myth busting
Marc Ries
Council (and other MYTHBuster Series publications) can be contacted at:
SECC, 1717 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite LL215, WA., DC 20036]
[...]
MYTH 1: NUCLEAR POWER CAN SIGNIFICANTLY MITIGATE THE TREND TOWARD
GLOBAL WARMING
INDUSTRY STATEMENT: "Nuclear energy... must be revitalized in order to
alleviate the greenhouse effect." Edward M. Davis, President,
American Nuclear Energy Council[1]
SECC RESPONSE:
Nuclear power is too expensive, has too many unresolved safety
problems and cannot be brought on line fast enough to even
marginally combat the greenhouse effect.
The nuclear power industry is trying to convince Americans that more
nuclear-generated electricity can solve the greenhouse problem. However,
nuclear power faces serious obstacles, including prohibitive costs, long
construction lead times, dwindling public support and inherent
environmental problems.
NUCLEAR ECONOMICS
The experience of the recent past can be used as an indicator of nuclear
power costs in the future. In 1987 and 1988, 13 nuclear power plants were
completed in the United States at an average cost of $4,049 per kilowatt, or
more than $4 billion for a 1,000 megawatt (MW) plant in 1987 dollars[2].
When operating and construction costs are combined, nuclear power costs
almost three times as much as natural gas and up to seven times more than
energy efficiency improvements[3]. In addition, nuclear power necessitates
additional expenses for decommissioning, waste disposal, major repairs and
the cost of possible accidents.
Theoretically, if nuclear power were to entirely replace fossil fuels as the
source of the nation's electricity at current costs, an initial investment of
$1.6 trillion would be required to finance the construction of 400 new
1,000MW reactors at $4,000 per kilowatt[4]. In comparison, the total
gross private domestic investment in all sectors of the U.S. economy was
only $712.9 billion in 1987[5]. Therefore, the diseconomics of nuclear
power eliminate it as a realistic consideration for a meaningful role in
solving the greenhouse effect.
LEAD TIME
In addition to nuclear power's prohibitive costs, reactors cannot be built
quickly enough to significantly help avert the global warming process.
While the nuclear industry claims it can build plants in five to six
years, it currently takes about eight to 12 years to bring a plant on line.
Simultaneous construction of even half of the 400 reactors discussed above
is financially and physically impossible. Therefore, the building of the
plants would have to be staggered over time as fossil-fueled plants were
phased out or came to the end of their lifespans. This reality virtually
eliminates any potential immediate impact on the global warming trend by
nuclear power.
To reduce fossil fuel use for electric generation by even half, the world's
nuclear plant completion rate between 1995 and 2020 would need to grow
40-fold from the 1975-1985 rate -- from one every three weeks to two
every day, assuming no increase in energy efficiency[6].
Even assuming the same worldwide growth rate in energy efficiency as that
which occurred in the U.S. between 1978-1986, the international nuclear
plant completion rate would have to increase nine-fold to three each week,
to reduce fossil fuel use by half[7].
[Fig. 1 Comparative Lead Times For Energy Technologies]
[Nuclear 8-12 years, Energy Efficiency 1 - 5 years, Renewables 1 - 5 years]
[(Wind power 1.5 yrs., Photovoltaics 1-1.5 yrs., Biomass 8 mo.-2 yrs.,
Geothermal 6 mo.-3 yrs., Small Hydro 3-5yrs., Solar Thermal 1.5 yrs.,
Natural Gas 2 yrs.)]
[(Estimated lead times on varied generating unit sizes.)]
[Source: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Solar Energy
Industries Association, Geothermal Resources Council, National Hydropower
Association, American Wind Enegy Association, Luz International Limited,
National Wood Energy Association, Public Citizen]
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
Public support for new nuclear power plants has evaporated. Any attempt
to revive the nuclear option would run afoul of strong popular opposition,
according to virtually every independent national energy survey taken
during the 1980s. Further, polling data indicates that opposition to
building new reactors increased from roughly 20 percent in 1975 to more
than 60 percent in 1988[8]. Only 30 percent considered themselves
advocates of nuclear power growth[9]. Furthermore, a solid majority
of Americans don't believe the industry's claim that a "new" generation
of reactors would be safer or cheaper.[10]
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Unlike energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, nuclear power
poses serious threats to the environment as well as human and animal health.
For example, by 1985, nuclear power plants had generated a total of 12,400
metric tons of highly radioactive wastes -- one of the most toxic substances
known -- in the form of irradiated fuel. Even assuming no new nuclear
plants are ordered by the year 2000, an estimated 41,000 metric tons of
high level waste will await permanent storage at the turn of the century[11].
The amount of irradiated fuel will escalate thereafter to more than
1,900 metric tons each year[12].
Increasing nuclear power use in attempt to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions would produce a corresponding increase in radioactive waste.
If 400 nuclear power plants were built, approximately five nuclear waste
dumps the size of the one already intended for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
would have to be built -- an extremely difficult technical problem and a
near political impossibility.
Inasmuch as a 1,000 MV reactor generates approximately 25 metric tons of
high level waste each year it operates[13], the combined waste production
from 400 plants would be about 300,000 metric tons during the reactor's
30 years of operation. Combined with the waste from the 112 licensed
reactors, the approximate 383,250 metric tons of radioactive waste would
require siting in size permanent repositories.
Accidents also pose a significant environmental and health threat. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has documented more than 30,000
mishaps and unplanned "events" at nuclear power plants in the U.S. since
the 1979 Three Mile Island accident[14]. Furthermore, the NRC has
concluded that the chances of a severe core meltdown occurring at one of
the 112 licensed U.S. nuclear plants by the year 2005 is an high as 45
percent[15]. West German and Swedish scientists have predicted a 70
percent chance of a Chernobly-scale accident occuring at one of the
world's nuclear plants every five to six years[16].
[...]
REFERENCES
1. Edward M. Davis, President, American Nuclear Energy Council, Statement
before a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and
Technology and the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture
and Environment, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives, 29 June 1988, p. 3-4.
2. Figure supplied by Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, New York.
3. Energy efficiency costs between 1 and 4 cents per kw-h, natural gas costs
5.5 cents per kw-h, and new nuclear plants cost 15 cents per kw-h.
4. This assumes replacing 400,000 MV of fossil fuel capacity with 400 1,000
MW nuclear reactors at a cost of $4 billion each.
5. U.S. Government Printing Office, Economic Report of the President,
January 1989, p. 326.
6. Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, "Greenhouse Effect
Amelioration -- Efficiency vs. Nuclear", 19 December 1988.
7. Ibid.
8. Louis Harris poll, released 15 January 1989.
9. Ibid.
10. Poll conducted by The Analysis Group Inc. for the Safe Energy
Communication Council, 10-14 September 1988.
11. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Spent
Fuel and Radiation Waste Inventories, Projections and Characteristics,
September 1986, p. 29.
12. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Managing the Nation's
Commercial High Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-0-171 March 1985, p. 28.
13. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Financing Radioactive Waste
Disposal, September 1982, p. 3.
14. Ken Boley and Joshua Gordon, Public Citizen, 1979-1987 Nuclear Power
Safety Report, March 1988.
15. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
prepared testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power,
Committee of Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives,
17 April 1985, p. 1.
16. Christopher Flavin, Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fallout From
Chernobyl, Worldwatch Institute, March 1987, p. 40.
Marc Ries
contacted at: SECC, 1717 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite LL215, WA., DC 20036]
[...]
