50 new reactors with that kind of money..
You've been reading fiction. There are a whole bunch of us already
mobilized to keep the government from doing the same fine job on
computer networks as they did to nuclear power. BTW, did anyone
else note Peter's self-contradiction? A few paragraphs ago he
stated that IFR is sooooo expensive and sooooo risky that no one
but big 'ole Uncle Sugar can do it and then in this paragraph he
claims that we could build reactors for a paltry $10 billion each.
Now, what was that little ditty I saw on the financial page of
the paper today? Yeah, that one, where Bill Gates and McGaw plan
on spending $5-10 billion over the next few years to erect a worldwide
data and voice satelite network. Oh, and did you notice that they
think they will have to work with either the russians or the chinese
for launch services because the US space program so so f*cked up?
The *government* space program, I might add. Did anyone also notice
that Gates was quoted as citing the GOVERNMENT as the single largest
roadblock to the success of this project? Hey, you think DOS is
bad, just contemplate what it would be like if DOE developed it.
I imagine the private sector could bring in a new generation of
nuclear reactor for well under this amount. The private sector
would do it for a fraction of the cost and time because they
have to. They probably would NOT build a physical empire of shiny
extravagant labs and buildings like the government does (at least
if Detroit stays out of it) but they WOULD get the job done.
>I think if the government supports bench research and development of
>other technologies (Internet, Mag-Lev trains, cancer drug product-
>ion, etc..) which lead to commercial technology transfer and spinoff,
>then why should nuclear be any different?
Because one wrong doesn't justify another.
>Billions have been spent
>on the Internet by the government, and ATT/MCI and the like are now
>poised to take advantage of the government-subsidized Information
>Highway.
You might want to mosey over and see whose title resides on the wires
that transport your internet connection, Peter. You might also want
to differentiate between what the guv spent on actual internet development
and what it spent to play and for applications.
>Would it have been reasonable to think a private corporation
>could have linked all these universites and sites on its own
>resources?
IBM seemed to do a pretty decent job with BITNET. DEC seems to have
done a pretty good job with DECnet too. Hey Peter! There IS a real
world out there on the other side of that government paycheck.
>When TMI happened, the NRC mandated that B&W fix their reactor
>designs. The respnsibility fell on B&W. (ALso the rest of the
>industry). I submit the govt MUST take ownership of the waste
>problem.
And I submit that the goverment must simply get the hell out of the way
and let the industry solve the problem its way.
>the next generation of reactors?? They ressurected NASA and
>Chrysler, are they not any different? Where was the gov't served
>by Lee Iacocca?
You could have done your cause a world of good by not citing the
purveyors of the occasional Space Bus and space probes that explode
and the K-car. If you're proud of those accomplishments, you're one
sick puppy. Or desparate for pride.
>We have allready spent about 1.5$B over 10 years (1984-94). To
>abandon something promising as this, when its 95% complete, is
>truly wasteful.
Nope. It says that it is time to cut bait and take the loss.
>If private enterprise could go to the moon, instead of Neil Armstrong,
>do you think we would be there? Or do you think the Russians would
>have beat us?
Whattya think, Peter? Maybe that your peepee would have rotted off if
the Ruskies had left footprints on the moon first? It was neat, it was
fun, it employed a lot of people but the Moon race meant little to most
people and NOTHING to the security of the US. Of course, the government
had no business being in the entertainment business. Who knows? If it
were not for the goverment, Perhaps Ted Turner would have gone to the
moon in order to scoop Fox or the Big Three and paid for it with
advertising dollars.
>>In other words, complaining about the post office's public nature
>>does not make him "against" postal service in general.
>No but he failed to cite an alternative which is acceptable on
>a mass scale. He failed to recognize that although inefficient
>at times, the US mail system is still preferred over private
>carriers for door-to-door daily mail.
'Sat so? Well then, how do you explain the postal service's current
terrorist campaign against companies who dare to send non-urgent
mail via alternative carriers? In case you don't know, I refer
to the postal service's audits being aimed against large corps
in which the service claims that some fraction of the corp's
mail was non-urgent and then uses an obscure part of the postal code
to assess them the postage they would have paid. In other words,
the postal service is using the force of law to make people pay
for something they neither wanted nor used.
If the postal service is such a jolly good deal, then why does the
service continue to hide behind congressional protection? If
everyone really wants what the postal service provides, then congress
could cut it loose and it would thrive in the private sector.
