Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 146135 times)

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 123
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #950 on: March 17, 2019, 03:59:10 PM »
Quote
no public danger*

That's a good lie because the danger is likely so low that is worth risking the lives of everyone around to avoid panic and costly evacuation at a time of great distress.

But that almost zero probability of failure when multiplied by all the nuclear power stations in the world and the increasing climate chaos means that we are now on a countdown for the next nuclear disaster and the nuclear disaster frequency will increase.

Damn.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

longwalks1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #951 on: March 17, 2019, 06:23:00 PM »
Cooper - Brownsville.    The Ft. Calhoun Nebraska  plant is  a separate bad piece of engineering engineering but less prone to flooding. 

For Cooper
Quite the slog to confirm my memory  - Elevated fuel pool  GE  Mark 4  Mark 1 type pool
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/reactorwatch/security/bwrfuelpoolreactorlist08102004.pdf     ###excessive caution from browsers on nirs ssl

Old but good from Alvarez
https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/SpentNuclearFuelPoolsInUS.pdf

Quote
Over  the  past  30  years,  there  have  been  at 
least  66  incidents  at  U.S.  reactors  in  which  there  was 
a significant loss of spent fuel water.

UCS Lochbauhm (spelling?) had a post on fuel pools a bit ago also at AllThingsNuclear
https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-waiting-gain

I do not know if Cooper Nuclear power moved and improved their diesel generators and batteries since the last flood for electrical power and back up for fuel pools.   

We won't agree on all things, but I think we might have a consensus that  an aggressive lowering of the amounts of spent fuel to dry casking. 

This particular reactor is ancient, especially remembering neutron embrittlement, and has floods on an increasing frequency and possibly severity. And an overhead fuel pool.   I think many of us would prioritize this particular plant for an early retirement.   

Sadly, someday the wrong dam upstream somewhere in the world will collapse dramatically and and we will be able to experience the exact nature of a total failure of a fuel pool.  I keep remembering the anecdotes from Los
Alamos of chemists joking about physicists starting uranium fires  with metal shovels.  If ignited, perish the thought.   


Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #952 on: March 17, 2019, 08:16:50 PM »
Even worse than the neutron embrittlement of the core vessels, the gamma irradiation damage to the concrete of the spent fuel pools seriously challenges their integrity. There is a lot more radioactivity at risk from a spent fuel pool failure than from a core failure.

Worse, this is an entirely unaddressed risk that applies to virtually every spent fuel pool in the world. One pool already failed and had to be urgently emptied of fuel in Idaho at the US Navy's Expended Core Facility (ECF). Another will be urgently emptied in the coming years in Washington State at the Hanford Nuclear reservation Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility (WESF) which contains a vast inventory of radioactive cesium and strontium in capsules.

The concrete in the WESF pool has lost at least 85% of its structural integrity based on wetted concrete. The concrete there is protected from water by a stainless steel lining and is dry, as are most pools everywhere. The destruction of concrete by gamma exposure is vastly faster and more severe in dry concrete due to radiolytic destruction of the cement paste forming peroxides and freeing chemically contained waters.

This problem is in some ways similar to the US Department of Energy's problems with spent fuel storage in its reactor pools and facilities. In the 1990s, they conducted a complex wide analysis called the "Spent Fuel Working Group Report". It was a startling and terrifying report of the hazards and conditions in all of DOEs spent fuel pools. It resulted in a $2 billion dollar crash program to move rotting fuel from the K Basins at Hanford into dry cask storage by 2001. The sand, rust, and rotted fuel debris sludge in the Basins formed a layer 5-36 inches deep. It was loaded with chunks of uranium metal in sizes from micron scale to half inch across. The sludge is also loaded with fission products and plutonium. It is the subject of intense efforts in a half billion dollar program to package the sludge for long term storage until they figure out how to process it.

The danger at the K Basins was the single largest hazard in the report. The potential catastrophe averted at the Basins in the words of one DOE manager, Jim Mecca, in 1993 "... would make Chernobyl look like child's play". Other severe hazards at dozens of other sites were also made priorities for resolution. But what did not happen was any actual learning about the hazards posed by other Basins (including ECF and WESF, both under government control), nor real sharing of these lessons to industry.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2019, 08:23:55 PM by Sam »

Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #953 on: March 17, 2019, 08:54:26 PM »
I should also point out how NRC and DOE assess risks.

The risk assessment process is iterative. They assess risks in so far as they know them. They then assign probabilities and consequences from those risks. If the likelihood of a risk is less than set thresholds (e.g. 1 in 10,000), they truncate the analysis and minimize expenditure on the risk.

The worst consequence events almost all end up assigned as being so unlikely as to not warrant expenditure of monies to preclude their possibility or minimization of their consequences.

This is of course backwards from a sensical approach. A sensical approach would start by assessing risks and potential consequences, and result in design changes to preclude the possibility of occurrence of any risk with consequences exceeding some threshold measured in lives potentially lost, extent and severity of contamination, cost ...  E.g. More than 10, 100, 1,000 lives lost, or more than 10, 100, 1,000 hectares contaminated, etc... 

As NRC and DOEs analyses develope, there is a strong tendency and bias toward doing as little as possible, and to shift higher likelihood events into assigned lower likelihood categories that are not then addressed. This is a cost minimization driven imperative. In many cases this does not involve actual Facility design changes, but instead involves "sharpening the pencils" on the analysis and using more "realistic parameters" to get the risks under the assigned limits. All the while many other risks go entirely unanalzyed and assigned no value in the analysis at all. As before, this is a cost minimization effort. Analazying more and new risks raises costs and is therefor avoided.

This whole process stems from work by NASA and the Air Force on missile and other complex projects. The whole philosophy was based on a gung ho, we can solve technical problems paradigm. That same basic approach brought us the Space Shuttle and then the Columbia and Challenger disasters.

As we look to trying to avoid catastrophic climate change and societally see the costs and impacts, we tend to balk and likewise look to this same process and evaluation method to consider huge engineering projects to claim to "mitigate" climate change so that we need not change our evil ways.

Nature of course does not care about such deceptions. She counts everything and responds to the actual reality.

Today at Mauna Loa, CO2 levels are about 410 ppm headed to 415 this summer. A lot of world focus is on those numbers and how we must avoid 450 or 500 ppm, and return to 350 ppm. Global efforts in the IPCC exclude data and lessons from the last decade. That in turn results in plans that are laughably insufficient. Worse, leaders here in the US as well as globally march in the opposite direction valuing profits and growth over everything and utterly thumbing their noses at reality.

But the truth is we are already effectively at 540 ppm CO2 when you include the other warming gases, which largely did not exist in the preindustrial era. We have already used all of our buffer. Even with massive all hands to the wheel efforts, we will entirely melt the Arctic ice. As a result, the global atmospheric and oceanic systems will undergo massive reorganizational changes.

We need to deal with reality. It is what is. Reality controls what happens next, not our human wishes and desires. We are in the equivalent of a high speed train wreck. We overloaded the train and drove it at reckless speeds out onto a flimsily design bridge over a canyon. The bridge has failed and the first cars are already beginning their plunge into the abyss. Our challenge now is what we will choose to do. More than that, our first challenge is to rapidly assess what we can do that will make any difference at all.

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #954 on: March 20, 2019, 09:53:14 AM »
Brazil Gunmen Shoot at Convoy Carrying Nuclear Fuel in Angra dos Reis 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47635706

Gunmen have attacked a convoy of trucks carrying uranium fuel to a nuclear power plant near the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, police say.