MYTH 2: A NEW GENERATION OF "ADVANCED" DESIGN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CAN SOLVE
THE GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM.
INDUSTRY STATEMENT: "Second generation reactor technologies... would
re-establish nuclear power as a major source of electricity
for the next century." Richard K. Lester, Associate Professor
of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology[17]
SECC RESPONSE:
A second generation of nuclear power plants will be beset by
unsolvable economic and safety problems. The long lead time
necessary for bringing new reactor designs into commercial use
severely restricts these technologies as potential practical
solutions to global warming.
The nuclear industry is clamoring for taxpayer funding of a "second
generation" of so-called advanced design nuclear plants. While these
reactor concepts are touted as safer and cheaper, both claims are dubious
because no demonstration reactors have been built and the history of the
current generation of nuclear power plants indicates otherwise. It will
take at least 10 years to develop and construct a single demonstration
plant, and another two or more decades to bring significant numbers of
these plants on line.
Relying on passive, rather than active, safety features, these plants
theoretically are protected against certain types of accidents to which
light water reactors (LWR) are vulnerable. However, initial analysis
indicates that there are safety and cost scenarios against which the
new designs appear to have inadequate defense. Moreover, as with LWRs,
the advanced design reactors do not mitigate the unresolved problems
of high and low level nuclear waste, the transportation of waste and
decommissioning. Three of these proposed designs are examined below.
THE HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS COOLED REACTOR
A High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) would be composed of four
reactor modules, each generating 100MW to 150MW of power. Each module's
relatively small size and large surface-to-volume ratio are designed to
keep temperatures below 1,600 C, even if all helium coolant were lost
during full power operation. In theory, the HTGR's fuel could withstand
temperatures of up to 1,600 C without releasing fission products, compared
to 950 C for LWR fuel. As conceived, in such a scenario, passive heat
loss from the walls of the reactor vessel also would help stabilize
temperatures[18].
However, even these design features do not guarantee the safety of the
HTGR. According to the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,
a fire in the HTGR's graphite moderator, which could occur if the reactor
vessel and core support failed, could result in "severe consequences."[19]
There is no evidence that the HTGR will be cheaper than the typical light
water reactor. General Atomics has proposed building a 466 MW HTGR-powered
seawater distillation plant in southern California. The company's initial
cost estimate is $1.8 to $2.1 billion, consistent with the current
generation of reactors at $4000 per kilowatt.[20]
Furthermore, the U.S. already is operating a gas-cooled reactor at Fort
St. Vrain, Colorado. This reactor has operated at only 13 percent of its
capacity since startup in 1979, and is scheduled to be closed in 1990
because of its abysmal operating record. One of the major problems at
Fort St. Vrain has been the unreliability of the helium circulator design.
There is no evidence that new HTGR helium circulator design will not
develop problems of its own.
THE LIQUID METAL REACTOR
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has spent $8 billion since the late
1950s developing the Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR)[21], which is touted as
another type of safer reactor. This reactor would be cooled by liquid
sodium and could be built to "breed" plutonium by converting uranium 238.
The plutonium could then be recovered by reprocessing the fuel. If
coolant pumps were to fail at a LMR unit, sodium would continue to
circulate through the passages around the exterior of the containment
vessel, thus avoiding core damage.[22]
However, the LMR design cannot withstand the loss of coolant, only the
loss of coolant flow if the pumps fail.[23] If sodium were lost, rector
power would rapidly increase as it did when the Chernobyl plant losts its
water coolant. According to an analysis by Nucleonics Week, this literally
could cause the reactor core to blow itself apart.[24] A simultaneous
failure of the guard vessel (the final shield surrounding the core and
other vessels) and the reactor vessel, along with a sodium fire, also
would lead to a major accident.[25]
Industry claims that the LMRs are likely to be cheaper than LWRs are
unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the complexity of the fuel cycle alone
is likely to keep the LMR out of the commercial marketplace.[26]
THE PROCESS INHERENT ULTIMATE SAFETY REACTOR
The Process Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS), a Swedish concept, is a radically
reconfigured LWR. In the PIUS system, the reactor core, primary cooling
system and steam generators are immersed in a pool of cold borated water
within a concrete pressure vessel. If the cooling system fails, the borated
water floods the core, shutting down the chain reaction and preventing
damage to the core.[27]
Even the PIUS design is not immune to catastrophe. While the pool of
borated water protects it against loss of coolant flow, the reactor fuel
would melt if the pressure vessel ruptured and the borated water escaped
after normal cooling was interrupted. Depending upon the severity of the
meltdown, another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or an accident of greater
significance could result.
Early assessments of the PIUS indicate that it would be at least as
expensive as a conventional LWR.[28] The cost of the massive concrete
vessel has not been determined[29], nor has the cost of the massive building.
The potential of a pressure vessel rupture seems to indicate that the PIUS
would require at least a standard containment building. With both
structures, the PIUS could become more expensive than a LWR.[30]
Overall, according to Lawrence Lidsky of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, the cost of the PIUS system may be too high, precluding
commercialization.[31]
The PIUS also may turn out to be unreliable. For instance, loss of power
to the pumps could upset the delicate balance, release the borated water
and result in a core flooding and a reactor shutdown. The flooding and
subsequent removal of the borated water will also increase costs.[32]
[...]
REFERENCES
17. Richard K. Lester, "Rethinking Nuclear Power," Scientific American,
March 1986, p. 39.
18. Ibid. p. 37.
19. Letter from William Kerr, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, to Lando W. Zech, Jr.,
Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 July 1988, p. 4.
20. George Gartles, "Proposed Nuclear Plant Plant to Desalt Water Stirs
Controversy", AP Newswire, 14 February 1989.
21. Donna R. Fitzpatrick, Prehearing Questions and Answers Relating to the
9 February 1989 Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment, U.S. House of Representatives.
22. See N.17 supra at p. 4.
23. "Outlook on Advanced Reactors," Nucleonics Week, 30 March 1989, p. 20.
24. Ibid.
25. See N.19 supra at p. 4.
26. Lawrence Lidsky, "Nuclear Power: Levels of Safety," Massachusetts
Institute of Technolgy, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Cambridge,
MA, p. 11.
27. See N. 17 supra at p. 37.
28. Ronald Klueh, "A Second Nuclear Era?," Public Utilities Fortnightly,
31 October 1985, pp. 18-19.
29. Ibid.
30. Russ Manning, "The Future of Nuclear Power," Environment, p. 32, May 1985.
31. Lawrence Lidsky, "A Safe Atomic Plant for the Future,", Washington Post,
10 January 1988.
32 Personal communication between Alex Antypas of the Safe Energy
Communication Council and Robert Pollard of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
David Gudeman
use environmental arguments to try to kill an environmentaly sound
technology. What is even worse is when the envrionmentalists go along
like sheep because they don't have the brains to think about what is
really going on. It is a sad truth that a large segment of the
environmentalist support comes from people whose opinions have nothing
more behind them than a warm fuzzy feeling about "natural" things and
an irrational fear of the "unatural". The article I respond to below
is worse, it is a deliberate propaganda piece, not mere ignorance.
(Note that the article was not written by Marc Ries, who submited it)
In article <5...@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> ri...@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) writes:
>[The following excerption w/o permission. The Safe Energy Communication
>Council (and other MYTHBuster Series publications) can be contacted at:
>SECC, 1717 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite LL215, WA., DC 20036]
Read the group's title with the following translation:
Safe Energy --> Anti-nuclear
Communication --> Propaganda
>INDUSTRY STATEMENT: "Nuclear energy... must be revitalized in order to
> alleviate the greenhouse effect." Edward M. Davis, President,
> American Nuclear Energy Council[1]
>
>SECC RESPONSE:...