>Suppose you wanted to write
>a letter to someone. Not only would you need to know your company's
>services for your mail, you would not be assured that they could
>delliver your mail to its recipient. Extrapolate this from the
>phone service you get. If your favorite long distance carrier doesnt
>go to where you want to go, good ol' ATT steps in.
Gee, you'd think Peter would have heard of Equal Access by now,
wouldn't you? And you'd think he'd know that all the phone companies
go everywhere in the US with the possible exception of a few rural
private exchanges. Hell, my tiny little exchange which serves my
cabin in the mountains got equal access years ago.
>You anarchists still don't get it. There are things the government
>does better than private enterprise.
Yeah, they did seem to do a pretty good job of killing women
and children at Waco. And they've done a pretty good job of
creating and promoting the Drug War against the Constitution.
And the IRS does a superlative job of confiscating peoples'
wealth. The Surveillance State is moving right along with the advent
of the Clipper Chip and the FBI's Digital Telephony snooping initiative.
But the things that it is chartered by the Constitution
(remember that old concept of enumerated powers?) to do - regulating
the money supply, interstate commerce, providing for the national
defence and so on, it does a very poor and/or expensive job.
Perhaps if the government got back to doing ONLY what it is chartered
to do, the cost - despite the built-in excess and waste - would be
something the country could afford.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Suppose Clinton were choking on food and you were the only one present.
Would you: a) pack in more food, b) duct tape his mouth shut, c) handcuff
his hands behind his back, d) all of the above.
John De Armond
>In article <zw9...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>C'mon Peter. Government nuclear operations practically define nuclear
>>criminal liability. If the civilian nuclear operators did even a tenth
>>of what the government routinely has gotten away with under the holy
>>shield of national security, they'd NEVER see the other side of the jail
>>bars. Not just little shit either. Things like the several million
>>gallons of high level waste they pumped into the aquifer at Hanford or
>>the tritium at Savannah River or the section of deer antler one
>>spectroscopy lab where I consulted at Oak Ridge used as a high deadtime
>>test source because of the Cs-137 or on-line water sampler my company built
>[----kid gloves off..."You're toast" mode on....---]
Not even "melt the butter" mode....
>John, what does your feelings of inadequacy towards national
>laboratories have to do with the discussion at hand? All I hear
>is you rant and rave about how the govt is pissing away your tax
>dollars when they should be feeding your private enterprise instead.
How's that old saying go? "The ad hominim is the last refuge of
the defeated." You can wave your arms and you can call me names
but you cannot change the fact that DOE (and its contractors, just to
make you happy) has been criminally negligent in the nuclear biz
and by ANY measure is the LEAST qualified to do ANYTHING related to
civilian nuclear power.
I mentioned just a few of the more significant sins in my previous post.
Shall I continue? Why don't we talk about DOE's "scrap metal
repository" at Oak Ridge? This was an about 20 acre bare dirt site
where highly contaminated metal scrap was just piled up and left to rot.
The stuff there ranged from reactor internals to piping removed from the
diffusion plant. DOE (through M-M energy systems, for the pedantically
challenged) hired my company to propose the feasability of
decontaminating this stuff and recycling it. No doubt so DOE could have
staged a photo-op to show how eco-sensitive they are. I wouldn't touch
it. I didn't want any of my employees working in that environment.
Or let's talk about the "decontamination facility" operated by EG&G in
a nondescript metal building just down the road from The Nucleus
in Oak Ridge. My first impression upon entering this hellish place
was a distinct inability to breath. The acid vapors hanging in
the air took one's breath away. The acid was being used to etch away
surface contamination from spent civilian reactor internals that DOE
had accepted to "dispose" of. The etching was being done in open vats
by men protected by nothing more than half-face vapor respirators.
The huge sludge vat which dominated the room pegged my survey meter
on contact at 1 R/hr. though the side. No marking, no barriers for this
high radiation area. The "friskout station" at the exit to the building
was inside a lead brick cave and yet the RM-14 was almost pegged
on the X100 range - worthless for detecting contamination on the feet
or hands. I saw NO personal dosimetery on anyone working in that building.
I asked the manager who was escorting us about that and he said "This is
DOE country", implying, of course, that NRC regulations didn't apply.
Shall I go on? I can rifle my files and come up with dozens more.
