[Tanada]

The problem with all these gloom and doom forecasts about how 'awful' nuclear waste is you can not point to any examples of massive death tolls from nuclear energy production. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The closest anyone can come is Chernobyl where at the very extreme limit of possible relation to actual events you might tacitly link a few thousand excess deaths to the disaster.

Meanwhile nuclear fission electricity has offset billions of tons of CO2 production and along with that it has offset hundreds of thousands, possibly million, of deaths from respiratory ailments that would have resulted from producing the same electricity with fossil fuels. That is not just coal, but also oil and natural gas all of which cause deaths from people inhaling the exhaust products as they are spewed willy nilly into the environment.

A more realistic look at Chernobyl's effects find less than 100 deaths from acute radiation sickness and a few hundred cases of thyroid disease because the population was deficient in dietary iodine and absorbed too much of the radioactive isotope in the first three weeks after the accident before it decayed away to safe levels. If you consume the appropriate amounts of iodine in your diet then you are relatively immune to the thyroid issue that caused most of the harm after Chernobyl. Nobody in Japan suffered the same issue as a result of Fukushima and with the media hysteria you must realize a mass breakout of thyroid illness would have been headlines around the world.

[GHung]

The problem with all these gloom and doom forecasts about how 'awful' nuclear waste is you can not point to any examples of massive death tolls from nuclear energy production. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The closest anyone can come is Chernobyl where at the very extreme limit of possible relation to actual events you might tacitly link a few thousand excess deaths to the disaster.

Meanwhile nuclear fission electricity has offset billions of tons of CO2 production and along with that it has offset hundreds of thousands, possibly million, of deaths from respiratory ailments that would have resulted from producing the same electricity with fossil fuels. That is not just coal, but also oil and natural gas all of which cause deaths from people inhaling the exhaust products as they are spewed willy nilly into the environment.

A more realistic look at Chernobyl's effects find less than 100 deaths from acute radiation sickness and a few hundred cases of thyroid disease because the population was deficient in dietary iodine and absorbed too much of the radioactive isotope in the first three weeks after the accident before it decayed away to safe levels. If you consume the appropriate amounts of iodine in your diet then you are relatively immune to the thyroid issue that caused most of the harm after Chernobyl. Nobody in Japan suffered the same issue as a result of Fukushima and with the media hysteria you must realize a mass breakout of thyroid illness would have been headlines around the world.

Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?

[Tanada]

Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?

What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.

[GHung]

Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?

What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.

Oh,,,, and who is going to pay the de-fueling costs if everything has crashed and there's no money for it?

[KaiserJeep]

Far from being financial burdens, nuclear commercial power plants have long been profit centers for the utilities that own them. Nor have any decommisioned plants ever been abandonned or been any type of hazard for surrounding populations.

If you want to understand some real hazards, look into the management and mismanagement of coal ash from commercial power plants. They literally are the most dangerous form of power generation. Meanwhile fools obsess over nuclear power, in truth the safest by a huge factor.

The numbers say that coal kills ONE MILLION TIMES as many people as nuclear. If you know something we should be considering, or a better way of measuring safety than counting actual human casualties from energy generation, please share.

[GHung]

Far from being financial burdens, nuclear commercial power plants have long been profit centers for the utilities that own them. Nor have any decommisioned plants ever been abandonned or been any type of hazard for surrounding populations.

If you want to understand some real hazards, look into the management and mismanagement of coal ash from commercial power plants. They literally are the most dangerous form of power generation. Meanwhile fools obsess over nuclear power, in truth the safest by a huge factor.

The numbers say that coal kills ONE MILLION TIMES as many people as nuclear. If you know something we should be considering, or a better way of measuring safety than counting actual human casualties from energy generation, please share.

Assumes BAU for a long, long time.

[onlooker]

Assumes BAU for a long, long time.----
That is the conundrum isn't. Can Nuclear exist safely within the context of a declining and chaotic downturn of modern civilization. I am persuaded by Tanada that Nuclear could have been a real effective answer to humanities energy needs . But the caveat is that serious financial turmoil seems to be on the horizon and in this context it Nuclear may not be all that feasible

[onlooker]

Don't ya get it? Rockhead educated us that 99.999% of the populace believes in fake money and doesn't concern itself with peakoil.com

What kind of energy system can fake money buy?

Nothing, of course.-----You are preaching to the choir SL. I am with you, perhaps I should have said devastating and not just serious
And a devastating financial collapse means NO transition of any kind
So, keep up the good work Starve, showing what a sham of a world economy, we have now!

[Tanada]

Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?

What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.

Oh,,,, and who is going to pay the de-fueling costs if everything has crashed and there's no money for it?