>
>The experience of the recent past can be used as an indicator of nuclear
>power costs in the future.
_If_ people like this group keep doing everything they can to
discredit and sabotage nuclear power.
>In addition, nuclear power necessitates
>additional expenses for decommissioning, waste disposal, major repairs and
>the cost of possible accidents.
Like so many other costs of nuclear power, the costs of
decommissioning and wast disposal (if they become major costs) are
largely due to the efforts of anti-nuclear people, not inherent costs
of the technology. Major repairs and possible accidents are costs
associated with _every_ large scale technology. Therefore all the
figures presented boil down to "If you try to go with nuclear power,
_we_ will make sure that it costs you more than you are willing to
pay." Sounds like blackmail to me.
>While the nuclear industry claims it can build plants in five to six
>years, it currently takes about eight to 12 years to bring a plant on line.
Again, this is directly attributable to the obstructionists.
>... the building of the
>plants would have to be staggered over time as fossil-fueled plants were
>phased out or came to the end of their lifespans. This reality virtually
>eliminates any potential immediate impact on the global warming trend by
>nuclear power.
Good grief. Do they think global warming is going to destroy the
world in the next twenty years? Do they think it will be quicker to
develop and install new technologies than to install existing
technology? Are they going to be happy when our Arizona deserts are
covered by solar panals and windmills? I'm not, and I sure will do
everything I can to stop such a thing from occuring.
>[Nuclear 8-12 years, Energy Efficiency 1 - 5 years, Renewables 1 - 5 years]
>[(Wind power 1.5 yrs., Photovoltaics 1-1.5 yrs., Biomass 8 mo.-2 yrs.,
> Geothermal 6 mo.-3 yrs., Small Hydro 3-5yrs., Solar Thermal 1.5 yrs.,
> Natural Gas 2 yrs.)]
>
>[(Estimated lead times on varied generating unit sizes.)]
Estimated by who? What makes anyone think that comparisons between
generating units of different sizes has any bearing at all? This is a
meaningless set of arbitrary numbers.
>SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
>
>Public support for new nuclear power plants has evaporated. Any attempt
>to revive the nuclear option would run afoul of strong popular opposition,
Sounds like more blackmail to me. "We can use our propaganda to make
it almost impossible to get nuclear generators built, so don't even
try."
>Unlike energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, nuclear power
>poses serious threats to the environment as well as human and animal health.
>For example, by 1985, nuclear power plants had generated a total of 12,400
>metric tons of highly radioactive wastes -- one of the most toxic substances
>known -- in the form of irradiated fuel.
When one sees the words "For example", one expects the following
sentence to have some bearing on the previous sentence. I see no
relationship between the two sentences above. The mere existence of
toxic substances is by no means sufficient to claim a "serious
threat". Also, the claim that radioactive wastes are "one of the most
toxic substances known" is an exaggeration.
>Increasing nuclear power use in attempt to reduce carbon dioxide
>emissions would produce a corresponding increase in radioactive waste.
Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a _much_ smaller amount, and it
would be in a solid pile instead of floating around in the air for us
to breathe. (Not to mention adding to the hypothetical global warming
problem).
>If 400 nuclear power plants were built, approximately five nuclear waste
>dumps the size of the one already intended for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
>would have to be built -- an extremely difficult technical problem and a
>near political impossibility.
It's only a technical and political problem if groups like this make
it one. More blackmail...
>Accidents also pose a significant environmental and health threat. The
>Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has documented more than 30,000
>mishaps and unplanned "events" at nuclear power plants in the U.S. since
>the 1979 Three Mile Island accident[14].
Get serious. How many of these mishaps were sprained ankles from
falling off of stairs? The phrase "unplanned event" is vacuous.
Is it an unplanned event when 200 people are killed in an explosion
involving fossile fuels? Is that a more acceptable unplanned event
than having to replace a malfunctioning circuit in a nuclear plant?
> Furthermore, the NRC has
>concluded that the chances of a severe core meltdown occurring at one of
>the 112 licensed U.S. nuclear plants by the year 2005 is an high as 45
>percent[15].
I estimate that the chance of a major oil spill, a major coal mine
accident, or a major natural-gas fire by the year 2005 is 99.99% for
each.
> West German and Swedish scientists have predicted a 70
>percent chance of a Chernobly-scale accident occuring at one of the
>world's nuclear plants every five to six years[16].
So a lot of the old nuclear plants were poorly built. That has no
bearing on whether or not we should build new and improved nuclear
plants.
--
David Gudeman
Department of Computer Science
The University of Arizona gud...@cs.arizona.edu
Tucson, AZ 85721 noao!arizona!gudeman
Timothy S Storey
>>While the nuclear industry claims it can build plants in five to six
>>years, it currently takes about eight to 12 years to bring a plant on line.
>
>Again, this is directly attributable to the obstructionists.
>
that hasn't been proven to meet safety standards?
Or in your paranoia, would you call the safety standards part of this
blackmail that you keep talking about?
Nuclear power plants pose a much bigger threat than any other power generation.
You can't outrun radiation, and you don't know whether you have been
contaminated (unless it is in large enough rads) without testing.
>Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a _much_ smaller amount, and it
>would be in a solid pile instead of floating around in the air for us
>to breathe. (Not to mention adding to the hypothetical global warming
>problem).
>
>>If 400 nuclear power plants were built, approximately five nuclear waste
>>dumps the size of the one already intended for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
>>would have to be built -- an extremely difficult technical problem and a
>>near political impossibility.
>
>It's only a technical and political problem if groups like this make
>it one. More blackmail...
Oh no! not more Blackmail!
its blackmail to discuss the waste disposal problems of nuclear power?
burying the waste in a desert does not eliminate the problem. And there is
tons more of the low level nuclear waste generated that has to be disposed of
than the high lever type talked about. Lets look at some of the proposed
methods of "disposing" of the waste:
1. burring it in a big hole (preferably in some remote desert location and
preferably a depressed area, it seems.)
2. making a large building and leaving it there until it becomes inert
(non-radioactive) This is for low-level waste and would have to be stored
for some odd 25 years at least.
You seriously can't say that increasing the number of nuclear generators
will increase the amount of waste by a proportional amount?
The first method of disposal is permanent. The waste would stay in its burial
site for(relatively)ever. These sites have thier limits of amounts that
can be stored. How many disposal sites should there be? Would you want to
make every isolated area a disposal site? How can you tell that an area
that is remote now will be remote in 50 years?
This is one of the more serious problems with nuclear power. The waste cannot
be treated to make it inert, it has to be allowed to "cool down" on its own.
This takes lots of time. And the more nuclear power that is used, the more
waste that is generated, and the more waste there will be (since the old waste
is still around being waste).
There is no reasonable solution to the problem that I have heard. You can say
that the containment of the waste is safe, and will never leak, but it still
doesn't eliminate the fact that the waste is still there.
> David Gudeman
>Department of Computer Science
>The University of Arizona gud...@cs.arizona.edu
>Tucson, AZ 85721 noao!arizona!gudeman
--
Timothy Scott Storey-----------------------------------------Wizard Tim
tst...@wpi.wpi.edu
"Don't think of me as harsh, think of me as population control."
Mike Smith
>use environmental arguments to try to kill an environmentaly sound
>technology.