ANY SINGLE such violation on the civilian side would have the plant
manager and the HP staff in jail and smeared across the TV screen.
Whereas on the civilian side, silly technical paperwork violations
get the NRC's and the media's attention, DOE slaps the shroud of
secrecy over conditions that are immediately hazardous to health.
It is a tragic shame that the average media flunky is so technically
illiterate that he wastes his efforts on diversions such as the
vaunted human radiation experiments while the really bad DOE sins
go unreported. Even though they are, for the most part, unreported,
these crimes exist and none of your arm waving and name calling
will change that, Peter. And nothing will change the fact that
DOE is the LAST agency in the world who should be playing nuclear.
>1. Why are you not consulting in the govt presently to change
>the situation (or at least line your consultant coffers)?
Because I no longer have any professional interest in the nuclear biz
and I want to stay as far away from the federal bureaucracy as possible.
And when we manage to sack the IFR this year or the next, I'll have
a job and you won't, your vast credentials notwithstanding.
>Are you so vexed by the big brother element that you won't change
>your world view on national interests?
You might want to realize that the old "national interest", or
was it "national security" saw is getting harder and harder to float
now that the mean old Soviets are gone. What is good for you is
not equal to what is good for the nation.
>2. Why are you not spearheading with your business experience,
>commercialization of advanced nuclear.
Because I no longer have any professional interest in the nuclear biz.
And I have NO desire to butt heads with the bureaucrats. There's
more to life than that.
>I guess you are not a
>latent Blue family member (head of GA and MTGR vendor), and you
>don't have a business angel with $5B for advanced reactor research..
>GO ask W or GE if they will build a big research facility specifically
>for long term research (that is the reality of the commercial end)
Tellya what. Why don't we roll things back to a period where both
the govenrment and the country worked as designed, say, about
1950 or so? Corporate taxes were practically nonexistant and the
total federal, state and local taxes of the average white collar
worker amounted to about 12% of his gross income. His comfortable
3 bedroom house cost oh, maybe 8,000 dollars and his mortgage was
less than $100. He saved 10% or more of his vast disposable income
and that money was available for corporate investment. And of course,
government regulation of almost everything including the budding
nuclear power industry was almost nonexistant. As was the national debt.
Now given a repetition of that environment AND some assurance that
the federalies will keep their fingers out of the pie until it is done,
I'll guaran-damn-tee W or GE would build a big research facility -
just like IBM did in that same period.
>>plant, even at TMI. Based ONLY on its past record, the last entity in
>>the world qualified to run a nuclear reactor is the government.
>The government is not runnng this reactor. In fact you can say
>technically, that the only reactors the government runs are the
>military reactors (navy ships/test reactorrs), and the 5MW NBS
>reactor in gaithersburg, MD. All other reactors are run by
>contractors, viz..Martin Marrieta, W, ANL, you get the picture?
Oh Peter. I didn't think even you were stupid enough to try that one.
That's really tacky.
>Ever hear of the Internet? You're on it. The Government subsidized
>it. When it goes commercial, they'll pump even more money into MCI/ATT.
>If you think the private sector will pick up the entire bill, then
>$100.00 local phone bills are on their way...
Pete, old buddy, I hate to break it to you but the Internet is
long dead and the internet has been private for years. NSF funding
is a minor part of the network. I'm sure that if you'd write
to in...@psi.com, they'd be happy to give you a detailed breakdown.
>Why? Comparing the computer industry to the present nuclear industry is
>like comparing an "apple" to a "lemon" (in your words). I dont
>see this..I see the nuclear industry as a vital industry. You forget,
>you still have to plug your computer into the wall.
>Read Rhodes' book Nuclear Renewal. Skip to the last chapter if you
>want the whodunnit.
No thanks. I'm not much of a fan of science fiction. I'm reality-based
and the reality is nuclear is dead in this country for the forseeable
future. Sometime out in the future when another commercial reactor is
built, my bet is "made in japan" will be stamped all over it.
>I was an STA at SONGS 1, a 250$M turnkey that Westinghouse built
>for SCE in the 60's. Don't try to bullshit your way out John,
>I may be younger than you, but I've been around...
Coulda fooled me.
>>
>>About the only thing that can be said for government nuclear research
>>scientific welfare at this point is that it keeps a bunch of government
>>employees off the street. White collar panhandlers are soooo disgusting,
>>after all.
