Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.
Comments
-
Really...
When was the last time you checked the facts and looked at the options...?
Your numbers are so far out of line to make them... laugable. And you forgot lots of stuff...
The fact that some research fuel cells cost money and did not last long. What is new about that. All technologies go through that. The first generation wind power generators died quick and financially painfull deaths (so did the second generation, and the third generation is not holding up so well either - the current 4th generation ones are looking better): none of which would have been possible without substiantial federal governement funding.
Early nuclear generation had lots of research money spent as well (but that was over 30 years ago). Clean coal & high efficiency power plant technology continually gobbles money (and I can pull out the numbers if you need them).
In fact, fuel cells last a long time in some applications today. Utility size power modules have been built with expected lives of a decade or more - and more are being built.
But, you are correct that at this point - small portable units have not proven very long term reliable.
Besides, I'm not sure that fuel cells will win out... Ye old internal combustion engine may well be the engine of choice due to its reliability and durability (dispite its inherent inefficiency). They work just fine.
That does not change the fact that I believe we will be operating on Hydrogen 50 years from now - and it will be from nuclear.
The reason for that is very simple: Nuclear is the only large scale power generation we have that is also very economical. Period. Nothing is expected to change that. Wind power will always be at least twice the cost and is not base load reliable (we have now gotten far enough along to know that wind power will not become much more economical than it is now - the cost of wind turbines is no longer decresing much), Solar electric power is extreemely expensive and has real limitations. Biomass has limited capabilities. Coal is fairly cheap but an environmental disaster from many angles (not to mention the 5000+ people killed every year mining coal).
When you look at the US and world energy consumption - where it comes from, and the cost of each segment... Nuclear sticks out like a swollen sore thumb as the most economical large scale reliable power production method.
Worldwide nuclear units are the lowest cost power production - which is why there are about 30 nuclear units under construction at any time in the world.
Before you claim that foreign nuclear units don't meet US standards: Nuclear is the lowest cost power producer in the US too... (and that includes Prepaid disposal cost at a rate twice what Yuka mountain - or another deep disposal site is every expected to cost, disaster insurance, etc).
Here is the reference:
www.nei.org/documents/U.S._Electricity_Production_Costs.pdf
Oh, and no Greenhouse gases either; and lots of high paying jobs too.
I can't imagine where you came up with 10,000 nuclear units.
20% of the US electricity is produced with 104 1st generation older and smaller nuclear units. 100 new generation units would produce at least 33% and perhaps 40% of US electrical consumption.
About 400-500 nuclear current generatiohn sized units (1200 - 1500 MW) would produce 80-90% of US electrical consumption and most light vehicle transportation fuel.
While people are indeed talking about the limits on Uranium; no one is seeing any shortages that would affect the constrcution of several hundred uranium cycle nuclear units in the US and about 1000 worldwide.
Beyond that, there is much more thorium available than Uranium (many times as much). The first experimental thorium reactors are now being designed and built so that we can get the data needed to design power reactors with thorium. I suspect that you will see thorium based power reactors designed within 10 years in countries like India that has huge thorium deposits.
Then there is fuel recycling and even breeder reactors.
The US is the only major nuclear country that does not recycle its fuel. Over 80% of the usefull Uranium is still in our used fuel. It also dramatically reduces disposal problems (like stick the worst stuff back in a reactor to burn it down).
Breader reactors create more fuel than they use... As long as we are willing to go to a plutonium based reactors and reprocess we will never run out of fuel.
In the last decade or so much of the surplus uranium from Soviet and US bomb programs (from the dismantled warheads) has been downbleneded into reactor fuel. Now they are shifting to downbleanding and using surplus bomb plutonium in reactors. Admitedly, the surplus bomb material stockpile will run out in a few decades at the most - but it sure was a nice way to dispose of bomb grade materials.
However, the very reason that currently demand for uranium exceeds mining output (supply) is that many mines were shut down while surplus bomb material was being used to fuel power reactors. Those mines will be reopeining now. There is no long term shortage expected for many decades - even if we stay on the uranium cycle.
I am also not upset at a cost of $3 - $5 Billion for a modern nuclear power plant. Have you looked at the cost of a coal fired one?
Currently Wisonsin we are leading the nation with new baseload coal power plants. Oak Creak has 1230 MW under construction - expected cost will be about $2.5 Billion dollars.
Now I chose that project as a comparison because it just so happens that many of the new nuclear units will be about 1200 MW as that is the size of the Westinghouse AP-1000. Wisconsin has another 400 MW coal fired unit under construction and is planning on building another 500 MW coal fired unit.
So a 1200 MW nuclear unit will cost $3 Billion or more. Not that much more than a coal fired plant. Fuel cost for nuclear generation is about 0.45 Cents per KW/Hr. Fuel cost for coal fired genearation is well over a cent per KW/Hr (most coal plants fuel cost ranges between 1 - 2 Cents per KW/Hr depending on how far the coal has to be transported).