>It is a sad truth that a large segment of the
>environmentalist support comes from people whose opinions have nothing
>more behind them than a warm fuzzy feeling about "natural" things and
>an irrational fear of the "unatural". The article I respond to below
>is worse, it is a deliberate propaganda piece, not mere ignorance.
Lets see ... a deposit of Uranium ore was found in ?Africa? that
showed evidence of having undergone spontainious chain reaction.
This was an act of nature. This was a nuclear reaction, therefore
a nuclear reactor. QED nuclear reactors are a 'natural' thing!
I like it ... but somehow I don't think it will make the Sierra club
happy. :-)
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
John G. De Armond
>[The following excerption w/o permission. The Safe Energy Communication
>Council (and other MYTHBuster Series publications) can be contacted at:
>SECC, 1717 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite LL215, WA., DC 20036]
>INDUSTRY STATEMENT: "Nuclear energy... must be revitalized in order to
> alleviate the greenhouse effect." Edward M. Davis, President,
> American Nuclear Energy Council[1]
It's funny, but I take issue with my industry for this position. Though
in fact true, I very much hate to see us taking advantage of the
propaganda bonanza offered by the greenhouse hoax. On a fair and level
playing field, nukes can stand on their own merits without resorting
the techniques used by the greenies.
[ a whole lot of statistical voodoo deleted. ]
I hope someone else will rip this tripe apart. My keyboard is already
smoking and it's late. But the opporutnity is just too good to pass
by. Hey Petr, where are you? :-)
>[Source: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Solar Energy
> Industries Association, Geothermal Resources Council, National Hydropower
> Association, American Wind Enegy Association, Luz International Limited,
> National Wood Energy Association, Public Citizen]
Did anyone besides me notice what all these chaps have in common?
This makes my case regarding the profitability of the anti-nuclear
movement better than I ever could. It looks like a sty of hogs
shinnying up to the public feeding trough for a good wallow. Might be
interesting to see how many of your dollars and mine go into these groups,
either through direct subsidy or through tax exemptions and the like.
I shoulda become an anti-nuke when the opportunity presented itself.
I'd hate myself but I'd not have to work anymore for a living :-)
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress
Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply
Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers.
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
Paul Dietz
>The experience of the recent past can be used as an indicator of nuclear
>power costs in the future. In 1987 and 1988, 13 nuclear power plants were
>completed in the United States at an average cost of $4,049 per kilowatt, or
>more than $4 billion for a 1,000 megawatt (MW) plant in 1987 dollars[2].
Marc, I'd be very careful with such analysis, if I were you -- it can
be turned against you. So-called renewable energy sources are also
quite capital-intensive.
Consider the Luz solar plants. They are in the process of spending
$1.4B to put in 400 MW of capacity. That's *peak* capacity;
experience at their current plants show that the average annual output
is about 33-36% of the peak (a figure maintained by gettng 25-30% of
the energy from natural gas). So, the Luz plants have a capital
cost/average output of over $9000 per kilowatt.
In future PV systems, the module cost target is ~$1/W; BOS costs might
double this. At 25% capacity, this gives a capital cost of $8000/average
kilowatt output.
These estimates don't include the capital cost of energy storage
systems that would be needed if such unreliable and intermittent
sources were to be widely used for base load power. Introduction of
power storage would, however, also help nuclear power, by letting the
off-peak output of the plant be stored for use during peak times.
>Theoretically, if nuclear power were to entirely replace fossil fuels as the
>source of the nation's electricity at current costs, an initial investment of
>$1.6 trillion would be required to finance the construction of 400 new
>1,000MW reactors at $4,000 per kilowatt[4]. In comparison, the total
>gross private domestic investment in all sectors of the U.S. economy was
>only $712.9 billion in 1987[5]. Therefore, the diseconomics of nuclear
>power eliminate it as a realistic consideration for a meaningful role in
>solving the greenhouse effect.
If this argument is valid, it also debunks immediate transition to
renewable energy sources as a way of "solving the greenhouse effect
[sic]."
> [ lead time of nuclear plants is 8-12 years ]
This is demonstrably not an inherent feature of nuclear power. There
are nuclear programs (France, for instance) where the lead time is
smaller. Use of smaller, preapproved designs would speed things up
still more. Having many utilities in the US each build a small number
of large nuclear plants was a pretty poor way of exploiting the
learning curve.
> Therefore, the building of the
>plants would have to be staggered over time as fossil-fueled plants were
>phased out or came to the end of their lifespans. This reality virtually
>eliminates any potential immediate impact on the global warming trend by
>nuclear power.
Hardly. Global warming, if real, is not a phenomenon that will depend
only on the CO2 emitted during the next decade or so. Warming
projections assume CO2 output continues to increase well into the next
century.
> Public support for new nuclear power plants has evaporated. Any attempt
> to revive the nuclear option would run afoul of strong popular opposition,
> according to virtually every independent national energy survey taken
> during the 1980s.
Public support could come back, although I think the likeliest course
in the US for the next couple of decades is a greenhouse-be-damned
continuation of the use of fossil fuels, in particular combustion
turbines for electrical power generation, as well as continued
increases in energy efficiency.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Timothy S Storey
>certainty that cannot be called "uncertain" by someone who wants it to
>be uncertain. The safety record of the nuclear power industry puts
>almost every other industry in the world to shame.
I wouldn't call it a very good safety record where large populations are
contaminated by one accident. (The three accidents that I can think of
are Cherynobyl, Three Mile Island, and one in the UK where dairyland was
contaminated and the cows were giving irradiated milk.)
I suppose it would greatly depend on what industry you are comparing
it to, but there is a large fear factor involved with radiation. When looking
at how little was known about the effects of radiation, and how little is
still known, the fear is not without reason.
>Yes, a lot of the safety requirements are more obstructionistic than
>functional. As to paranoia, I don't know what to say. Anyone who
>claims that people are _not_ trying to sabotage the nuclear power
>industry is woefully ignorant. The evidence is so overwhelming that I
>would feel silly in defending the position.
It is not sabotage to be concerned about a technology. It is this near-
perfect (read sarcasm into this) safety record of the nuclear industry
that has caused the backlash against it. And you can't claim that the
industry is now new and improved and without serious faults when there
have been reactors being built that have been determined to be unsafe.
(I would certainly call cracks in the concrete before completion to be
unsafe.)
>Well, you can't outrun petroleum explosions, earthquakes, or lions
>either. As to not knowing you have been contaminated, the same may be
>said for any number of industrial toxins, not to mention diseases.
>The point is: radiation is not qualitativly different from the many
>other dangers people face. Any claim to the contrary is simple
>hysteria.
True about these points. I wouldn't put earthquakes and lions in the same
danger category as a technology that is claiming to be a safe power source
though.... but if you like the analogy, go ahead and use it (oh, you did)
I don't think I would support a power source that could release large
amounts of toxins or diseases either... (must be something in my
genetic structure, eh?)
>>burying the waste in a desert does not eliminate the problem.
>
>Yes it does. I'd a much prefer to have nuclear waste buried near
>Tucson than have a huge solar or wind farm set up here.
No it doesn't. The problem does not disappear because you can't see it.
There are only so many stable enough sites to dispose of the waste, and
at the rate that the nuclear industry would be generating waste if allowed
to, these sites would be filled very quickly (less than 25 years)
I suppose we could do what the French do and dump the stuff into some
ocean trench to irradiate some sightless fish, then no one will ever see
the problem (not even the residents fo the location).
