A Question on Nuclear Power

[NeedleCast]

I am a DU'er who has, for the most part, suported nuclear power. The situation in Japan is making me re-examine this, however, I will do so without having a knee-jerk reaction.

So, a poll.

Would you support nuclear power if the following conditions were met?

1. Nuclear power to be run by non-profit organizations. Reactors built and maintained at tax payer expense.
2. Reactors to be built using the latest, most efficient, least waseful models.
3. Reactors to be built in areas at lowest risk for natural disaster.

[FreakinDJ]

1. I think they need Full Time - On Site NRC Inspectors

Some one on site full time who is paid by and reports directly to the NRC

Who has the regulatory power to suspend or direct ALL operations of the plant

[Statistical]

2. They do, 2 of them. They are also required to live within 20 miles of the planet.

Many onsite inspectors have families living in the shadow of the plant.

Still I think an inspector can only go so far. I believe in nuclear power but I believe they should be governmental entities.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Not an Inspector but a Director

who has the power to Yea or Nea any and all operations with the power to cease and desist or direct any and all operations

Not an Overseer but a Czar

[KittyWampus]

7. The NRC is a corrupt extension of corporate malfeasance. Here are FACTS:

More than half of America's nuclear plants have received new twenty-year operating licenses. In fact, the NRC has not rejected a single license-renewal application. Many of these plants have also received "power up-rates" that allow them to run at up to 120 percent of their originally intended capacity. That means their systems are subjected to unprecedented amounts of heat, pressure, corrosion, stress and embrittling radiation.

These undead nukes are highly dangerous. But constant, careful (and expensive) inspection and maintenance would mitigate the risks. Unfortunately, the NRC does not require anything like that. And the industry often operates in a cavalier profit-before-safety style.

http://www.thenation.com/article/zombie-nuke-plants?page=full

[Statistical]

9. So the onsite inspector is allowing unsafe plants to operate despite being at ground zero.

I mean does that make much sense to you? Really.

Hell if I look the otherway this plant might blow up and kill me and my family but since the NRC is so corrupt I guess I will do it anyways.

Kinda amazing that there has been no civilians killed by nuclear power in the US given your claim of essentially no oversight and rampant corruption. What are the odds that nobody would be killed in 50 years despite over 100 plants operating (5,000 reactor years)?

It would be like winning the Powerball ... twice ... back to back.

[KittyWampus]

13. Read the article. It's from The Nation which is journalistically reliable.

[William769]

3. I hate to say it but this is one topic

I just can't figure out. I see the pros & cons on both sides.

[NeedleCast]

6. I think that's a fair assessment of practiclly all types of power generation

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Reactors are always built using the latest models.

:crazy:

The problem is the human incapacity to contemplate worst case scenarios. There always seems to be a worse one that "no one could have known".

[KittyWampus]

15. Further, the "latest model" becomes antiquated but the regulators refuse to shut them down.

[bananas]

18. No - that's not correct - China is building a lot of old models, and so are other countries

The new models are more expensive, even France has been considering going back to its older models.

[Statistical]

8. Number 2 is a non issue.

Nobody builds old reactor designs. Newer plants are more efficient, run longer, have fewer outages, and can go further between refueling. All that means higher return. All the plants under consideration in the US right now are GenIII+. It simply makes no sense for a company to build anything but the latest.

Reactors have HUGE construction cost and the interest is massive also. However operating costs are very very low. 95% of lifetime plant cost is construction. This means once constructed you need a plant to work 100% of the time. 24/7 for 18 months straight with no outages, failures, or expensive shutdowns.

Some of the newest plants built in the US (1980s) achieve 97% uptime. The 3% downtime is their refuel and maintenance outage. Older plants just can't compete. GenIII reactors will be able to achieve higher burnup and thus go 24 months between refuelings.

[NeedleCast]

10. Thanks

Was not aware of some of those things. I imagined that most "first world" contries would always build the latest designs. Didn't know if a country like China, for example, might cut corners and build older/less safe (presumably cheaper) reactors.

[Statistical]

11. Sadly so far china is building more GenIII+ reactors than every other country combined.

If we stop building new reactors we will simply burn more coal and run older plants longer.
In 30 years we may have a horribly old set of nuclear plants backed up by large amounts of coal while China is riding high on a fleet of 300+ state of the art GenIII+ reactors.

China is doing another smart thing. They are testing various designs and based on results will pick a single design, then build 200+ of that single reactor design. Hundreds of nuclear power plants all identical. Exactly the same. So far it looks like the plant will be the AP1000. China is working with Westinghouse to design an enhanced version CAP1400 with the intellectual property rights owned by China. Sadly China is 2 decades ahead of us on this issue. In 30 years they may be the global leader in energy technology (solar, wind, nuclear).