The convoy came under attack as it drove past a community controlled by drug traffickers in Angra dos Reis, a tourist city 145km (90 miles) from Rio.

Police escorting the convoy responded and a shootout followed. ...

... Angra dos Reis Mayor Fernando Jordão urged the state's government to improve security in the region. "We have nuclear plants here. It's a sensitive area."



------------------------

Quote
Capt. Marko Ramius: Ryan some things in here don't react well to bullets

- Hunt for Red October - 1990
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 10:01:21 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #955 on: March 22, 2019, 12:27:26 AM »
Connecticut will keep an existing nuclear power plant running while installing renewables to ultimately replace it.

http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-England-commits-to-recognise-nuclear-value

Quote
The 10-year, 9 million MWh per year contract between plant operator Dominion and utilities Eversource and United Illuminating was announced on 15 March by Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and Katie Dykes, commissioner of the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). The two-unit 2088 MWe pressurised water reactor plant generates about 45% of Connecticut's electricity but had been at risk of retirement by 2023.

"The loss of Millstone would have been catastrophic for our state and our region," Lamont said. The shutdown of the plant would have exposed the region to a nearly 25% increase in carbon emissions as well as increased risks of rolling blackouts, "billions of dollars" in power replacement costs and the loss of over 1500 jobs, he said. "With this deal in place, we can start moving forward with new investments in renewable and clean energy needed to transform our grid."

Connecticut passed a law in 2017 allowing nuclear power plants to bid into markets alongside other zero-carbon resources such as wind, solar and hydropower, but the proposed timescale applied to at-risk plants would have delayed the inclusion of Millstone - the state's only nuclear capacity - until 2023. Last December, a finding from Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) - that Millstone was at risk of premature retirement before that date - prompted the state and DEEP to approve the selection of a bid from Dominion under the zero-carbon procurement programme.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #956 on: March 24, 2019, 12:55:48 PM »
France Would Save $44.5 Billion by Betting on Renewable Energy, Agency Says

Quote
France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said.

France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports, according to a report from the country’s environment ministry. If it does this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17 percent last year.

The development of the so-called EPR nuclear reactors “wouldn’t be competitive for the French power system from an economical standpoint,” the Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie --or Ademe-- said in a statement. The report assumes that the reactors would produce electricity at a cost of 70 euros per megawatt-hour, while the cost of wind and solar power would fall much lower.
Link >> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-power-costs-will-rise-if-renewables-are-sidestepped

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #957 on: March 30, 2019, 07:07:25 AM »
US Reveals Secret Deal to Sell Nuclear Tech to Saudi Arabia 
https://dw.com/en/us-reveals-secret-deal-to-sell-nuclear-tech-to-saudi-arabia/a-48107484

The Donald Trump administration has granted permission to unspecified US companies to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and provide technical assistance, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday 

The companies have asked the administration to keep the approvals secret.

The oil-rich kingdom is set to build at least two nuclear power plants, with several countries, including the US, South Korea, and Russia, all vying for the project. However, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has also stated that his country would also seek to develop nuclear weapons if its Iranian rivals obtained it.

The news of the approvals comes only months since Saudi operatives brutally killed and dismembered US-based reporter Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018.

... "If you cannot trust a regime with a bone-saw, you should not trust them with nuclear weapons," one lawmaker responded. Many in Congress fear Riyadh could use American technology to develop a nuclear bomb.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 07:20:35 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 859
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #958 on: April 03, 2019, 09:36:52 PM »
China to Restart Approvals for New Nuclear Plants - Enerdata

Quote
Chinese state-owned nuclear group China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) expects the nuclear project approval process to return to normal soon, since China suspended all conventional reactor approvals over the three past years until it cleared two new nuclear plants in early 2019. China initially planned to reach 58 GW of nuclear capacity by 2020 and to have another 30 GW under construction, but the country is lagging behind its objectives, with only 45 GW operational at the end of 2018 and 12 GW under construction.

CNNC expects new nuclear projects to help China meet its 2030 energy, climate and pollution targets. The country aims to raise the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix from 15% in 2020 to 20% in 2030 and to peak greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by around 2030.

15% to 20% doesn't look big, but if energy demand doubles at the same time (quite possible with the rate of Chinese economic growth), it means a 166% absolute increase in that period. Given the issues that they are having with their nuclear program, this puts a lot of dependence on the rapid growth of wind and solar. And this only to stabilize emissions in 2030, while they grow for the next 12 years.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #959 on: April 18, 2019, 12:33:55 AM »
I missed this story when it came out last month.  The US government increased the amount of guaranteed loan subsidies for the Vogtle reactors under construction by $3.7 billion.  That means the taxpayers are now on the hook for $12 billion if the plant goes belly-up.  I doubt that the taxpayers will see a penny of the profits if this plant ever produces any.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/trump-to-finalize-3-7-billion-in-aid-for-troubled-nuclear-plant

Quote
The Trump administration will finalize $3.7 billion in loan guarantees to Southern Co. and its partners who are building a troubled nuclear reactor project in Georgia -- the last of its kind under construction in the U.S. -- according to two people familiar with the matter.

The guarantees, expected to be announced Friday when U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry visits Plant Vogtle alongside Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Southern Chief Executive Officer Tom Fanning, represents a critical lifeline for the project, which is more than five years behind schedule and has doubled in cost to $28 billion.

The additional help also puts taxpayers on the hook for more money if the project were to collapse. Southern and its partners in Plant Vogtle were already recipients of record $8.3 billion in federally-backed loan guarantees from the Obama administration, but asked the Trump administration to come to their aid amid ballooning costs and setbacks caused in part by the bankruptcy of a contractor, Westinghouse Electric Co.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #960 on: April 18, 2019, 12:41:38 PM »
The Trump administration is eager to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia. But why?

Quote
The contrast between Saudi Arabia’s solar potential and its focus on nuclear power raises a question: Why is the Trump administration so eager to provide nuclear technology to such a questionable partner? We offer some tentative answers to this question and argue that it would be best for the United States to stop trying to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, and to use its considerable diplomatic capacity to encourage other countries to do the same.

Quote
...the White House is not seeking a Saudi nuclear agreement entirely on its own volition. It is also responding to a major lobbying effort. In February, representatives from several nuclear energy firms, including NuScale, TerraPower, Westinghouse, and General Electric, met with President Trump reportedly with the aim of having the president “highlight the role US nuclear developers can play in providing power to other countries.”

Then some info about the shady as fuck orange administration and how they are corrupt...

Quote
While switching away from these fuels makes enormous sense, switching to nuclear energy does not.

As a desert kingdom, Saudi Arabia has some of the best solar energy resources in the world. Studies show that “photovoltaic technologies would perform well at any location” in the country because of high levels of solar irradiance. Despite government rhetoric to the contrary, the country has not been pursuing solar energy fast enough. As of 2017, Saudi Arabia had a total of 92 megawatts of installed renewable energy capacity, 89 megawatts of solar photovoltaics and three megawatts of wind. According to the 2017 version of BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, Saudi Arabia generated a mere 0.04 percent of its electricity from solar energy in 2017, up from 0.01 percent in 2012. The United Kingdom generated a comparable amount of electricity overall in 2017, but solar energy contributed 3.4 percent of this total, even though that country is much further north than Saudi Arabia.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #961 on: April 18, 2019, 09:35:26 PM »
After the Fukushima disaster, US nuclear power plants were assessed for flood risks.  Turns out, 54 of the 60 plants weren't built to withstand the flood risk they face.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-power-plants-climate-change/

Quote
According to a Bloomberg review of correspondence between the commission and plant owners, 54 of the nuclear plants operating in the U.S. weren’t designed to handle the flood risk they face. Fifty-three weren’t built to withstand their current risk from intense precipitation; 25 didn’t account for current flood projections from streams and rivers; 19 weren’t designed for their expected maximum storm surge. Nineteen face three or more threats that they weren’t designed to handle.