>> How many disposal sites should there be? Would you want to
>>make every isolated area a disposal site?
>
>Heck no. Why go to the extra expense of burying the stuff at an
>isolated site? Bury it next door if the area is geologically stable.
Ha! They can't even build tha plants on geologically stable areas, how do you
expect them to plan the burial site to be next door.
>>And the more nuclear power that is used, the more
>>waste that is generated, and the more waste there will be (since the old waste
>>is still around being waste).
>
>Yes, there are some problems with nuclear waste, but the problems are
>generally much less environmentally severe than the alternatives. All
>this talk about "tons of nuclear waste" is directed toward obscuring
>the fact that the waste is orders of magnitude less than the waste
>from current sources of energy. Which is more likely to cause cancer
>or destroy an ecosystem (1) extremely dangerous material that is
>stored in an extremely safe manner or (2) moderately dangerous
>material that is floating around in the air?
or 3) using energy sources that do not generate waste.
At least many of the energy sources used today have ways of eliminating most
of the waste they produce. All that needs to be done is either to force
regulations on the industries (which meets with much resistance) or make it
economically unsound for the industry to produce waste. There is nothing that
can be done about nuclear waste. You can't filter it, and making the process
more efficient will not reduce the waste generated. All that can really be
done is for the stuff to be put somewhere for storage, and the storage space
will eventually run out.
Hofer
>These estimates don't include the capital cost of energy storage
>systems that would be needed if such unreliable and intermittent
>sources were to be widely used for base load power. Introduction of
>power storage would, however, also help nuclear power, by letting the
>off-peak output of the plant be stored for use during peak times.
Reading the above, it seems to me that Nuclear and Solar make excellent
COMPLIMENTARY technologies. Using solar to provide peak power and nuke to
supply the base load is a win-win situation in my eyes.
Why do the vocal pro(op)ponents of these methods of power generation constantly
ignore this fact?
-Doug
Douglas Hofer m...@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Purdue University Doug@(317)494-1524
Thermal Sciences and Propulsion Center
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Paul Hager
I won't attempt a point by point rebuttle of Marc Ries "myth
busting" post given that I'm at work now and I assume there
are others on the net better equipped than I to present counter
evidence. However, a couple of items caught my attention.
The generalized attack on nuclear costs and construction times
is a phenomenon of the successful delaying tactics used by anti-
nuclear intervenors. A more realistic measure would be provided
by using France for this data which makes nuclear look pretty good.
The questionable safety of the HTGR and LMFBR were based upon
statements like (I paraphrase) "serious consequences from graphite
fire" (HTGR) or the "core would literally tear itself apart". In
the case of the HTGR, all of the material I've read indicates that
it might have a safety advantage over an LWR because of the greater
thermal capacity of the graphite coupled with inherent strength of
the PCRV (pre-stressed concrete reactor vessel). Graphite fires
(from water ingress) were taken into account and the estimates
I saw (in refereed technical papers in "Nuclear Technology" among
other sources) about consequences put them consistently below LWR
estimates. A caveat here is that at the time I quit following
this stuff (1982), the big technical story in the are of LWR
safety was that Rasmussen, et al, had overestimated LWR accident
consequences. A lowered estimate was based on better modeling of
steam explosion effects and chemical and physical reactions in
the post accident containment that would cause the worst of the
radioactive nasties (iodine and cesium) to plate out on surfaces
inside the containment. I guess the point of all of this is that
a legitimate technical assessment might find HTGRs to be no safer
than LWRs but LWRs are actually quite safe compared with the
main alternative (coal).
The LMFBR that literally blows its core apart elicits the response
from me, so what. The Proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement
on Pu Fueled Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (that's close to the
correct title anyway) WASH-1535 (think that's the designation but
this is from memory) goes into a lot of detail about reactor designs
and accident scenarios. (I've posted on this material before.)
The accident to which Marc refers would involve a release of energy
roughly equivalent to 100 lbs of TNT, a big bang, to be sure but
accommodated by designs. There are plenty of technical papers
out there on the design of the Super Phenix that describe how
negative feedback is used to ameliorate accidents or prevent
incidents from becoming accidents.
A final note. In mentioning advanced reactors, why not mention
the Molten Salt Reactor? It can't melt down, has on line
reprocessing, the fuel is chemically inert, it operates on the
Th/U fuel cycle and has been demonstrated (in the 50's and 60's).
It's a reactor design that does everything but put out the cat.
Check it out -- you might change your mind about nuclear.
--
paul hager hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
*** Combat global warming -- build nuclear power plants ***
David Gudeman
>What is wrong with people obstructing the startup of a nuclear power plant
>that hasn't been proven to meet safety standards?
Just what constitutes such proof? Obviously there is no level of
certainty that cannot be called "uncertain" by someone who wants it to
be uncertain. The safety record of the nuclear power industry puts
almost every other industry in the world to shame.
>Or in your paranoia, would you call the safety standards part of this
>blackmail that you keep talking about?
Yes, a lot of the safety requirements are more obstructionistic than
functional. As to paranoia, I don't know what to say. Anyone who
claims that people are _not_ trying to sabotage the nuclear power
industry is woefully ignorant. The evidence is so overwhelming that I
would feel silly in defending the position.
>You can't outrun radiation, and you don't know whether you have been
>contaminated (unless it is in large enough rads) without testing.
Well, you can't outrun petroleum explosions, earthquakes, or lions
either. As to not knowing you have been contaminated, the same may be
said for any number of industrial toxins, not to mention diseases.
The point is: radiation is not qualitativly different from the many
other dangers people face. Any claim to the contrary is simple
hysteria.
>its blackmail to discuss the waste disposal problems of nuclear power?
No, it's blackmail to use political pressure and legal trickery to
exacerbate a minor, solvable problem into a major, unsolvable problem.
>burying the waste in a desert does not eliminate the problem.
Yes it does. I'd a much prefer to have nuclear waste buried near
Tucson than have a huge solar or wind farm set up here.
>You seriously can't say that increasing the number of nuclear generators
>will increase the amount of waste by a proportional amount?
Well I didn't say that, but it seems like a reasonable thing to say.
> How many disposal sites should there be? Would you want to
>make every isolated area a disposal site?
Heck no. Why go to the extra expense of burying the stuff at an
isolated site? Bury it next door if the area is geologically stable.
>And the more nuclear power that is used, the more
>waste that is generated, and the more waste there will be (since the old waste
>is still around being waste).
Yes, there are some problems with nuclear waste, but the problems are
generally much less environmentally severe than the alternatives. All
this talk about "tons of nuclear waste" is directed toward obscuring
the fact that the waste is orders of magnitude less than the waste
from current sources of energy. Which is more likely to cause cancer
or destroy an ecosystem (1) extremely dangerous material that is
stored in an extremely safe manner or (2) moderately dangerous
material that is floating around in the air?
--
Marc Ries
[...]
->A final note. In mentioning advanced reactors, why not mention
->the Molten Salt Reactor? It can't melt down, has on line
->reprocessing, the fuel is chemically inert, it operates on the
->Th/U fuel cycle and has been demonstrated (in the 50's and 60's).
->It's a reactor design that does everything but put out the cat.
->Check it out -- you might change your mind about nuclear.
What's the difference between "THE LIQUID METAL REACTOR (LMR)" cooled by
"liquid sodium" vs. "the Molten Salt Reactor"?
Mike Smith
>A final note. In mentioning advanced reactors, why not mention
>the Molten Salt Reactor? It can't melt down, has on line
>reprocessing, the fuel is chemically inert, it operates on the
>Th/U fuel cycle and has been demonstrated (in the 50's and 60's).