If everything crashes that fast then you will have much bigger issues to worry about than whether the nuclear plant next door or three states over has been defueled and placed in cold shut down mode.

Provided things do not collapse in overnight fashion scramming the reactor and keeping the cooling system operating for 90-120 days even without defueling the reactor vessel will effectively make the system 'safe' as in the residual heat will no longer be a threat to the integrity of the fuel elements or pressure vessel.

Ceramic fuel pellets are frickin hardy material and so long as they get the minimum cooling needed during the few weeks when it is critical they become safe to mostly ignore after that point in time. Sure they are still radioactive and you shouldn't carry them around in your pocket, but they are locked inside a thick steel pressure vessel in water, not laying around in pieces small enough for some foolish person to pick up and carry away. It takes a lot of energy to breech that reactor vessel, break open the fuel bundle and then cut up a fuel rod into small enough pieces to carry away by hand. At the same time those elements are dangerous they are also physically quite hot, as in hot enough to cause some serious burns if you pick them up in your hands, which makes them even more difficult to extract, break open and carry off in small pieces. By the time 18 months has passed from shut down they are no longer in need of water cooling, simple air convection will be enough to keep them from warping and losing their zirconium cladding.

[Subjectivist]

When he posts some actual facts I will take them into account. All I have seen so far is hysterical science denial expressed as babbling panic.

[Subjectivist]

Of course the pseudo-greens hate nuclear power, it provdes cheaper steady power than their preffered intermittenent technologies!

[asg70]

8 year thread bumps accomplish little besides exposing more bad predictions. This one is wrong on multiple levels:

"Obamanation out of there, we will start building nuclear reactors. Caribou Barbie Palin will make sure of it."

[KaiserJeep]

A tale of two nuclear plants on Lake Michigan (all info from Wikipedia):

1) Kewaunee Power station was the 4th built in Wisconsin and the 44th built in the USA. Construction began August 6, 1968, the plant was commissioned on June 16, 1974. Operation was uneventful, there was a minor water leak on April 27, 2006, although no radioactivity was released and the plant remained operational. In 2008, application was made to the NRC for an extension of the original operating license for another 20 years, this was granted, the plant could have remained in operation until 2033, and further extensions could have been applied for and probably would have been granted.

On October 22, 2012, Dominion Resources announced they would shut down and decommission the plant in Mid-2013. Dominion's chairman and CEO said "the decision was based purely on economics. Dominion was not able to move forward with our plan to grow our nuclear fleet in the Midwest to take advantage of economies of scale". Lower natural gas costs and resultant lower electricity prices created an electricity market in which the plant could not compete. The plant came offline permanently on May 7, 2013.[2][5] Plans for decommissioning are uncertain: as a private owner rather than a public utility, Dominion cannot rely on charges imposed on utility customers by state regulators; however, the firm has a substantial reserve fund earmarked for this purpose and a cause of action against the Department of Energy for failure to remove spent fuel. There is also the chance that the energy market might improve due to economic or political changes.[2]

The SAFSTOR (SAFe STORage) nuclear decommissioning option was selected. During SAFSTOR, the de-fuelled plant is monitored for up to sixty years before complete decontamination and dismantling of the site, to a condition where nuclear licensing is no longer required. During the storage interval, some of the radioactive contaminants of the reactor and power plant will decay, which will reduce the quantity of radioactive material to be removed during the final decontamination phase. A reduced workforce will move fuel assemblies from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.[6]

Construction cost: $776.15M (2007 dollars). One 566 MW PWR which averaged 84% of rated capacity for 40 years and could probably have done so for another 40 years after that, assuming a second 20-year extensoin had been applied for and granted. Lifetime average annual power output was 3,752GWh. This was more expensive than natural gas fired power plants, not counting any expenses arising from the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas, of course.

The reactor was defuelled and the usable fuel is stored in the "Moon Pool" of the nearby (and still operational) Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The reactor main and emergency cooling systems remain operational, and lake water is being circulated contunuously. Even if the station were to be abandonned, there is no longer any need to actively cool the defuelled reactor core. Tons of cooled spent fuel rods still exist at the site in buried dry cask storage, awaiting the US Government to fulfill it's promise of permanent storage - or recycling as new fuel.

Kewaunee cannot be safely reactivated and re-licensed. It falls short of current requirements for a new NRC license, and cannot be safely modified to current spec for decades to come.