Quote
The industry argues that rather than redesign facilities to address increased flood risk, which Jaczko advocates, it’s enough to focus mainly on storing emergency generators, pumps, and other equipment in on-site concrete bunkers, a system they call Flex, for Flexible Mitigation Capability. Not only did the NRC agree with that view, it ruled on Jan. 24 that nuclear plants wouldn’t have to update that equipment to deal with new, higher levels of expected flooding. It also eliminated a requirement that plants run Flex drills.

Quote
The commission’s three members appointed by President Trump wrote that existing regulations were sufficient to protect the country’s nuclear reactors. Jaczko disagrees. “Any work that was done following Fukushima is for naught because the commission rejected any binding requirement to use that work,” he says. “It’s like studying the safety of seat belts and then not making automakers put them in a car.”

The commission “is carrying out the Trump deregulatory philosophy,” says Edwin Lyman, head of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The NRC basically did everything the industry wanted.” The two Democratic appointees objected to the NRC’s ruling. “The majority of the commission has decided that licensees can ignore these reevaluated hazards,” commissioner Jeff Baran wrote in dissent. His colleague Stephen Burns called the decision “baffling.” Through a spokesman, the Republican appointees declined to comment.

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #962 on: April 20, 2019, 06:21:53 AM »
AtomStroyExport (ASE) unveils schedule for China projects

03 April 2019

Alexey Bannik, vice president of China projects at Russia's AtomStroyExport (ASE), has given the schedule for new VVER-1200 units at Tianwan and Xudabao. Construction of Tianwan unit 7 will start in May 2021, and that of Xudabao unit 3 and of Tianwan unit 8 will start five and 10 months later, respectively. The launch of the Tianwan units is scheduled for 2026 and 2027 while the third and fourth units at the Xudabao plant will both be launched in 2028. [...]

 The target dates are very ambitious and meeting them will require clear and coordinated work by all the project participants."

The construction site of Tianwan 7 and 8 is "essentially ready", Bannik said. "Now we are working on levelling it out, but we already know this area because we’ve built four units there and so we don’t need to conduct any additional surveys," he added. The Chinese side has fully prepared the Xudabao site for the construction of six blocks, two of which ASE will build, he said.

Bannik said: "We are planning the nuclear island, issuing the technical requirements and monitoring the plant as a whole, as well as the safety concept and preparing documents for licensing. The Chinese side is responsible for designing the non-nuclear island part and supplying all the equipment for it. We will supply the main equipment of the nuclear island and some security systems. The Russians will participate in all stages of construction." [...]


Novovoronezh II-2 will be the third VVER-1200 to be commissioned, following Novovoronezh II-1 and Leningrad II-1, which were launched in 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Rosatom describes the VVER-1200 as a Generation III+ power unit, which has a number of economic and safety advantages when compared to the previous generation (VVER-1000). It is 20% more powerful; requires 30-40% fewer operator personnel; and its operating period is twice as long, at 60 years, with the possibility of extension by an additional 20 years.
 (80 years or +2100)

Rosatom also has VVER-1200 construction projects in Bangladesh, Belarus, Finland and Hungary.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/AtomStroyExport-unveils-schedule-for-China-project

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #963 on: April 20, 2019, 06:25:15 AM »
December construction start for Chinese SMR

25 March 2019

China's Ministry of Environment is proceeding with environmental impact assessment for a project to build an ACP100 small modular reactor (SMR) at Changjiang, Hainan, with construction to begin by the end of this year.

According to Chinese publication Nuclear World, first concrete is to be poured on 31 December. Construction is expected to take 65 months, with the 125 MWe unit expected to start up by 31 May 2025, subject to relevant governmental approvals.

The ACP100 was identified as a 'key project' in China's 12th Five-Year Plan, and is developed from the larger ACP1000 pressurised water reactor (PWR). The design, which has 57 fuel assemblies and integral steam generators, incorporates passive safety features and will be installed underground. China in 2016 announced plans to build a demonstration floating nuclear power plant based on the ACP100S variant of the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) design.

A two-unit demonstration plant was originally planned for construction by CNNC New Energy Corporation, a joint venture of CNNC (51%) and China Guodian Corp in Putian county, at the south of Fujian province. In early 2017, the site for the first ACP100 units was changed to Changjiang, on Hainan island, with a larger reactor to be built at Putian.

The ACP100 plant will be located on the northwest side of the existing Changjiang nuclear power plant, according to the 22 March announcement. The site is already home to two operating CNP600 PWRs, with two Hualong One units also planned for construction.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/December-construction-start-for-Chinese-SMR

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #964 on: April 20, 2019, 06:28:15 AM »
Russia pours first concrete for second Kursk II unit

15 April 2019

Main construction work for the second unit at Kursk II in Russia has begun two weeks ahead of schedule. The site in Western Russia is the first to use the VVER-TOI (typical optimised, with enhanced information) reactor design. [...]

The 1255 MWe VVER-TOI - described by Petrov as Russia's "most advanced" modern nuclear reactor - is a Generation III+ power unit and was developed using technical results from the VVER-1200 project. The design offers improved safety measures, including an increased margin of safety from extreme impacts and ability to withstand earthquakes, and is equipped with modern control systems and diagnostics, Rosatom said.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/First-concrete-for-second-Kursk-II-unit

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #965 on: April 20, 2019, 06:32:01 AM »
South Korea starts up second APR-1400

18 April 2019

Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power has started up its new Shin Kori 4 reactor and plans to connect it to the electricity grid at the end of this month. It is the second APR-1400 design unit to start up of a planned global fleet of at least 10.

KHNP said the unit had achieved criticality and that it would gradually increase its power level during the commissioning process. By the end of this month it hopes to connect the reactor to the grid, after which the power level can begin to approach its full 1340 MWe output. After a successful full-power run, the unit will be ready to begin commercial operation. KHNP expects this at the end of August.

Construction of two further APR1400 pressurised water reactors at Shin Kori - units 5 and 6 - began in April 2017 and September 2018 respectively. Unit 5 is scheduled to begin commercial operation in March 2022, with unit 6 following one year later.

Two further APR-1400 units are under construction in South Korea as units 1 and 2 of the Shin Hanul site. A further four APR-1400s are under construction at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates, while KHNP and Kepco are hopeful of further orders in other countries.

The APR-1400 is a pressurised water reactor designed by Korea Electric Power Company (Kepco) that KHNP said features improvements in operation, safety, maintenance and affordability based on accumulated experience as well as technological development. It supercedes the standardised 995 MWe OPR-1400 design, of which South Korea built 12.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/South-Korea-starts-up-second-APR-1400

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #966 on: April 20, 2019, 06:35:56 AM »
Estonia to study siting of Moltex advanced reactor

22 March 2019

Fermi Energia of Estonia has selected Moltex Energy as its preferred technology for its plans to establish carbon-free energy production in the Baltic region. Moltex Energy said yesterday that the two companies had signed a Memorandum of Understanding which expresses their intention to work together, including a feasibility study for the siting of a Moltex advanced reactor and the development of a suitable licensing regime.

In its statement, Moltex Energy noted that Estonia generates the majority of its power from oil shale, but that this fossil fuel capacity will have been mostly retired by 2030. Wind power in the Baltic provides some potential, but the country needs an alternative, reliable power source if it is to remain self-sufficient in energy, it said.