>It's a reactor design that does everything but put out the cat.
>Check it out -- you might change your mind about nuclear.
I've heard of Molten Salt Reactors before, but haven't seen any details
on how they are designed. The idea of using Th as fuel is attractive
to me (because there is alot of it...). Could you be pursuaded to post
a summary description of them and a features/benefits list? They
sound like a neat design.
Paul Dietz
>I've heard of Molten Salt Reactors before, but haven't seen any details
>on how they are designed. The idea of using Th as fuel is attractive
>to me (because there is alot of it...). Could you be pursuaded to post
>a summary description of them and a features/benefits list? They
>sound like a neat design.
Basic idea: uranium fluoride salts are dissolved in molten Li(7)F/BeF2
salt. The salt mixture is circulated through a graphite moderator,
where the chain reaction occurs, then out through a heat exchanger
where a loop of "sterile" salt is heated. The sterile salt is
circulated through the steam generator.
Advantages:
(1) A conventional LOCA is impossible, since the fuel is mixed with
the coolant.
(2) The coolant is stable and nonflammable.
(3) Some fission products (noble gases, for example) are easily
removed on-line. If complete on-line fission product removal is
possible, the possibility of a large radioactive release in an
accident is eliminated, even theoretically.
(4) The neutron economy is very good. Fission products like xenon are
ferociously good neutron absorbers. Stripping them out quickly leaves
more neutrons available for breeding. Thorium fluoride can be added
to the salt to give a "thermal breeder". Since thorium is some 4
times as plentiful as U-238, there should be no concerns about soon
running out of nuclear fuel, even if fast breeders are never built.
The Th/U cycle makes little plutonium.
(5) Uranium can be easily purified from the salt by the "fluoride
volatility process". It is recovered as uranium hexafluoride gas,
then reduced back to the tetrafluoride.
Disadvantages:
(1) The entire primary loop is radioactively hot. Hands-on maintenance
of the core is impossible once the reactor has been used.
(2) There were some corrosion problems, reportedly solved by controlling
the oxidation state of the salt.
(3) There is some tritium production from fast neutron reactions on
the lithium-7.
(4) The MSR is not as well developed as other reactor concepts.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Doug Crawford
> What's the difference between "THE LIQUID METAL REACTOR (LMR)" cooled by
> "liquid sodium" vs. "the Molten Salt Reactor"?
The liguid metal reactor has a structural core, i.e. with solid fuel,
stainless steel clad fuel rods, fuel assemblies. The molten salt reactor
(as I remember it) contains fuel that is dissolved in a molten salt which
is circulated through the *primary* loop. The core (or reaction chamber?)
contains enough of a volume of the molten solution to allow a chain
reaction. The solution is pumped through this core to a heat exchanger
(and presumably through other auxilliary systems) and back to the core.
Someone who told me about this reactor once said that mechanical engineers
prefer a reactor design with a solid core and nice cylindrical fuel
elements, because the modeling is a little simpler. Maybe chemical engineers wouldn't care?
Doug Crawford, Nuclear Engineering, Cooley Building,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
craw...@ruddles.sprl.umich.edu
John Moore
] GLOBAL WARMING
]
]INDUSTRY STATEMENT: "Nuclear energy... must be revitalized in order to
] alleviate the greenhouse effect." Edward M. Davis, President,
] American Nuclear Energy Council[1]
]
]SECC RESPONSE:
] Nuclear power is too expensive, has too many unresolved safety
] problems and cannot be brought on line fast enough to even
] marginally combat the greenhouse effect.
]
]The nuclear power industry is trying to convince Americans that more
]nuclear-generated electricity can solve the greenhouse problem. However,
]nuclear power faces serious obstacles, including prohibitive costs, long
]construction lead times, dwindling public support and inherent
]environmental problems.
Don't you just love it! The anti-nukes greatly increase the costs
and lead-times for nuclear power, and then complain that it takes
too long and is too expensive.
They mislead the public (with the help of uneducated, biased mass
media and those great scientists in Hollywood) and then complain
about lack of public support.
They talk about inherent environmental problems of nuclear power, ignoring
the fact that it is benign compared to any other reliable and inexpensive
power source.
Then they say it won't combat the greenhouse effect because it can't
come on line fast enough! Which greenhouse effect? I haven't heard
anyone - even the most far out modellers - claim that the greenhouse
effect is going to happen in the time frames needed to build nukes!
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john jo...@anasaz.UUCP
Voice: (602) 951-9326 (day or eve) FAX:602-861-7642 Advice: Long palladium,
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 ......: Short petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Paul Hager
Paul Dietz's postings are always informative and well researched.
I have one quibble with this one, however. He states a problem
with tritium production -- and implicitly, that it escapes from
the system. This was an early concern in the MSR program which
was conducted at Oak Ridge. In the "Semi-annual Progress Report
for Period Ending Feb 29, 1976" [L. E. McNeese, Aug, 1976 --
ORNL-5132] it was reported that a chemical mechanism for trapping
the tritium was demonstrated in both the laboratory and a large
engineering facility (Coolant-Salt Technology Facility). For
more details, consult the source.
The point is that, at the conclusion of the tests, it was determined
that a 1000 MWe MSBR (a breeder version of the MSR) would fall within
the tritium release range of a 1000 MWe LWR.
Paul Hager
Just a quick follow to my follow.
Sources that may be of interest to those desiring more technical
info:
"HTGR Risk Assessment Study: Highlights of Update"; V. Joksimovic,
F.J. Blok; March, 1979 GA-A-15110.
An intensive look at a reference HTGR design subjected to
probabilistic risk assessment.
And two from NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, V46 #2, Dec, 1979.
1) "Fission Produced Retention of Pebble-Bed Reactors in Ultimate
Accidents", pp. 306-311.
This deals with the German Pebble-Bed HTGR design.
2) "Failure Mechanisms and Fission Product Release in HTGR Fuel
Under Conditions of Unrestricted Core Heatup Events", pp. 228-233.
This should be enough to get started.
Paul Hager
sources for info on the MSR and the MSBR (breeder) are the
Semi-annual progress reports from Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL). In another post I cite ORNL-5132 (Aug, 1976) which
addresses solutions to corrosion problems of the primary loop
and diffusion of tritium. Other good sources are ORNL-5078 and
ORNL-5047. The latter details accident scenarios and consequences.
If I recall, at least one of the reports contains a brief history
of the program at ORNL which lasted from the mid-50's to the mid-70's.
The MSBR (my preferred system) is a thermal breeder that operates on
the Th232/U233 fuel cycle. It is graphite moderated. The fuel is
a mixture of LiF - BeF2 - ThF4 - UF4 which is a salt that is chemically
inert in the presence of air or water. At operating temperatures (450 C
to 700 C) the salt is molten. The primary loop (fuel loop) of the
reactor operates at fairly low pressure. One of the important
features of this reactor is that it could reprocess its own fuel
on line by an integrated chemical plant (sometimes called a kidney).
The feasibility of reprocessing was demonstrated before the program
was defunded.
Two MRS's were actually built and operated. The first was a 2.5 MWth
reactor built in 1954 as a proposed power plant for an aircraft (no
joke!). The second reactor was an 8 MWth system designated the MSRE
(Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) and was a test bed for the ORNL
program to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing a full scale
commercial MSR.