[NeedleCast]

12. I admit I have a weak level of knowldge about actual reactors

Do you have some links that would explain what the differences are between older and newer reactors (preferably in terms that wouldn't require me to have a nuclear physics or engineering degree to underestand)?

[Statistical]

17. The biggest difference with Gen III+ plants is passive safety.

Gen I plants were the first designs. They were simply copied from military designs and adapted for power usage. Small inefficient, and lacking many redundant features they are ill suited for long term power generation. Luckily all have been scrapped.

An example of an GenI reactor is Shippingport (first nuclear power facility in the US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station

Gen II plants were the first designed specifically for power. They began to appear in late 1960s. While optimized for power they are based on 1960s technology. Think about how inefficient, and unsafe vehicles from the 1960s were compared to today. The understanding of nuclear fuel was limited so they have short refueling periods, large down times, they also often lack redundancy (for example the GE MK I in Japan only has 2 primary cooling loops while newer designs have 4). Most were designed for 20-30 year lifespans because understanding of nuclear economics was limited. Conventional plants last 20 years why not nuclear plants. They also tended to be small (150MW - 380MW) because designers were thinking like conventional plants which hampered economics. Larger nuclear reactors are more efficient.

An example of a GenII reactor is the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor


Gen III plant designs appeared in late 70s. They tend to have much higher efficiencies and safety is improved by redundancy (4 primary cooling loops instead of two and each cooling loop could Independently cool the reactor when SCAMMED). Fuel burnup is improved so they produce more power for a given ton of fuel and can go longer for between refueling. The largest change was size. 500MW, 600MW, 800MW, even 1200MW were produced. A single large reactor is more efficient and safer than numerous smaller reactors. They incorporate some significant design changes enacted by the NRC like separate fuel handling building. The spent and new fuel ponds are in a separate building from reactor connected by a tunnel. Sadly few Gen III plants were built in the US because of TMI, this is where the US fell behind other countries like Japan and France in nuclear technology. New construction halted and we just kept using older plants longer.



An example of GenIII reactors is the ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Boiling_Water_Reactor


Gen III+ plants are circa 2000 designs. They offer much better safety and redundancy compared to Gen III plants. The major change is passive safety. Safety systems that require no humans and no electricty. The AP1000 (being built in China and hopefully GA) for example can cool itself with no electricity, no pumps, and no human intervention for 7 days. To extend that the emergency coolant tank needs to be refilled within 7 days. They also have improved control systems, uptime, and are designed from the ground up to last longer - 80 year lifespan. Rather than push older designs into longer and longer lifespans Gen III+ plants are built with a more realistcly long lifespan in mind. Lastly economics have improved. Fuel burnup is even higher and 24 months refueling are possible.

The NRC requires pre-certification of GenIII+ plants and every plant must be built exactly the same. An AP1000 reactor in TX will be exactly the same as an AP1000 in VA. Currently every reactor is custom built. Even reactors on the same plant may have differences. Any future reactors built would be GenIII+.

An example of GenIII+ reactor is the AP1000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

Gen IV reactors are future designs not yet ready for commercial development. Designs like Gas Cooled Fast Reactor. There is no water coolant. The reactor is designed to operate at very high temperature and nothing enters the core except inert helium. It needs no heat exchanger and can drive a turbine directly. Removing water from the reactor allows higher efficiencies and prevents the issue of a hydrogen explosion. Fast Reactors can be used to produce nuclear fuel (breeders) thus making nuclear energy completely renewable. With enough fast reactors we wouldn't even need to mine uranium ever again. Fast reactors can burnup nuclear waste and produce fuel for conventional reactors.

[bananas]

20. China is cutting corners and building older designs - and their scientists have warned against it.

[BeFree]

14. Waste

What is to be done with the old fuel and the contaminated hardware?

Who is going to pay for the 100's of years controlling the waste?

Nukes are not cost feasible because of the deadly waste.

[KittyWampus]

16. #2 is an issue 40 years down the road when those "new models" are old models getting life extensions

from the NRC despite worn out parts etc.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Not to mention at some point, a Republican (most likely) will come along and say

"The for profit free market; could this handle this much more efficiently" and then do their best to switch control to that.

[bananas]

19. Wrong - China is building a lot of old reactor designs - and they've been warned not to

by scientists in their country.

[retread]

24. They are also developing thorium generator technology.

[bananas]

31. So was Germany and South Africa - they gave up on it

The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor was another hyped-up thorium reactor that never lived up to the hype.
South Africa wasted a lot of time and money on it before realizing it was a waste of time and money.

[retread]

23. GenIV reactors are even more promising.

[BeFree]

25. What is the promise?

Even more waste? More pools?

I don't get it. The nukers remind me of snakes that promise not to bite. Snakes bite. Nukes bite.