Estonia’s neighbours Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are all net importers of electricity and so clean and safe power generation in Estonia would represent an improvement in energy security for the whole region, it added.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Estonia-to-study-siting-of-Moltex-advanced-reactor

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #967 on: April 20, 2019, 06:39:02 AM »
Site approval for Egyptian nuclear power plant

10 April 2019

Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority (NPPA) has received a site approval permit for the El Dabaa site from the Egyptian Nuclear Regulation and Radiological Authority (ENRRA). The permit acknowledges that the site and its specific conditions comply with national and international requirements.

The site approval permit is issued for four nuclear units
. All other permits within the nuclear licensing process are issued for each unit separately, the NPPA said. The site approval permit is a condition for obtaining the next licensing document: a construction permit authorising the implementation of any nuclear related works at the El Dabaa site.

Four Russian-designed VVER-1200 pressurised water reactors are planned for El Dabaa
, which is on the Mediterranean coast, 170 kilometres west of Alexandria and Zafraana on the Gulf of Suez.

 Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom is to develop the plant, which will be owned and operated by the NPPA. With a nameplate capacity of 4.8GWe, the plant is expected to account for up to 50% of Egypt’s power generation capacity to meet the country’s increasing demand for electricity, according to Rosatom.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Site-approval-for-Egyptian-nuclear-power-plant

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #968 on: April 20, 2019, 06:41:41 AM »
UK fusion scientists secure new funding despite Brexit

29 March 2019

The UK and the European Commission signed a contract extension today for the world’s largest fusion research facility, Joint European Torus (JET). The extension secures at least EUR100 million (USD112 million) in additional inward investment from the EU over the next two years and "brings reassurance" for the more than 500 staff at the site in Culham, near Oxford, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said.

JET is operated by the UK Atomic Energy Authority at Culham Science Centre, near Oxford. Scientists from 28 European countries use it to conduct research into the potential for carbon-free fusion energy in the future, through work coordinated by the EUROfusion consortium which manages and funds European fusion research activities on behalf of Euratom.

The future of the facility has been under discussion since 2017, as its work is covered by the Euratom Treaty, which the UK Government intends to leave as part of the process of leaving the EU. The new contract guarantees JET’s operations until the end of 2020 "regardless of the EU Exit situation", BEIS said, referring to the UK’s planned withdrawal from the EU, known as Brexit and, consequently, the Euratom Treaty.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-fusion-scientists-secure-new-funding-despite-Br

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #969 on: April 21, 2019, 01:10:46 AM »
I'm weakly in favor of nuclear power in the short term, but we have to go sustainable, and just use nuclear (plus, wind, solar, etc...the Orient Express solution) as a bridge. Medium and long term is solar...even Ray Kurzweil expects this.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #970 on: April 21, 2019, 09:48:33 AM »
'Short term' and 'nuclear power' don't go well together.

Finding a site, risk assessment, political processes, planning, construction, unforeseen difficulties, this all takes a lot of time. Decide now, get your plant in 20 years or more. We need the transition now, not sometime in the future.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 931
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #971 on: April 21, 2019, 12:49:45 PM »
I am happy in principle that the Chinese and others are building nuclear plants instead of coal plants. But I shudder to think of those plants 60 years in the future, amid the collapse of industrial civilization, not getting the maintenance they need. A realistic plan that realizes the risk of collapse in the next few decades would not build now high-maintenance projects that can end in catastrophic failures when neglected.
Maybe China will still be functioning in 60 years. They are the most organized of the bunch. Russia and South Korea - perhaps. But will Egypt still be functioning? With its severe overpopulation, poverty, reliance on a single river, and lots of other long-term challenges I very strongly doubt it. Building a nuclear plant in Egypt is a recipe for guaranteed disaster.

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #972 on: April 22, 2019, 01:43:36 PM »
'Short term' and 'nuclear power' don't go well together.

Finding a site, risk assessment, political processes, planning, construction, unforeseen difficulties, this all takes a lot of time. Decide now, get your plant in 20 years or more. We need the transition now, not sometime in the future.

The short term might be shorter than I thought.
I knew solar was growing quickly. I might have figured five years to double, six to be conservative, maybe four if I were to be wildly optimistic. When I actually looked at the figures (at least for the U.S.) I found it actually less than three. We may be able to just drop nuclear power after all.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4462
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 0

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #974 on: April 25, 2019, 04:48:23 AM »
“On March 31, 2019 reactors No 1 and 2 of the Floating Power Unit (FPU) have successfully reached 100 percent power capacity. The trial confirmed reliable operation of primary and auxiliary equipment of the FPU and the automation of its technological processes,” the subsidiary, Rosenergoatom, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The floating power plant has two KLT-40 pressurized water reactors, which are also used on Russia’s Taimyr-class icebreakers and the Arctic-capable container carrier Sevmorput. Together the two cores generate up to 70 MW of electric power or up to 300 MW of heat, which is enough to service a northern city of up to 100,000 residents, according to Rosatom.
https://www.rt.com/russia/457401-russia-floating-nuclear-plant/

24 Mar, 2019 Construction of the first Chinese floating nuclear power plant will begin within 2019, according to Luo Qi, head of the Nuclear Power Institute (NPI) of China.

It will be a marine platform equipped with scaled-down nuclear reactors, which can provide electricity and heat to areas with difficult access, such as remote areas, islands, and offshore oil and gas platforms, Luo told the Global Times.
https://www.rt.com/business/454605-china-nuclear-power-plant/

longwalks1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #975 on: April 29, 2019, 02:00:29 AM »
Research Reactor shut down after 50 years. 

https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2019-04-norway-shutters-its-last-nuclear-research-reactor-cheering-environmentalists

Quote
By Bellona’s estimates, final storage for the waste from the Kjeller reactor, as well as from the Halden research reactor, which was shut down last year, could cost more than $1.7 billion – well beyond what the IFE has budgeted to safely store its radioactive legacy. It is therefore thought that the state will have to bear the brunt of the expenses.

“The price for getting rid of old sins is high,” said Hauge. But Norway must pay the cost, plain and simple.”

Things do change  The European Spallation Source had <<A bright future for the JEEP II- research-reactor>> on Jan 25, 2018 

https://neutronsources.org/news/news-from-the-neutron-centers/ife-and-the-jeep-ii-research-reactor-is-an-important-ally-for-the-ess.html

Probably like the CANDU's; with the JEEP's  heavy water design you can use the neutron flux fo5 medical isotopes, etc. etc.  But they get old, no mention of tritium leaks that plague aging CANDU's.  And we all know what neutrons do to metal after 50 years. 

The EU LINAC hopefully will be up and running in 2023 for a much more rational source of neutrons.   

https://europeanspallationsource.se/science-using-neutrons





sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4462
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #976 on: May 07, 2019, 12:46:51 AM »
Load following in nukes:

"The unit shall be expected to go through the following number of transients from full power to minimum load and back to full power: two per day, five per week, and cumulatively 200 per year." [France]

https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload-following-capabilities-of-npps/

sidd

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #977 on: May 20, 2019, 08:33:26 PM »
The former Chairperson of the NRC is now strongly anti-nuke.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html?utm_term=.8788440bd581

Quote
Before the accident, it was easier to accept the industry’s potential risks, because nuclear power plants had kept many coal and gas plants from spewing air pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air. Afterward, the falling cost of renewable power changed the calculus. Despite working in the industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power’s benefits are no longer enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants. I became so convinced that, years after departing office, I’ve now made alternative energy development my new career, leaving nuclear power behind. The current and potential costs — in lives and dollars — are just too high.