2) The Point Beach Nuclear Plant is located a few miles South of the decommissioned Kewaunee plant. Again Wikipedia:

On November 28, 1966, following Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) endorsement and a brief public hearing, Alfred Gruhl, Glenn Reed, and Sol Burstein[4] turned the first symbolic spades of dirt for the official ground-breaking. In May, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued the official construction permit (number 32) for Point Beach Unit 1. The Unit 2 construction permit (number 47) was issued approximately a year later.[4]

On October 5, 1970, the AEC issued its full-term, full-power Operating License (DPR-24) for Point Beach Unit 1. The loading fuel into the reactor commenced almost immediately. On November 2, 1970, operators achieved initial criticality, with the nuclear-powered electricity being produced for days later, on November 6. Full commercial service was reached on December 21, 1970, just 49 months from the initial groundbreaking ceremony. After delays from nuclear power opponents, Unit 2 was granted a full-term, full-power operating license (DPR-27) on March 8, 1973, almost 1 1/2 years behind the original schedule.[4]

Due to steam generator tube degradation and failures caused by intergranular stress corrosion cracking, Unit 1 was operated at approximately 75-80% of full power from December, 1979 until October 1983, when replacement steam generators were installed.[5] The Unit 2 steam generators were replaced in 1996-97.[6]

In 2005, the approved the license renewal application for the Point Beach plant, extending the operating license from forty years to sixty.[7][8] in 2011, the NRC approved a 17% increase in power output (a.k.a. extended power uprate) from both units. This entailed significant upgrades to several plant systems and components, including safety-related pumps and valves, as well as the turbine-generator sets.[9]

Present nameplate capacity at Point Beach is 1182 MW. Average annual energy produced is 10,153 GWh, cheaper than natural gas. Since going online it has averaged 98.06% of capacity, and has a perfect safety record with no radioactives released. Several failures have occurred in the (multiple redundant) steam turbines, and the re-designed units are proving considerably better than the originals.

Conclusion: Both of these plants had unblemished safety records with no nuclear accidents. Both are/were regarded as good places to work by the locals. One is profitable because it has twin reactors and multiple turbine generator sets. The smaller of the two had essentially the same expenses for security and operations, but could not produce enough power to compete with fracked natural gas.

There are some beautiful beaches near to and even between these two power stations, and the area is cheap and uncrowded, and I'm interested. I'd much rather live near to one or both of these sites than any of several coal plants in the state, all of which have heavily contaminated the areas around them with toxics (including radioactives) from the stacks. This legacy of coal is a major problem from coast to coast, but mainly in the NorthEast.

[AdamB]

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

[dissident]

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

[dohboi]

Armed raid on nuclear workers' housing raises fears over Brazil's two reactors

This kind of thing will occur more and more frequently with worse and worse outcome as we go further and further down the rabbit whole of societal collapse...

then all the wet dreams of 'clean, free, un-meterable nuke power' will rapidly turn into horrific living nightmares...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ctor-armed

[Subjectivist]

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

Does lead corrde Titanium? I am thinking maybe a lead pool reactor with Titanium coolant pipes moving liquid zinc coolant from the core to the steam generator/heat exchanger.

[vox_mundi]

Russia's floating power plant clear for operation

Russian State Expert Examination Board (Glavgosexpertiza) has approved the operation of the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov. The authority said on 9 December it had approved the project in Russia's northernmost city of Pevek that is being funded by Rosenergoatom, the nuclear power plant operator subsidiary of Rosatom.

Currently moored at the Baltiysky Zavod shipyard in Saint Petersburg, Akademik Lomonosov houses two 35 MW KLT-40S nuclear reactors, similar to those used in Russia's nuclear-powered ice breakers.

Ships carrying cargo to support Akademik Lomonosov arrived at the port of Pevek, in the Chukotka district of Russia, in October last year. The plant is to be towed to Murmansk in May, be loaded with fuel in October and commissioned in November next year.

The plant is intended to replace the outgoing capacity of the Bilibino nuclear power plant in the Chukotka district. The first Bilibino unit is scheduled to be shut down in 2019 and the whole plant will be shut down in 2021.

[dissident]

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

Does lead corrde Titanium? I am thinking maybe a lead pool reactor with Titanium coolant pipes moving liquid zinc coolant from the core to the steam generator/heat exchanger.

Titanium should be quite resistant to corrosion by other metals. The oxide layer it forms is something else (and why welding of titanium requires a no oxygen atmosphere). One of the tricks used to operate with a lead coolant in a steel alloy pipe network is to force oxidation of the iron.

[Plantagenet]

NASA testing a tiny nuclear power plant the size of wastebasket that can power a Mars base.

nuclear-reactors-mars



This new design for a tiny nuclear power plant is a big breakthrough....

The same tiny nuclear reactor that can power up a Mars base or Mars Rover could also be used to power an EV or a house back here on earth.

Cheers!