>LLoyd Benson's signature is not at the bottom of my paycheck. That
>privledge goes to the president of one of the finest Universities in
>the land..
Who sucks his pay check from Uncle Sammy. Who pays the bill is evident
from your .sig.
>____________________________________________________________________
>Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
>email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Thomas D. Orth
|> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
First, it is important to note that there are two sodium systems,
not just one. The sodium pool is a seperate system and its inventory
never leaves the pool...not pumped or otherwise. Its heat is transfered
to a second sodium system "withing" the pool and above the core in the
primary hx's. Therefore, the analogy to TMI is pure folly, and I expected
more from you John. There aren't any little sodium lines running around
for operators to connect water lines to.
|> * What do you do when something breaks off or gets dropped into the
|> reactor or primary coolant loop? With current reactors, you
|> send a diver down and/or underwater TV cameras and/or underwater
|> robots to find and fix the problem. What do you do when the coolant
|> is an opaque, thermally hot, highly chemically reactive metal?
|> Shit'er'go blind, I guess.
Well John, the totally inept government has been running one for over
30 years, and even THEY have managed to deal with this issue. Not
to mention the fact that both France AND Japan have similar reactors
operational RIGHT NOW.
|> * What do you do after (not if, but when) you fail some fuel and
|> crap up the primary coolant? Water coolant can be easily purified
|> and dissolves fission products only sparingly; and gas neither
|> dissolves, suspends or transports anything except the noble gases
|> and perhaps some iodine. Sodium will dissolve many of the fission
|> products (remember cesium is also an alkali metal) and will suspend
|> much more and cannot easily be chemically purified. Maintenance
|> would be nightmarish and the man-REM of the workforce would go
|> through the roof. It is important to remember that it does not
|> take a reactor accident to fail fuel. It only takes bad
|> core hydraulics or some bad cladding metallurgy, things that
|> have caused rather massive fuel failure in LWRs.
Basically, this has a lot to do with what my thesis topic was, and the
primary research effort of the Fuels and Engineering division at ANL. We
have purposefully failed fuel elements in many different ways to test
the effects. We have failed fuel in the plenum, in the fuel region,
everywhere imaginable, and it simply doesn't pose an operational problem.
And why would this lead to man-REM hours going through the roof? Also note
that we have run fuel elements to over 20 % burnup without failure. That
is WITH plutonium which is more corrosive to cladding than U-Zirc.
Additionally, we have tested fuel extensively for the PNC program in japan
with similar succes. (PNC fuel is mixed oxide).
|> Peter will no doubt wave his arms and scream and shout but I'll
|> bet a dollar to a donut that he'll not even attempt to address
|> these issues because they cannot be addressed.
I'm looking forward to his responses.
|> John
|> --
|> John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
|> Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
|> Suppose Clinton were choking on food and you were the only one present.
|> Would you: a) pack in more food, b) duct tape his mouth shut, c) handcuff
|> his hands behind his back, d) all of the above.
Andy Holland
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>
>Let me clarify my position. While fully supporting the concept of an
>actinide burner/fuel breeder, I am opposed to the boondogle called
>IFR. IFR is an example of an unconstrained and uncontrolled
The problem with existing reactor designs, is that a great deal of
safety has been backfit into them, causing an O&M cost explosion.
If reactors were designed to include passive, possibly "inherent"
safety features, perhaps these costs could be controlled. I too
am a little leary of liquid metal. [ Is there a way of using a
Hg or Pb or a molten salt intermediate loop for example, or some other more
stable, H2O compatible material for at least the intermediate loop?]
> ..................................If private industry won't do it,
>it doesn't need doing. You know, if the government wasn't stealing
>half the citizens' wealth and borrowing half again as much, perhaps
>entrepreneurs would be a bit more willing to take high risks.
Hmmm, some things private industry does better, some things government
needs to do (like fight wars, jailing criminals etc...). Face it,
government's a whore to power, private industry lusts for money. Are
either perfect? Why rely soley on either?
Both are necessary evils which require careful monitering, control,
and both have their place. Nuclear technology is best developed
by both, in concert. Face it, Government can kill nuclear, or any other
capital intensive investment with a stroke of the pen. IF you fear
government might do this, you don't invest. So you prod government
in, and play off their desire for control so you stay alive and
make a profit. Thats the way the game is played, and its been played
that way for over a hundred years when dealing with big money.