Quote
For years, my concerns about nuclear energy’s cost and safety were always tempered by a growing fear of climate catastrophe. But Fukushima provided a good test of just how important nuclear power was to slowing climate change: In the months after the accident, all nuclear reactors in Japan were shuttered indefinitely, eliminating production of almost all of the country’s carbon-free electricity and about 30 percent of its total electricity production. Naturally, carbon emissions rose, and future emissions-reduction targets were slashed.

Would shutting down plants all over the world lead to similar results? Eight years after Fukushima, that question has been answered. Fewer than 10 of Japan’s 50 reactors have resumed operations, yet the country’s carbon emissions have dropped below their levels before the accident. How? Japan has made significant gains in energy efficiency and solar power. It turns out that relying on nuclear energy is actually a bad strategy for combating climate change: One accident wiped out Japan’s carbon gains. Only a turn to renewables and conservation brought the country back on target.

Quote
The real choice now is between saving the planet and saving the dying nuclear industry. I vote for the planet.

Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #978 on: May 20, 2019, 10:43:13 PM »
HBO's dramatization of the Chernobyl disaster in their current miniseries makes clear just how severe the hazards are.

In part 2, they graphically show the first helicopter doing sand and boron drops on the molten and burning reactor and immediately falling out of the sky. The dramatization is especially good. What you see in that is the helicopter turning slowly as the rotors come apart and the helicopter falls from the sky like a bird hit with a rifle shot.

How? - you may ask.

The answer is revealing and terrifying. Lubricants and greases are destroyed by immense radiation doses. When that happens, the greases cease to be lubricating and the the rotating parts seize. The dynamic forces of the rotor coming to a screeching halt then literally tear the blades off of the helicopter in mid flight.

Everyone on board was of course exposed to terrifyingly high levels of radiation - so high that they were already dead as the radiation tore apart the chemistry of their bodies.

That an accident like that can happen in what was thought to be a safe reactor design, where no such accident was thought possible should give everyone pause. The operators had such a poor understanding of their own reactor that they believed that it was physically impossible for the reactor to explode, despite direct evidence to the contrary. And still they persisted in their beliefs even after the reactor was destroyed.

HBO did a great job as well in portraying the events that followed, where the first heroic expert manages to get the sand and boron drops started to try to end the ongoing chain reaction; and where the second expert arrives to point out how wrong he/they were in their beliefs and how that too was increasing the danger of a megaton scale explosion which would have destroyed all four reactors and led to the death of over a million people, the permanent evacuation of 60 million or more people and the near permanent abandonment of Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland, most of eastern Germany, several Baltic States and a portion of Russia.

By the pure good fortune of having her arrive those events did not happen.

In reality, Chernobyl suffered a very low yield in core nuclear detonation (a prompt criticality) followed by an extremely energetic destruction of the fuel and cladding.  A similar in core detonation happened at the military SL-1 reactor in Idaho. This then led to the vaporization of the water in the core with sufficient force to drive the 2,000 ton lid into the roof, and rotating seven times around the reactor hall. In Idaho at SL-1 the flash vaporization of the water in the core splattered the fuel plates against the reactor vessel walls, and drove the water upward where it impacted the vessel head with over 10,000 psi of force. The imbalanced forces ejected the central control rod through an operator launching him into the ceiling, sheared all of the vessel piping and caused the reactor vessel to jump 9 feet into the air killing the other two operators in the process.

At Chernobyl this was followed by the explosive detonation of the superheated hydrogen released by the chemical reaction as it combined with the air above the reactor fully destroying the roof and ejecting a sizable fraction of the core from the building, along with the control rods and much of the graphite moderator.

In Japan the situation was different, the reactors were of a wholly different design, yet the outcome was eerily similar. Even two years after the accident, the engineers and experts had not yet recognized that under reactor operating conditions that when they injected salt water into the cores, that they created a disaster.

At reactor temperature and pressure conditions water is a non-polar solvent. That is very unlike the water we all know at room temperature conditions. Salt is nearly insoluble under those conditions.

As a result, the salt in the injected water immediately condensed and rained out of the water. It then fell down in and around the screaming hot fuel where it acted as a corrosive and as an insulating jacket leading to immediate cladding failure (for what ever cladding had not already failed), and rapidly rising temperatures. Etc...

Based on an accident in California, it appears that what happened next was that the pressures internally released into the outer vessel as the inner cracked and failed under salt attack leading to a rapid pressure rise that then stretched the head bolts on the outer vessel leading to a sudden and massive hydrogen gas release to the containment building. With inadequate venting and inadequate explosions control, it was just a matter of moments before the hydrogen-oxygen gas blend found an ignition source and detonated the containments like giant mortars, launching the guts of the rectors high into the sky.

In both cases, the shear denial to believe reality, or to prepare adequately for the possibilities led to much of the disasters that followed.

That denial remains a mainstay of the nuclear industry globally.

In response to Chernobyl, Russia faced a grim choice. Sacrifice all of the contaminated grains and foods produced in the food basket of the former Soviet Union and allow people to starve, or use the grain and foods. They chose the later. To ameliorate the impacts somewhat they then chose to distribute the contaminated foods across the whole of the soviet union so that everyone got some dose, and no one got enormous doses from the foods.

Japan made the identical choice with Fukushima. Like the Russians, they quarantined the worst, then spread the rest out across the whole of the population.

The US in response chose to dramatically lessen the radiation protection standards in the wake of a future accident in preparation for doing exactly the same thing.

The original source of the problems that led to the failures in all three cases (SL-1, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) are different in their technical issues, but identical in their philosophical origins. The hubris and denial of reality in each of these accidents led to their occurrence, and likely to the inevitability that accidents like them would happen.

For SL-1, the reactor was too powerful for its conditions. The design was such that a single control rod being partially removed from the reactor when cold could cause exactly the accident that happened. Combine that with the use of manual removal of the rods for control rod drive mechanism maintenance, and with added cladding plates to reduce the core power, that then bound up with the control rod blades, and the stage was set for a catastrophe.

For Chernobyl, the use of six inch long graphite tips on the ends of the control rods to increase neutronic and energetic efficiency of the reactor, which caused insertion of the control rods to increase power during a scram was the final nail in the coffin of a series of other design and operational failures. When the reactor became unstable during a low power test that intentionally disabled safety systems, and operated outside the design envelope, insertion of the control rods amounted to pouring gasoline on a roaring fire, rather than dousing the reaction.

For Fukushima, the utter disregard for historical tsunami's, designs that put safety equipment in the basements where the flooding could take them out added to other design and operational failures to doom the reactors. It is only by the incredible good fortune of a hugely capable crew doing amazing work that Fukushima Daini didn't suffer a similar fate to Daiichi.

And in each of these cases, other operators and rescue personal took enormous risks and radiation exposures to deal with the disasters. At Chernobyl and Fukushima, these will continue for a very long time - hundreds of years at least.

As with the arctic ice, there are other unrecognized hazards.

In the past 15 years, NRC engineers recognized that the hastalloy control rod drive mechanism sleeves were failing and cracking in alarming ways - with up to 15 inch long longitudinal cracks and 75% around circumferential cracks.The NRC engineers internal reports were terrifying. NRC and the industry responding by replacing the drive sleeves across the reactor fleet. The cause of this failure was an unrecognized risk for cracking in the alloys used due to phase change across a narrow temperature band, and the occurrence of precisely those conditions in the sleeves. Had one of these failed at any reactor, the sleeve and control rod would have been ejected from the core and resulted in a partial or complete loss of coolant accident (PLOCA or LOCA).  None of this ever made the news.