I would like to see the MSR program resurrected. With current
technology and robotic systems for maintenance, I think the MSR
could provide an ultra-safe system that would address a number
of the concerns of people who are presently wary of nuclear power.
Steve Emmerson
>In article <21...@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gud...@cs.arizona.edu (David
Gudeman) writes:
>>... The safety record of the nuclear power industry puts
>>almost every other industry in the world to shame.
>I wouldn't call it a very good safety record where large populations are
>contaminated by one accident. (The three accidents that I can think of
>are Cherynobyl, Three Mile Island, and one in the UK where dairyland was
>contaminated and the cows were giving irradiated milk.)
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Three Mile Island
event directly injured anyone via radioactive contamination.
There are no nuclear *power* reactors of the Chernobyl type in the U.S.
(Gudeman refered explicitly to that industry).
>It is not sabotage to be concerned about a technology. It is this near-
>perfect (read sarcasm into this) safety record of the nuclear industry
>that has caused the backlash against it. ...
Gudeman's position -- as I understand it -- is that no one has been
injured due to radiation from an accident involving a commercial, nuclear
power reactor.
If you know otherwise, would you please post references.
>I don't think I would support a power source that could release large
>amounts of toxins or diseases either...
Lets not kid ourselves, if one uses electricity or an automobile, then
one already does.
>I suppose we could do what the French do and dump the stuff into some
>ocean trench to irradiate some sightless fish, then no one will ever see
>the problem (not even the residents fo the location).
I thought the French were burying their waste (both high and low-level).
Whould you please post a reference to this.
Steve Emmerson st...@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Mike Smith
>There is nothing that
>can be done about nuclear waste. You can't filter it, and making the process
>more efficient will not reduce the waste generated. All that can really be
>done is for the stuff to be put somewhere for storage, and the storage space
>will eventually run out.
I've often wondered why you can't reduce the waste being generated and
'burn it up' in a reactor? You can filter and concentrate the
radioactive isotopes (nuclear fuel is made that way) and you can put
them in a reactor core where they should be turned into other things.
Is it just that the cost is so very very high to do it? Or do most of
the waste isotopes either poison the reactor or just get turned into
even worse stuff?
Must be the techno-nerd in me, but I can't help thinking that there
should be a way to neutralize the junk ...
Mike Van Pelt
>>>burying the waste in a desert does not eliminate the problem.
>>
>
>No it doesn't.
*sigh* Time for some facts.
>The problem does not disappear because you can't see it.
Nobody's claiming that it does.
>There are only so many stable enough sites to dispose of the waste, and
>at the rate that the nuclear industry would be generating waste if allowed
>to, these sites would be filled very quickly (less than 25 years)
>I suppose we could do what the French do and dump the stuff into some
>ocean trench to irradiate some sightless fish, then no one will ever see
>the problem (not even the residents fo the location).
Let's dispose of this bizarre fantasy right off with a description
of what the French *really* do.
First, they reprocess the wastes, removing the plutonium to burn in
power plants. (Plutonium is not waste; it is valuable fuel, and it is
stupidly wasteful to throw it away. And no, you can't make a bomb with
power reactor plutonium; it contains too much Pu240 and Pu242.)
The main wastes remaining are of two types: Fission products;
light-weight, short-lived, and often very highly radioactive, and
transuranics, often weakly radioactive long-lived isotopes.
These are purified and mixed with ceramic, and then fired, resulting in
solid lumps of radioactive ceramic. These solid lumps are sealed in
lead, steel, and concrete casks, which are then buried deep underground
in geologically stable areas.
These are not containers that it makes any difference if they break --
these are solid lumps of ceramic. If one breaks, then it's just two
solid lumps of ceramic. If an earthquake shatters one, then it's a
pile of splinters of solid ceramic. It is still insoluble in water.
For this material to be a hazard to any kind of life, it has to be
somehow transported from its burial site to the surface. This has to
happen soon (in 600 years there's less radioactivity there than is in
natural uranium ore) and it has to happen in such a way as to not
dilute the radioisotopes (i.e., by scattering them all over the world,
as by a major asteroid strike hitting the waste depository.) The sudden
appearance of ground water water in an area (which was selected for the
lack of ground water for the past million or two years) would not be
sufficient. The waste is, remember, cast in solid chunks of insoluble
ceramic.
I have never heard any kind of remotely reasonable scenario for ever
bringing wastes disposed of in this manner into the biosphere in a
dangerous fashion. Worst case is possibly the asteroid strike, and I
submit that an asteriod strike of that magnitude would leave questions
of a little bit of reactor waste moot.
There has been some talk about dropping the casks into, not just ocean
trenches, but subduction zones, where they would be carried deep into
the mantle of the Earth. The proposal was to put the casks into a
streamlined "armor-piercing" carrier that would hit the ocean floor
fast enough to bury the casks very deeply. But nobody has done this.
>There is nothing that can be done about nuclear waste.
This is simply not true. You haven't done your homework. (But then,
why should you be any different from all the other antinukes?)
--
Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe,
Headland Technology/Video 7 No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished,
Zero risk at last.
John G. De Armond
>I wouldn't call it a very good safety record where large populations are
>contaminated by one accident. (The three accidents that I can think of
>are Cherynobyl, Three Mile Island, and one in the UK where dairyland was
>contaminated and the cows were giving irradiated milk.)
What 'ya say we concentrate on the US program since we have traditionally
been the leader in the industry and because a US accident is what we're
concerned about. Chernobyl has been adequately addressed in this forum.
As has the British incident. And since there was NO detectable radioactivity
at the site boundary of TMI at any point during the accident, by definition,
no one was contaminated. So the record for the civilian nuclear
program in regards to civilian contamination is totally unblemished.
BTW, the term is "contaminated milk", not irradiated. If the milk had
been irradiated, there would have been no detectable effects.
Contamination, on the other hand, is a problem. Proper useage of scientific
terms is important.
>I suppose it would greatly depend on what industry you are comparing
>it to, but there is a large fear factor involved with radiation. When looking
>at how little was known about the effects of radiation, and how little is
>still known, the fear is not without reason.
Actually radiation is the best characterized and most well known of any
human toxin. Its effects on the human body have been characterized over
a wider dynamic range than any other toxin. And even when a scientist
states that the effects of extremely low levels of radiation are
statistically undetectable, he has already bounded the problem to a
microscopic scale.
>It is not sabotage to be concerned about a technology. It is this near-
>perfect (read sarcasm into this) safety record of the nuclear industry
>that has caused the backlash against it.
Actually the backlash has been caused by the stupidity exampled by the
woman at TMI who claimed that she could taste the I-131 that we were
releasing during the containment purge - even though the isotopic mix
was almost pure Kr-85 and even though the I-131 that WAS there had
long since decayed. The backlash is furter caused by the stupidity
demonstrated by the media in giving this woman front page billing.
Or how about the stupidity of Gov. Thornburg taking it on himself to
counter his scientific advisors and call for an evacuation around
TMI when in fact, no hazard existed? Or how about the stupidity
demonstrated by the Middletown borough in refusing to allow TMI to
dispose of its sanitary sewage by connecting to the sewar system
on the grounds that it might be contaminated? (And of course,
disregarding the utility's offer to install continuous monitoring
on borough property and maintain it for the borough.)
No, the major thing the utilities did wrong was not having the
foresight of God and the power of Big Brother to control mass thought.
>And you can't claim that the
>industry is now new and improved and without serious faults when there
>have been reactors being built that have been determined to be unsafe.
>(I would certainly call cracks in the concrete before completion to be
>unsafe.)