Eventually, the equation falls apart (railroads, Air travel, nuclear),
and government just chokes the industry to death, then, you see
the big push to de-regulation, cause the government loves that
tax base, and hates laid off voters. Then you sometimes see the pendulum
swing. Its the game, face it, heck, manipulate it.
>
>Sunk costs aren't investments and they are lost regardless.
Yes, but they also provide a basis for potential gain. One
can always use a sunk cost item, modifying its usage and
gain an economic, or strategic advantage. One can also
show the entity X (private or public) for being stupid in putting
that kind of money into a boondoggle. This works on pride, so X's chief,
CEO, or cabinent official keeps feeding the project in hopes
to appear right.
>I imagine the private sector could bring in a new generation of
>nuclear reactor for well under this amount. The private sector
>would do it for a fraction of the cost and time because they
>have to.
Not really. Private industry won't do it because the government is
too unstable to take the risk. If government is involved, there
is an element of stablility which offsets the costs of their
often excessive controls. Government paranoia is a useful
tool, if manipulated correctly. Get the government to build it,
make it their child, then they won't kill it when the wind blows
left or right.
> They probably would NOT build a physical empire of shiny
>extravagant labs and buildings like the government does (at least
>if Detroit stays out of it) but they WOULD get the job done.
Egos are huge in the private sector as well as the public sector.
Where pride exists, monuments and empires are built. The government ones
are no worse than the private ones, they only appear that way
because they screw up on a larger scale that is obvious for all
to see. This is the problem with greatness. Its a shame we live in
a generation that doesn't hold goodness higher than greatness. Then
our problems would not be problems at all, they would be opportunties
for good, not obsticals to greatness.
Andy Holland |
Westinghouse NMD | Gore in '94
zc...@ncstate.pgh.wec.com |
All Usual Disclaimers Apply |
Thomas D. Orth
|> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
|>
|> >In article <zw9...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> Or let's talk about the "decontamination facility" operated by EG&G in
|> a nondescript metal building just down the road from The Nucleus
|> in Oak Ridge. My first impression upon entering this hellish place
|> was a distinct inability to breath. The acid vapors hanging in
|> the air took one's breath away. The acid was being used to etch away
|> surface contamination from spent civilian reactor internals that DOE
|> had accepted to "dispose" of. The etching was being done in open vats
|> by men protected by nothing more than half-face vapor respirators.
|> The huge sludge vat which dominated the room pegged my survey meter
|> on contact at 1 R/hr. though the side. No marking, no barriers for this
|> high radiation area. The "friskout station" at the exit to the building
|> was inside a lead brick cave and yet the RM-14 was almost pegged
|> on the X100 range - worthless for detecting contamination on the feet
|> or hands. I saw NO personal dosimetery on anyone working in that building.
|> I asked the manager who was escorting us about that and he said "This is
|> DOE country", implying, of course, that NRC regulations didn't apply.
Having started work for Argonne in this decade, I have to point out
a few things. None of this is still true. Why?
Because the NRC does have jurisdiction here now. You insist on talking
about ancient history. BTW, the reason that the civilian facilities
that you brag about were so clean was because they WERE regulated.
|> Shall I go on? I can rifle my files and come up with dozens more.
|> ANY SINGLE such violation on the civilian side would have the plant
|> manager and the HP staff in jail and smeared across the TV screen.
|> Whereas on the civilian side, silly technical paperwork violations
|> get the NRC's and the media's attention, DOE slaps the shroud of
|> secrecy over conditions that are immediately hazardous to health.
This is no longer true.
|> illiterate that he wastes his efforts on diversions such as the
|> vaunted human radiation experiments while the really bad DOE sins
|> go unreported. Even though they are, for the most part, unreported,
|> these crimes exist and none of your arm waving and name calling
|> will change that, Peter. And nothing will change the fact that
|> DOE is the LAST agency in the world who should be playing nuclear.
Do you hear what you are saying? The original research for PWR's was
done by Argonne, and PWR's by the nuclear navy. Yet you tought the
wonders of PI. PI adheres to strict regulations because they have
always had strict regulations. If the NRC had regulated DOE facilities
from the start, the events you describe would not have happened.