[Statistical]

26. Some Gen IV designs can be fuel by so called spent fuel. Burning up some of the long lived isotopes.

Reducing the amount of waste. If you were really worried about the waste you would be supporting research into Gen IV reactors.

Lets see:
* don't support deep geological repository
* don't support properly storing spent fuel under govt control
* don't support research into designs that could burn up spent fuel and reduce the amount of waste.

Pretty much what i expected. Head in the sand.

[BeFree]

27. You have sand in you head?

Is that what you are saying?

Because nothing you have written comes from me.

I see you ducking and weaving and making stuff up as you go.
Why is that?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

29. You would endanger Americans in an attempt to expand dirty dangerous nuclear power.

And you have been misinforming people right here claiming that older designs are not being built.

[Statistical]

33. Every reactor under construction in China is a newer design than anything in US.

With the exception of two reactors started 5 years ago, even those are Gen II PWR and PHWR comparable to US and Canadian reactors. Those are the last of the Gen II reactors to be built in China. There have been no new GenII reactor starts in last 5 years, and none planned for future.

China has 4x AP1000 reactors, 2x EPR, and 15x CPR-1000 reactors under construction.
Every single one is a newer and safer design than every reactor in operation in the US.

[BeFree]

30. Links?

No. You have no links of me writing those words.

You are making all of it up for some reason.

[BeFree]

37. Hello?

Where'd ya go?

Looking for those links?
Why can't you find those links?
Maybe because those are NOT my words. You just made it up, right?

[bananas]

32. You are misinforming people by saying that older designs aren't being built.

I'm not going to call you a liar, because you probably didn't know it, you are just grossly misinformed and don't really know what you're talking about.

[Statistical]

35. No you are mistaken.

China has two Gen II reactors under construction they began in 2005. There are no new GenII reactors planned in China.

The other 21 reactors under construction are modern designs (EPR, AP1000, CPR-1000). All are more advanced than every operating plant in the US.

[bananas]

36. "Only China is building Gen-II units today in such large numbers, with 57 (53.14 GWe) on the books"

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

In January 2011 a report from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters, was published. While approving the enormous progress made on many fronts, it cautioned concerning provincial and corporate enthusiasm for new nuclear power plants and said that the 2020 target should be restricted to 70 GWe of new plant actually operating so as to avoid placing undue demand on quality control issues in the supply chain. Another 30 GWe could be under construction. It emphasised that the priority needed to be resolutely on Generation-III technology, notably the AP1000 and derivatives. However, ambitious targets to deploy AP1000s with reduced foreign input had proved difficult, and as a result, more of the Generation-II CPR-1000 units are under construction or on order. Only China is building Gen-II units today in such large numbers, with 57 (53.14 GWe) on the books4.

[Statistical]

38. They are GenII+ more advanced, and safer than any plant in the US.

CPR-1000.

China is only building 3 reactor designs.

CPR-1000
EPR (lots of delays and problems they have suspended all future orders).
AP1000

All are more advanced that any plant we have operating in the US.


From the same article....

CPR-1000

The CPR-1000 is a significantly upgraded version of the 900 MWe-class French three-loop technology imported for the Daya Bay nuclear power plant in the 1980s. Known as the 'improved Chinese PWR' and designated Generation II+, it features digital instrumentation and control and a design life of 60 years. Its 157 fuel assemblies have core melt frequency of 1x10-5 and a release probability an order of magnitude lower than this.

Standard construction time is 52 months, and the unit cost is under CNY 10,000 (US$ 1500) per kilowatt. With a capacity of 1080 MWe gross (1037 MWe net), Ling Ao Phase II is the first plant to be designated as the CPR-1000 design. The CPR-1000 is being widely and quickly deployed for domestic use.

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) led the development of the CPR-1000 and has established a nearly complete domestic supply chain. However, Areva retains intellectual property rights, which constrains overseas sales since the Chinese would need agreement from Areva on a case-by-case basis.

CGNPC refers to later units as CPR-1000+, incorporating design improvements which bring it close to Generation III standard. Of more significance is its evolution to the ACPR-1000 with full Chinese intellectual property rights and which CGNPC expects to make available for local build and overseas markets from 2013.

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

The best US reactors are rated to core melt frequency of 1 in 50,000 operating years. Making these reactors significnatly safer and the Chinese plan to modify the design to meet GenIII+ requirements. Even the reactor it was based on the French 900MWe 3 loop PWR is more advanced than 90% of our reactors.

[bananas]

34. The nuclear promise-keepers - sounds like a conservative religious cult.

[SidDithers]

22. I support nuclear power...

and am glad that we use CANDU designs up here. No need for enriched uranium, though we do produce more tritium than other PWRs.

Sid