The destruction of concrete in the spent fuel pools and around the reactors by gamma radiation exposure is another such risk. Every fuel basin on earth is at risk of catastrophic failure from this with accident consequences every bit as large as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet, no actions are occurring to assess the risk or to deal with it. In Idaho, the Naval Reactors Facility Expended Core Facility Pool failed for this reason. By great good luck, they had time to empty the fuel from the pool into dry cask storage and to build a new pool.

Catastrophic cladding failure (as observed in experiments at Fukushima) is yet another.

The list goes on.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #979 on: May 21, 2019, 08:04:02 AM »
That's a must-read post up there!

Thanks, Sam.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #980 on: May 21, 2019, 10:26:21 AM »
Nuclear can feel very scary. Dangerous per unit of energy produced? Not so much.

And it can reduce co2 emissions, just compare France and Germany.

Emission reduction track record of intermittent RE is not spectacular. Grid scale storage does not exist in the near term at least. We simply cannot overlook any zero carbon energy source or we are toast for sure


b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #981 on: May 21, 2019, 10:59:08 AM »
Nuclear can feel very scary. Dangerous per unit of energy produced? Not so much.

Feel scary? Bluice, the problems with both, radioactive waste and nuclear accidents are very very real.


Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6599
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 241
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #982 on: May 21, 2019, 11:48:16 AM »
And it can reduce co2 emissions, just compare France and Germany.

Compare when France has finally managed to decommission existing nuclear infrastructure. That story is far from over.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #983 on: May 21, 2019, 12:08:52 PM »
Nuclear can feel very scary. Dangerous per unit of energy produced? Not so much.

Feel scary? Bluice, the problems with both, radioactive waste and nuclear accidents are very very real.
So? Nothing is completely risk free in this world. Nuclear power is the safest form of energy per unit produced. I suppose we want look at scientific evidence on this forum.

Fossil fuels cause far more casualties by air pollution alone, every single year. And then there is climate change.

Intermittent renewables need hydro or FF as backup. That’s why Germany is nowhere near its emission targets despite massive investments. Renewables alone won’t solve this problem. With nuclear and renewables we may at least have a chance.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #984 on: May 21, 2019, 12:14:38 PM »
And it can reduce co2 emissions, just compare France and Germany.

Compare when France has finally managed to decommission existing nuclear infrastructure. That story is far from over.
There will be costs, but there will never be similar per capita emissions than in Germany where power is generated by burning lignite coal and Russian LNG.

I used to be strongly anti-nuclear but climate change has changed my opinion. We have to put risks into proportion and the numbers are very clear on this.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #985 on: May 21, 2019, 12:40:53 PM »
in Germany where power is generated by burning lignite coal and Russian LNG.

Well, as of today, 47% of energy production in Germany in 2019 is from renewables.

Link >> https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm

Coal is like 30% but Germany has decided to phase out of coal and the worst plants are out soon.

Gas is only 9%.

Link >> https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

If Germany would decide to switch to nuclear, if even possible, that would not be achieved by 2050.
It would take several years of each, political discussions only to agree on sites (and believe me, this is extremely optimistic since whole Germany is very anti-nuclear and pro-renewables), the planning, risk assessment, granting authorizations, find insurers (hint, you'll find none), construction, fighting back protesters, etc, etc, etc

That's all taking too long! We need a change now to renewables and Germany is doing just that.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6599
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 241
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #986 on: May 21, 2019, 01:00:09 PM »
I used to be strongly anti-nuclear but climate change has changed my opinion. We have to put risks into proportion and the numbers are very clear on this.

I'm very strongly anti-anything-that-isn't-GenIV-nuclear. Only if you are pro-GenIV, do you have a chance of winning discussions and winning people over. GenIII is a dead end.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #987 on: May 21, 2019, 01:16:47 PM »
Right, GenIV is meltdown proof. Like Chernobyl was - until it had a meltdown. And like the Titanic was unsinkable - until it sunk.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6599
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 241
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #988 on: May 21, 2019, 01:25:43 PM »
There are other advantages, like not needing massive amounts of cooling water or smaller, modular designs. The problem is that there aren't any working prototypes that can be built on a massive scale, but it should be possible to do with a let's-put-a-man-on-the-moon mentality.

Mind you, I'm not advocating for it. I'm advocating massive cuts in energy use, so that renewables can cover all demand. But if I were to advocate for nuclear, I'd be advocating for GenIV, because GenIII is a sure way to lose debates.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1162
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #989 on: May 21, 2019, 01:48:38 PM »
I'm advocating massive cuts in energy use, so that renewables can cover all demand.
That's what's needed but also what no-one want's, crosspost from the Part Deux thread:
It would be better if we started thinking in terms of energy, instead of just whining about fossil fuels. Like these bullet points by Nate Hagens.


Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #990 on: May 21, 2019, 01:52:09 PM »
Every form of energy has costs to the environment. But which is worse? And even with conservation, we will need to produce energy.
I don’t know if we will need nuclear or not.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #991 on: May 21, 2019, 02:14:46 PM »
Let me just add, if we invest this same man-to-the-moon money on renewables we hit our goal way sooner and with a lot of other benefits:

1 ) Decentralisation of energy production is a fail save against natural disasters.
2 ) It is also an effective method to fight monopolies in the energy market.
3 ) Almost no externalities (i.e. nuclear waste handling)
4 ) The deployment of equivalent power output with solar and wind creates more jobs than a single centralized power plant would
5 ) No accidents that can possibly wipe out whole regions.
6 ) Less resistance against the technology from the public (at least in Germany)
7 ) Solar and wind are getting cheaper over time due to mass production only, nuclear power constantly is getting more expensive, during all phases of planning and building. Mega projects are often times mega intransparent.
8 ) Renewables don't produce waste matter you can make weapons of mass destruction from.
9 ) Less CO2 emissions (average life-cycle emissions for nuclear energy: 60 (g/kWh), wind: 10–20 g/kWh)
10) We will run out of nuclear fuel someday anyway.

Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #992 on: May 21, 2019, 09:39:03 PM »
Nuclear can feel very scary. Dangerous per unit of energy produced? Not so much.

Feel scary? Bluice, the problems with both, radioactive waste and nuclear accidents are very very real.
So? Nothing is completely risk free in this world. Nuclear power is the safest form of energy per unit produced. I suppose we want look at scientific evidence on this forum.

Bluice,

Chernobyl alone killed 10,000 emergency workers, not the five dozen the nuclear industry would like to believe. Russia even grudgingly acknowledged 4,000 deaths officially. But the deaths go far beyond the emergency workers. Estimates range far into the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths as a direct result of the accident. The families in Pripyat all have many chronic diseases as a direct result of their exposure. The former Ukrainian parliamentarian head of the "permanent" commission for the study of the Chernobyl disaster, and an engineer on Chernobyl Unit 4, reported that his wife and children each have on average eight severe diseases as a result of their exposures.

The nuclear industry desperately wants to believe in hormesis - the idea that radiation at doses under 10 rem per year is beneficial, not detrimental. This belief is founded on several misunderstandings of basic science. First, it is based on examining the plots of excess cancer deaths versus excess radiation exposure to the population in Japan impacted by the nuclear weapons the United States detonated there. In doing that, they argue that since the error bar for the lowest dose band goes below the ordinate that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected - i.e. that radiation reduces the cancer death rate.

They ignore several factors in making this argument. 