It's unfortunate that the DOE was unregulated, but that is the
situation..it is now, and everyone dreads a Tiger Team visit!
|>
|> Tellya what. Why don't we roll things back to a period where both
|> the govenrment and the country worked as designed, say, about
|> 1950 or so? Corporate taxes were practically nonexistant and the
|> total federal, state and local taxes of the average white collar
|> worker amounted to about 12% of his gross income. His comfortable
|> 3 bedroom house cost oh, maybe 8,000 dollars and his mortgage was
|> less than $100. He saved 10% or more of his vast disposable income
|> and that money was available for corporate investment. And of course,
|> government regulation of almost everything including the budding
|> nuclear power industry was almost nonexistant. As was the national debt.
|> Now given a repetition of that environment AND some assurance that
|> the federalies will keep their fingers out of the pie until it is done,
|> I'll guaran-damn-tee W or GE would build a big research facility -
|> just like IBM did in that same period.
|>
Here you go. In the 50's, there was no nuclear power industry in the
private sector. And all of the claims that you make about the wonderful
and clean operations of the private sector are a RESULT of regulations.
Have you really thought this through completely? I mean, is this one
of those posts that you now wish you hadn't made? Now, the
regulatory burden on utilities is great, and sometimes seems absurd,
but let's not kid ourselves about the reasons WHY their operations
are so good and clean. They spend a LOT of money to comply with
regulations.
|> >>plant, even at TMI. Based ONLY on its past record, the last entity in
|> >>the world qualified to run a nuclear reactor is the government.
once again insisting on past history. Why don't you focus on the
various university reactors now under DOE jurisdiction, or EBR-II for
that matter? How long has it really been for you anyway?
|>
|> No thanks. I'm not much of a fan of science fiction. I'm reality-based
|> and the reality is nuclear is dead in this country for the forseeable
|> future. Sometime out in the future when another commercial reactor is
|> built, my bet is "made in japan" will be stamped all over it.
Do you think that is because Japan has such a great research and development
program? Don't be a fool. My old division was crawling with Japanese.
They are paying Argonne to do their research for them. Why? Because
this is where the facilities and the expertise are. If indeed those
reactors have "Made in Japan" stamped all over them it will because
we dropped the advanced reactor ball and they picked it up after the
blood and guts research was done. Really, your arguments are getting
pathetic.
|> >____________________________________________________________________
|> >Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
|> >email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
|>
|> John
|> --
|> John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
|> Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
|> Suppose Clinton were choking on food and you were the only one present.
|> Would you: a) pack in more food, b) duct tape his mouth shut, c) handcuff
|> his hands behind his back, d) all of the above.
Russ
Andy Holland <zc...@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>am a little leary of liquid metal. [ Is there a way of using a
>Hg or Pb or a molten salt intermediate loop for example, or some other more
>stable, H2O compatible material for at least the intermediate loop?]
As a matter of fact, the Russians proposed using lead for the main
loop of a breeder. Advantages are that lead is compatible with
water, and it absorbs less energy from scattered neutrons. The
disadvantage is that it has to be very hot to melt.
---
Russ Cage | Forewarned is half an octopus
ru...@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
(313) 662-9259 | Software engineer for hire, real-time a specialty.
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>In article <2mq9pb$s...@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>Andy Holland <zc...@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>am a little leary of liquid metal. [ Is there a way of using a
>>Hg or Pb or a molten salt intermediate loop for example, or some other more
>>stable, H2O compatible material for at least the intermediate loop?]
>
>As a matter of fact, the Russians proposed using lead for the main
>loop of a breeder. Advantages are that lead is compatible with
>water, and it absorbs less energy from scattered neutrons. The
>disadvantage is that it has to be very hot to melt.
..and more expensive to pump since lead is significantly
heavier than sodium.
Tanju
Thomas D. Orth
|> or...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
|>
|> >|> * How do you guarantee with the same degree of certainty required of
|> >|> LWR safety analysis that the hot liquid sodium will never, ever
|> >|> contact water? Let's forget about the big stuff like heat exchanger
|> >|> failure. Let's consider small, probable operational screwups
|> >|> like a lab technician accidentally piping a water line to a
|> >|> sample or vent line that communicates with a sodium line?
|> >|> Exactly this, the only difference being the interconnection
|> >|> was between water and instrument air, was the initiating event
|> >|> at TMI.
|>
|> >First, it is important to note that there are two sodium systems,
|> >not just one. The sodium pool is a seperate system and its inventory
|> >never leaves the pool...not pumped or otherwise. Its heat is transfered
|> >to a second sodium system "withing" the pool and above the core in the
|> >primary hx's. Therefore, the analogy to TMI is pure folly, and I expected
|> >more from you John. There aren't any little sodium lines running around
|> >for operators to connect water lines to.