Why don't you name a few? We'll more than likely be able to pull up
the facts that demonstrate that the plant in question was not at all
unsafe.
>I don't think I would support a power source that could release large
>amounts of toxins or diseases either... (must be something in my
>genetic structure, eh?)
Why you do every day. Any combustion process releases some toxins even
it it is only carbon monoxide. Should we shut down all generating
plants and read News by candle light?
>No it doesn't. The problem does not disappear because you can't see it.
>There are only so many stable enough sites to dispose of the waste, and
>at the rate that the nuclear industry would be generating waste if allowed
>to, these sites would be filled very quickly (less than 25 years)
>I suppose we could do what the French do and dump the stuff into some
>ocean trench to irradiate some sightless fish, then no one will ever see
>the problem (not even the residents fo the location).
As someone else has calculated, at the rate of about a quarter cup of
waste per reactor year, I do believe we could store it ALL in one
place indefinately. And since time is always on the side of the
health-physicist, it gradually becomes a non-problem.
(I got tired of responding to the rest of his tripe. Someone else take
a shot. )
John G. De Armond
>I've often wondered why you can't reduce the waste being generated and
>'burn it up' in a reactor? You can filter and concentrate the
>radioactive isotopes (nuclear fuel is made that way) and you can put
>them in a reactor core where they should be turned into other things.
This process has already been demonstrated on a couple of occasions.
The transuranics are the problematic isotopes because they are long
lived. The shorter lived isotopes can be segregated and simply allowed
to decay. The TRUs can easily be "burned" in a reactor designed for
the purpose. I'm aware specifically of some work done in the Fast
Flux Test Reactor. I recall reading of others but I can't rememeber
specifics. Yes, some of these wastes do have high absorption
cross sections but a reactor specifically designed to be a "burner"
can easily handle the load - and can generate some power to boot.
>Is it just that the cost is so very very high to do it? Or do most of
>the waste isotopes either poison the reactor or just get turned into
>even worse stuff?
The cost is moderately high but the industry could pool resources and
build a plant and share the expense. Some further research should be
done but by and large, only applied engineering necessary to scale
the process is outstanding on the technical front. The main
obsticle is, of course, political.
>Must be the techno-nerd in me, but I can't help thinking that there
>should be a way to neutralize the junk ...
There are a lot of us rooting for just this solution. Again, the
problem is political.
Marc Ries
->In article <12...@wpi.wpi.edu> tst...@wpi.wpi.edu (Timothy S Storey) writes:
->>There is nothing that
->>can be done about nuclear waste. You can't filter it, and making the process
->>more efficient will not reduce the waste generated. All that can really be
->>done is for the stuff to be put somewhere for storage, and the storage space
->>will eventually run out.
->I've often wondered why you can't reduce the waste being generated and
->'burn it up' in a reactor?
[...]
Both Sandia National Labs and SERI are working on toxics reduction and
purification. Solar Detoxification of Water (SDW) and Solar Destruction
of Chemical Wastes (SDCW) are touched upon in an article(s) in
The Solar Industries Journal [1st Quarter 90], SEIA (1730 N. Lynn St.,
#510, Arlington, VT).
Another source I couldn't track down mentioned something about turning
wastes, possibly including low level radioactive types, into more easily
handled glass/ceramic "beads" (via solar-assisted furnaces).
Mike Smith
>First, they reprocess the wastes, removing the plutonium to burn in
>power plants. (Plutonium is not waste; it is valuable fuel, and it is
>stupidly wasteful to throw it away. And no, you can't make a bomb with
>power reactor plutonium; it contains too much Pu240 and Pu242.)
The ability of make a bomb from it seems to be a point of debate ...
While it might be very very difficult; Dr. Taylor, at least, thinks
it can be done ... This might have changed since the 1970's when
his statement was made (someone asserted that we are using fuel rods
far longer now, which could put the Pu240 and Pu242 levels far enough
beyond those of the 1970's so as to change the answer; but this is
speculation on my part.) Making a bomb from reactor Pu, though, is
probably not a very important issue (pro or con) since other tools
are available to the terrorist types.
>The main wastes remaining are of two types: Fission products;
>light-weight, short-lived, and often very highly radioactive, and
>transuranics, often weakly radioactive long-lived isotopes.
>These are purified and mixed with ceramic, and then fired, resulting in
>solid lumps of radioactive ceramic. These solid lumps are sealed in
>lead, steel, and concrete casks, which are then buried deep underground
>in geologically stable areas.
[long discussion of reasonable waste storage scheme deleted]
A question that still hasn't been discussed much in this news group:
Why can't these purified and concentrated radioactive materials be
put back into the reactor? Is it a no-win strategy (making different,
but no less radioactive junk)? Is it a losing strategy (making more
and worse radioactive junk and consuming energy)? Does it result in
a little more energy out and a little less radioactive junk, but not
enough to be worth the cost of doing it?
Seems like there should be some room here for creative waste strategies.
william.e.duncan
[ article on how nuclear waste is reprocessed and solidified in France ]
>>There is nothing that can be done about nuclear waste.
>
>This is simply not true. You haven't done your homework. (But then,
>why should you be any different from all the other antinukes?)
Creating ceramic mixed with the waste, encasing it, and burying it
sounds like a very sound idea which is being proven by being used.
So why aren't we doing it in this country? I am not against nuclear
energy - what I'm against is practices which say the best means of
dealing with this stuff is to let it stay on-site ( in containers
which have degraded to the point they can't be move safely anymore)
until the DOE will classify a hole the stuff can be chucked into.
No more reactors until they're done safely and responsibly!
Bill Duncan
Marc Ries
>wastes, possibly including low level radioactive types, into more easily
>handled glass/ceramic "beads" (via solar-assisted furnaces).
I found it:
"NUCLEAR FUSION- One way to deal with plutonium waste may be to fuse it
with sand at a temperature of 2,000F (1,083C). This immobilises
the radioactive substance in a black glass-like material. It is being
given a trial at the US Dept of Energy's plutonium reprocessing plant
where 800 million curies (about two thirds of the total waste from the
US nuclear weapons programmes) are held. If the trial succeeds,
cleaning up this waste will cost $1.28 billion and take 15 years.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 24,2."
GREEN MAGAZINE, April 1990
PO Box 381, Millharbou
London E14 9TW ENGLAND
John G. De Armond
>Creating ceramic mixed with the waste, encasing it, and burying it
>sounds like a very sound idea which is being proven by being used.
>So why aren't we doing it in this country? I am not against nuclear
>energy - what I'm against is practices which say the best means of
>dealing with this stuff is to let it stay on-site ( in containers
>which have degraded to the point they can't be move safely anymore)
>until the DOE will classify a hole the stuff can be chucked into.
>No more reactors until they're done safely and responsibly!
There are a whole lot of us in the industry who are on your side.
The DOE has spent billions researching HLW disposal techniques that
implicitly assume that intact, unprocessed spent fuel rods are the
waste. This is stupid. From the some 100 tones of fuel that
represents a typical 1000 MWe core, the actual high level, long
lived waste content represents perhaps a quart of concentrated waste.
The rest is valuable fuel and cladding.
Aside from squandering a valuable resource, the whole concept of on-site
storage is terrible from a safety standpoint. The fuel requires active
cooling and active safeguards. The expense is horrendous. A fine
legacy of the Carter administration.
For these reasons, I am opposed to any of the currently proposed HLW
schemes. Let's process the stuff and dispose of the tiny quantity of
true waste properly.