First, it is not currently possible to identify the causal origin of the cancers and cancer deaths. As a result, "excess deaths" cannot be separated from total deaths. The proper ordinate is zero cancer incidence, or the lowest cancer incidence rate observed for the whole population. Second, they exclude background radiation from the assignment of doses to the population sample. On average this is 20-30 rem of lifetime exposure. Third, they exclude error bars on the radiation dose assignment, both as an artifact of data binning, and from inherent assessment of the individual assigned doses. None of the exposed population carried dosimeters, and there has not been a detailed assessment of ingested dose.

In either of the two cases (lowest observed cancer rates or zero cancer rates), the error bars do NOT go below the ordinate and the null hypothesis is rejected.

The second and third factors blur the median across a large radiation dose range. The net effect of all three is to show a trend line indistinguishable from linear from high dose in the 100 plus rem range all the way down to background doses. The null hypothesis is rejected. There is no hormetic effect.

Next, they argue that the way hormesis works is by activating the immune system by lowering the impacts of other causes of cancer as the body now fights off what it perceives as a defect or assault.  Even if true, this does not make the radiation damage harmless. Instead, it simply masks it. A counter argument could also be made that we then need to increase the benzene or other carcinogenic chemical exposure to the population for its disease lowering effect in the same way. That is of course absurd!

In point of fact the reason the nuclear experts argue for the hormetic effect and for eliminating the assessment of cumulative dose is that these things show risks to the whole population that argue strongly against the continued releases of nuclear materials and routine radiation exposures. That in turn argues against nuclear power. This is a case of putting a heavy thumb on the scales. It is wrong.

Next, the US DOE, and NRC, and likely others argue that the doses are below background, and therefor are unimportant. This fallacy has its roots in the environmental law arguments in the United States. Essentially in passing the various environmental laws it was argued that industry should not be responsible for "background" aka "natural" exposures. I.e. that they should not have to extend their cleanups of toxic wastes to cleanup the natural world. This idea later morphed with the idea that natural is good to become an idea that background doses cannot be harmful and are in fact good.

For nuclear matters, NRC and DOE count medical use of radiation and radioactive material exposures as "background".  As that "background" has steadily risen with the expanded use of Computerized Tomography (CT and CAT scans), and nuclear medicine to fight cancer, the average "background" dose that they assign has now risen to between 650 millirem and 960 millirem per year. DOE and NRC disagree on the value to use. In both cases, this is far above the routine background of 100-200 millirem per year of natural background (sans radon - which is a special case, and which should not be included as a result).

Also, the nuclear industry still relies on the presumption that the energetic damage caused by radiation is the causative factor and that therefor the doses from all forms of radiation can be aggregated into a single exposure parameter for "whole body equivalent" dose. EPA maintains a detailed assessment of the dose factors for each radionuclide and each pathway of exposure. These have bearing on precisely which effects (cancers and other diseases) have been shown to be caused by each.  And that limitation of "has been shown to" also belies a serious flaw in the analysis. At low dose rates it is difficult to get enough data to assign causality and correlations. The standard default is that when those cannot be definitively "shown to be..." the cause, that they do not cause harm. This too is wrong.

More over, the crude radiation dose factors used to evaluate harm are based on several fallacies. First, again from the bomb studies and the beliefs of those involved, a Dose Reduction Equivalence Factor (DREF) is assigned. They argued early on that when they looked a the slope curve for cancer deaths from Japanese bomb survivor data that "we know that" at low doses that the immune system is doing repair, and therefor, they arbitrarily cut the slope value in half by assigned a DREF of 2. There was NO valid justification for this. Slowly over time, the US EPA has been reducing the DREF on a case by case basis from 2 to 1.5 to 1. This was simply a previous use of the "hormesis" idea and application to real world data in violation of any scientific basis or principle. As late as the mid-1990s some argued at national conferences that the DREF should be raised to 50-100! rather than being eliminated. This argument was of course fallacious and based on the desire to have nuclear be assigned as not causing harms, and hence being beneficial.

Add to this that since the worker base is predominantly well paid, well fed, well cared for older white males, a series of additional biases enter. These include the so-called "healthy worker effect", where these aforesaid workers are healthier to begin with than the average population, and much healthier than the most vulnerable parts of the population. This creates a strong bias to lower observed effect rates, and in some cases to reverse them to assigning health benefits where none exist.

Add too that the cancer slope values decline with age, and that men are less susceptible to radiation induced cancers and several huge biases rear their ugly heads. Women are on average 50% more vulnerable. Teenagers are 5-10 times more vulnerable. Infants are at least 20 times more vulnerable.

Yet the safety standard for everyone is based on a DREF of 2 and the aforesaid 40-60 year old healthy white American males. For the most vulnerable parts of society, this understates their actual risk by a factor of at least 40.

Recent studies also show that both cardiovascular disease risk, and stroke risk for deaths are every bit the equal of cancer lethality from radiation exposure. This is another separate factor of 3 or more understatement of the risk.

Combining all of these, the death risk rate for the most vulnerable parts of the population (excluding fetuses) is something like 5.4% per rem of exposure, not the optimistic 4.5 x 10^-4 latent cancer fatalities per rem of exposure that is used as the standard. And this does not include immune system, gastrointestinal, or other impacts.

It goes on like this. There are other major flaws in the measurement and accounting for exposure to radiation that seriously impact the assessments. As a result arguing about the safety of nuclear is done against a severe effort by the industry to warp the scales in what they perceive as their favor.

This is not at all surprising. As was previously pointed out, the industry was born out of the second world war and the desire to build atomic weapons to beat the "other" guy, and to build warships powered by nuclear. Anything that might influence the population to agitate against those goals has to be stopped.

Bluice - as to your argument about CO2 emissions, you I suspect are arguing only about the CO2 emissions of operating reactors. It is common for the industry to entirely neglect the CO2 emissions required to design, build, and dismantle the plants, the CO2 release generated in the hugely energetically expensive effort to enrich the uranium fuel, to process spent fuel, and to dispose of both the plants and the fuel. These are never accounted for in estimates of the impact of nuclear versus other energy sources. 

And on and on and on...

Arguments for next generation recycling reactors have even more severe flaws and omissions in impacts, difficulties and energetic inefficiencies, along with dramatically increased risks. Also not included is the ever increasing pool of fissile materials that pose an existential risk to all of mankind. There is simply no way to get rid of the stuff. Worse yet, as other nuclides decay away, it just gets better and better for use in nuclear weapons.

Arguments for other reactors, whether thorium fueled, molten salt, etc... have their own even worse problems. The thorium reactors have many serious issues. Just one of those is the ongoing production of U-233, and immensely weapons usable and weapons attractive isotope that can be slip streamed out of the operating reactor. Another is the use of beryllium rich salts in the reactor molten salt reactors that make it so exquisitely toxic that no one should ever consider it. For the mixed oxide fueled reactors, there are immense problems in recycling the fuel to usable form, and energetic and financial inefficiencies that render such reactors impossible to be made competitive in any market based system. Recycling weapons plutonium into reactor fuel similar has severe issues. The gallium alloying element used in the weapons is extremely hard to extract from the plutonium to levels require to make the fuel safe in reactors. The MOX fueled and especially plutonium fueled reactors have very narrow safety margins - at best. Etc...

All of this doesn't even begin to account for the operational, engineering and financial obstacles that have to be overcome for the wide spread use of nuclear power. Whenever one of these stations goes off line - it goes off line and it remains offline for over a month. During that time alternate power is required from other sources. For economic competitive reasons based on all of the costs on operating these beasts, they must run at 100% power always. They cannot be used as peaking plants. And since society exhibits a diurnal power use variation, they strip off all of the base load capacity available for all power sources. All of the others must then be able to vary power production from 0-100% daily.