|>
|> that the primary pool will be hermetically sealed with no access
|> to the outside world, there IS a possibility that some sort
|> of human error can mix water and sodium. You do your cause a
|> disservice by denying this possibility.
|>
IN a large sense, it is sealed. fuel loading and unloading is done through
sealed holes in the floor with the FUM, (fuel unloading machine). So, unlike
LWR's, which are open (screwdrivers, wrenches etcetera falling in)
|> >|> reactor or primary coolant loop? With current reactors, you
|> >|> send a diver down and/or underwater TV cameras and/or underwater
|> >|> robots to find and fix the problem. What do you do when the coolant
|> >|> is an opaque, thermally hot, highly chemically reactive metal?
|> >|> Shit'er'go blind, I guess.
|>
|> >Well John, the totally inept government has been running one for over
|> >30 years, and even THEY have managed to deal with this issue. Not
|> >to mention the fact that both France AND Japan have similar reactors
|> >operational RIGHT NOW.
|>
|> I can think of at least two which are public knowledge (SL1, the
|> research reactor at Westinghouse Pittsburg) and a couple of more which
|> are not. And how many people have you guys killed? I know of 3
|> at SL1 just for a start. Oh, and how much has DOE spent to run that
|> one little reactor?
see above, reactor is not open on the top for things to gall into.
|> >|> crap up the primary coolant? Water coolant can be easily purified
|>
|> >primary research effort of the Fuels and Engineering division at ANL. We
|> >have purposefully failed fuel elements in many different ways to test
|> >the effects. We have failed fuel in the plenum, in the fuel region,
|> >everywhere imaginable, and it simply doesn't pose an operational problem.
|> >And why would this lead to man-REM hours going through the roof? Also note
|> >that we have run fuel elements to over 20 % burnup without failure. That
|> >is WITH plutonium which is more corrosive to cladding than U-Zirc.
|> >Additionally, we have tested fuel extensively for the PNC program in japan
|> >with similar succes. (PNC fuel is mixed oxide).
|>
|> reactor by commercial standards. We learned that naval reactors
|> don't scale up 10X very well. I'd certainly not make wide ranging
|> claims based on pilot plant experience. Besides, you didn't address
|> the issue, that of how you clean up after fuel fails for whatever reason.
Yes, but the heat removal is completely different in EBR-II and similarly
In an IFR. Power densities would be the same, and conduction and convection
would still be the primary heat removal mechanism. And, not being familiar
with navy designs, I would guess that they are not passively or inherently safe.
With respect to sodium cleanup. The CGCS (cover gas cleanup system) removes
purifies the pool cover gas, and the sodium is cleaned continuously in a cold
trap. However, certain impurities plate out on the walls of the pool which
are SS..304 I believe, but don't take tha as gospel. In EBR-II, the most
failures have been from MOX fuel for the Japanese PNC program as part of the
RBCB (run beyond cladding breach) series of tests. It has been difficult to
get production metal fuel to breach. At this point, the failed fuel is
detected by using a tag gas in the plenum of the fuel, and DN (delayed neutron)
detectors. These plots DN vs. time give indications as to the rate of fuel
release into the sodium and the rate at which it is cleaned up. This system
works quite well. Failed fuel has always been easy to identify, and sodium
has always been successfully cleaned. Also note that EBR-II sodium is the
ORIGINAL sodium from way back when. I don't see how failed fuel poses an
operational problem....
BTW, bringing up SL1 is as much folly as bringing up Chernobyl. I don't
see the applicability here to EBR-II or the IFR concept. Also, it was
an Army reactor if I'm not mistaken.
|> John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
|> Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
|> Suppose Clinton were choking on food and you were the only one present.
|> Would you: a) pack in more food, b) duct tape his mouth shut, c) handcuff
|> his hands behind his back, d) all of the above.
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
Speaking for myself
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
E. Michael Smith
>IN a large sense, it is sealed. fuel loading and unloading is done through
>sealed holes in the floor with the FUM, (fuel unloading machine). So, unlike
>LWR's, which are open (screwdrivers, wrenches etcetera falling in)
Just tossing peanuts from the peanut gallery ... but ...