That should be more than enough...

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #993 on: May 22, 2019, 05:29:08 AM »
I thought it might be worthwhile to share an article about the other kind of nuclear power:  fusion.
Of course, it's only Forbes magazine.
My own impression is that big, hugely high-tech power plants are almost inevitably an albatross.  But still an interesting idea:

The New Nuclear: How A $600 Million Fusion Energy Unicorn Plans To Beat Solar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2019/05/21/the-new-nuclear-how-a-600-million-fusion-energy-unicorn-plans-to-beat-solar/#16bfea8b629e

"TAE’s 100-foot-long prototype nuclear fusion reactor, a magnificent assemblage of stainless steel vessels, electromagnets and particle accelerator tubes. Once every eight minutes Norman emits a clang, as it transforms 20 million watts of electricity into a cloud of 100 million degrees Celsius plasma and blasts it with beams of protons (the simplest form of hydrogen). They smash together with enough force to fuse into helium—releasing copious amounts of energy in the process....

Binderbauer wants $200 million or so to build the first hydrogen-boron prototype, the last stepping-stone in plasma research before a commercial fusion reactor, operating at much higher temperatures. "


oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 931
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #994 on: May 22, 2019, 10:42:01 AM »
A fusion plant would be nice to have, assuming it's feasible, but we can't afford the years going by. Instead we can already harvest the local existing fusion plant with PV.

Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #995 on: May 22, 2019, 07:01:52 PM »
A fusion plant would be nice to have, assuming it's feasible, but we can't afford the years going by. Instead we can already harvest the local existing fusion plant with PV.

There are a couple of intriguing outside chances that fusion might be made to work. There are even instances of private individuals building actual fusion devices and reactors at home. These are very far from power application conditions, still...

The mainstream ideas never seem to be able to break the "30 years from now" barrier. No matter how much work they do, and how much money they invest the projections remain - 30 years in the future - i.e. some magical day beyond the end of the authors career.

Depending on the particular fusion reactions, there is also the "little problem" of tritium generation and release. Widespread use of fusion with release of copious quantities of tritium would itself likely be an environmental and health disaster. If fusion is ever an operational reality, containment and control of the tritium releases may be one of the most difficult problems that they will have to overcome.

The three hydrogen isotopes - protium, deuterium and tritium - are interesting. These have large differences in how they behave in many chemical reactions and conditions, due to their differences in mass. These differences are exploited in some cases to perform isotope separation.

In the body, tritium is treated chemically mostly like protium. In addition to having a 12.33 year radiological half-life, chemical processes handle it and remove it from the body resulting in a biological half-life.

There are suggestions that water depleted in deuterium may have health benefits attributable to the weight difference with protium and how that affects chemical reactions. There are similar though less strong arguments for certain other elements and their isotopes (principally carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen). As with hydrogen, the weight differences in these isotopes slightly (very slightly) change the chemical reactions they are involved in. Potassium is a special case, as one major long-lived isotope is mildly radioactive.

Tritium on the other hand causes health issues not just because it is radioactive, but also because it is so much heavier than protium and as a result behaves somewhat differently in chemical reactions.

As a radioactive material, tritium is treated as having a single biological half-life of about 9.4 days (with wide variation depending on water ingestion - rates ~4-15 days) and dependent on the mode of damage. In reality it has three different biological half-lives (about 7-10 days, about 30-50 days and about 540 days) dependent on what chemical form it is in (water, proteins and such, or DNA). The combined effects of these are only crudely represented by the aggregated single biological half-life. The combined damage effects of the more complex model of tritium biological processing and radiological damage mean that the total hazards may be more than twice the accepted values. Double strand DNA breaks are the most severe hazard, and those are dominated by the tritium bound in DNA, which has the longest biological half-life.

Multi component models of biological processing are challenging. There is broad variation in the population with many confounding factors to consider. And the form the tritium is presented in dramatically change how it is processed. Tritium as part of water (HTO) is not equivalent to tritium bond as a component of protein in food.

As with so many things in the nuclear field, the accepted model and values from the radiation health protection folks and regulators is heavily influenced by the history of the field, their proponency of nuclear power, and their financial dependency on it. I am aware of no truly independent expert authority. For nuclear that is almost not possible. Those who work in the field are financially dependent on nuclear to a high degree; or almost exclusively. There is (as in all fields) also a very strong tendency to get caught in a self referential sort of bias believing that the choices the individual has made are good, and there for ... Those who strongly oppose it are likewise often biased by belief. This isn't a complaint, as much as it is a comment on how human belief and society work.  As a result, finding non-biased factual information can be quite challenging.

There is also the problem, as with so many things in the nuclear field, that the releases of tritium from nuclear weapons testing and reactor operations created a bias toward down playing and concealing the hazards to avoid public reaction and opposition to the weapons programs.

A factor of 2 to 3 difference in health impacts isn't huge in the grand scheme of things. It is important.

But all of that is just my personal opinion; a very well informed one, but still just my opinion.

Sam

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4729
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 638
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #996 on: May 22, 2019, 07:21:53 PM »
Nuclear Fusion, titrium release danger.

Oh well, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

(After all, even solar power carries with it some environmental disbenefits, that will have to be fixed.)

It is good to read Sam's posts - loads of good solid data to justify the conclusions.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #997 on: May 22, 2019, 08:29:29 PM »
The mainstream ideas never seem to be able to break the "30 years from now" barrier. No matter how much work they do, and how much money they invest the projections remain - 30 years in the future - i.e. some magical day beyond the end of the authors career.


That is one thing I give to Sam Carana (unless he is terminally ill). Seven years till Doomsday.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1002
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #998 on: May 23, 2019, 07:18:12 AM »
Great podcast on fusion, how nuclear radiation is not a real problem here, and how far they really are:

The Wendelstein 7-X Fusion Experiment

In our never-ending quest to understand fusion and its potential use in energy production, I visited the Wendelstein 7-X fusion experiment in Greifswald run by the Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik. We started out with a visit to the experiment hall, while experimentalist Matthias Hirsch gave us an overview over the machine. Next we discussed theory and modeling with Ralf Kleiber. Finally, I returned to Matthias Hirsch, and we chatted about more experimental aspects of Wendelstein. It is probably best to listen to our previous fusion episodes (22, 157 and 304) before listening to this one.

Link >> http://omegataupodcast.net/312-the-wendelstein-7-x-fusion-experiment/

Sam

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #999 on: May 23, 2019, 09:06:55 AM »
Great podcast on fusion, how nuclear radiation is not a real problem here, and how far they really are:

The Wendelstein 7-X Fusion Experiment

In our never-ending quest to understand fusion and its potential use in energy production, I visited the Wendelstein 7-X fusion experiment in Greifswald run by the Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik. We started out with a visit to the experiment hall, while experimentalist Matthias Hirsch gave us an overview over the machine. Next we discussed theory and modeling with Ralf Kleiber. Finally, I returned to Matthias Hirsch, and we chatted about more experimental aspects of Wendelstein. It is probably best to listen to our previous fusion episodes (22, 157 and 304) before listening to this one.

Link >> http://omegataupodcast.net/312-the-wendelstein-7-x-fusion-experiment/

b_lumenkraft,

Thank you! That was one of the intriguing experiments I was referring to. There are a couple of others. I wasn’t able to easily remember the names.

Sam