Just what IS a 'sealed hole' anyway? Sure sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Lets see ... we just put the fuel into a hole, that isn't a hole because
it's sealed, and don't have to worry about things getting into the guts
because the 'hole' isn't 'open' like in a LWR? Have I got that right?
Other than the hole being in the bottom instead of the top, I don't
see much different about these 'sealed holes' as compared to the
regular kind of hole... ;-)
--
E. Michael Smith e...@cygnus.com
"I am not a number, I am a Free Man!" - The Prisoner
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
"A goal is a dream taken seriously" -- Henry David Thoreau
Thomas D. Orth
understand with few words. Here's how it works. The reactor pool is sealed
from the rest of the plant. Even heat transfer is done via a secondary
loop. Fuel is unloaded with a FUM (fuel unloading machinge), which is
positioned over a particular location in the core. Once it is in position
and the FUM is sealed tightly, the "floor" so to speak is opened "only
inside the bounderies of the seeled FUM" to allow fuel handling to take
place. At that time, FUM gas is sampled and analyzed etcetera, but the
pool is always seeled. Imagine an air lock sort of mechanism.
Next issue...
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
or...@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
John De Armond
>It may also be that it just isn't as bad as one would think to use Na.
>I was one of the first to come unglued at the idea of liquid sodium
>as a coolant... But lately I've run into an 'existance proof' of
>sorts that makes me think maybe it really IS a non-issue...
>My Mercedes Benz Diesel has sodium filled valves.
>I can think of few places harder to keep sealed than the inside
>of a valve stem/head in a diesel engine. High thermal cycles.
>High mechanical stress. Small thin sections. Lots of hot
>potentially acidic gasses. Yet mine has 305,000 miles on 'em.
>I think this is an existance proof that keeping liquid sodium sealed
>inside steel is a well developed proven technology.
Perhaps that is why sodium filled valves have fallen into disuse?
One sees sodium filled valves in modern engines only in a few rare
instances where the hassles of manufacture and the weakening effect
of a hole in the stem must be offset by the extra heat conduction.
Ignoring the difference between a few grams and thousands of lbs of
sodium, one should note that a few other influences such as neutron
embrittlement just don't exist in an engine.
John
--
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1994Apr4.1...@michael.apple.com>, e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>|> In article <1994Mar2...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> or...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
>|> >sealed holes in the floor with the FUM, (fuel unloading machine). So,
>|> Just tossing peanuts from the peanut gallery ... but ...
>|>
>|> Just what IS a 'sealed hole' anyway? Sure sounds like an oxymoron to me.
>|> see much different about these 'sealed holes' as compared to the
>|> regular kind of hole... ;-)
See that last line? That is called a 'smiley face'. It indicates
humor. Something you seem not to have ...
>I don't like your attitude kid.
Golly, 'kid'. Gee, and here I thought I was a middle aged geezer ;-)
Frankly, I don't care what you do or don't like. As a post 40's
geezer I get to enjoy watching you kneejerk; no matter if you like
it or not... ;-)
>First, I was trying to make this easy to
>understand with few words.
And the particular words you chose were most imaginative, creating
rather interesting images far devoid from reality. That you failed
to see the humor in 'sealed holes' is "Not My Problem" ...
{amusing attempt to rationalize the term 'sealed hole' deleted}
Brendan A. Niemira
> In article <1994Apr...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> or...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
> >In article <1994Apr4.1...@michael.apple.com>, e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
> >|> In article <1994Mar2...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> or...@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
>
> E. Michael Smith e...@cygnus.com
>
Take it into e.mail, folks. Thus far, I've found sci.energy to be one of the
more civil and mature forums (fora?) for information exchange on usenet.
Nothing's worse than following a thread and discovering that a personality
thing stops the flow and interchange of useful information.
Of course, if anyone disagrees with me, I'd be happy to discuss it... via
private e.mail.
.......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira niem...@student.msu.edu
All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
"You know your Shelley, Bertie."
"Oh, am I?" P. G. Wodehouse
THE CODE OF THE WOOSTERS
Chuck Henkel
PA> You failed to ascertain how Na-H20 would ever communicate, I
PA> have tirelessly informed the thick skulls as yourself that the
PA> only water ever get near the reactor building of Na facilities
PA> is contained in human bodies.
So, Peter, how is heat extracted from the sodium?
Chuck Henkel
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
c...@srs.gov (803)725-1611