What is amazing, is that with the requirments for more polution controls on coal plants.... we may soon reach a point where a nuclear plant will cost less to build than a coal plant... (at least in the US where we have lots of pollution controls on our coal plants). Should carbon sequestering or a carbon tax be imposed - I think coal plants will become uneconomical entirely when compared to nuclear plants.
What has been holding nuclear back in the US is the very extreem regulatory process that is also very costly. The last 5 nuclear units that came on line in the US took an average of almost 20 years to get permitted after the initial permits were filed; and given the way US power plants are financed (you could not collect a penny until the plant went on line...) it killed the industry - billions upon billions of interest built up, some plants never came on line and the investors lost their shirts.
Most countries in the world permit nuclear power plants in 1-3 years.
There will never be another power plant permitted under the old Chapter 50 process; and the NRC has been developing a new Chapter 54 process with the goal of 5 years to permit a power plant assuming you start with a preapproved reactor design. No one in the US will spend much for construction until they have all the permits in hand either.
The three companies going through the first steps of this process (Early Site Permits)have experinced delays and it currently looks like the total process will be about 7 years. But, the NRC is focusing on getting a process that can take 5 years assuming that you start with a preapproved reactor design.
I note that the US NRC has preapproved 3 or 4 nuclear power plant designs (which took 4-5 years per design) - and the permitting process using these preapproved designs is still currently at 7+ years.
The US NRC has the most stringent regualtory process and requirments in the world. There is not another country in the world who will not allow a US NRC preapproved power plant design to be built without question in their country (Japan has done so, and China just signed contracts for the Westinghouse AP-1000).
As far as hydrogen pipelines. If they are needed they will be built. They will cost no more than all the existing oil and gas pipelines. Building all of those did not bankrupt the country. The oil industry already has a hydrogenn pipeline network between refineries.
How the hydrogen will be produced: The leading edge will in fact be electolysis. The US Oil companies did a study in about building nuclear power plants in Texas to generate hydrogen for their oil refineries.
They need hydrogen to crack heavy petroleum into lighter grades like gasoline and diesel. Currently they use a process that strips the carbon from natural gas (and there already is a hydrogen pipeline network to supply refineries).
Their conclusion: It would be economical to build nuclear plants to produce hydrogen via electolysis for oil production now... if the cost of getting through the regulatory process was known.
My understanding is that the oil companies are just waiting for the first power plants to clear so that they understand the cost and they are ready to propose and fund 4 to 6 nuclear power plants just for the production of hydrogen to supply the oil refineries in Texas and Lousiana.
Now how hard will it be to fuel vehicles with hydrogen in those areas once these plants are built? Piece of cake... You think that the oil companies might see an option for them for the future...
In the end; it will be initially cheaper to transmit electricity (very high voltage transmission has very low losses) to local electrolysis plants to supply local fueling stations with hydrogen.
There are theories about using high temperature gas reactors to produce hydrogen more efficienty and cheaply from water. If it can be done, that technology is probably 40 years away from commercial development- although their will probably be the first research high temperature gas reactor and hydrogen production process plant built in about 10 years (on a very small scale).
Overall, the cost of going nuclear in the US is a lot cheaper than the alternatives of depending on coal, oil, wind power, solar energy, etc.
That is not to say that wind power and solar energy cannot play a part. Just they will not meet the bulk of the US and world energy needs.
Overall, the cost of constructin of a nuclear power & hydrogen infastructure is comparable to the cost of rebuilding our existing infastructure (pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, oil refineries, all have to be replaced over time). Either way, we get to pay a lot of money in the future.
Perry0 -
WOW
Just checked in after being away for a bit,and what thread. Very interesting.
I was listening to "Coast to Coast" over the weekend (a late night talk show) and they were discussing the "inconvenient truth" and its inconsistancies.
Like while we are talking about climate change, climate studies take a 30 year span of time, and since the last one, we haven't had 30 years....so right now its only conjecture. That although the average oceanic temps have risen 1°C, it is a KNOWN and PROVEN fact that the themometers used,and the testing method changed, and that the very FIRST recorded temps after this was the greatest increase in oceanic temperatures, it has been very stable since.
Lastly there is a photo, or something about a dry lake somewhere in the former USSR, with boats on dirt because there is no water in the lake. Well that is a true untouched picure...unfortunately there is no water there because all 20 tributory rivers feeding it were dammed for a hydroelectric plant..and the boat is from people that did not remove theirs before the dam was commisioned.
I truly support environmental actions, and do what I can, and I than Al for spreading the message of conservationism, but I also have found and heard of too many errors and mis representations...I posted this more as an interesting thing than a criticism, but the resulting thread certainly is entertaining reading. (Perry and Brad in particular post incredible facts and excellent posts.)
SAVE THE WHALES!!!
(collect the whole set)0 -
It has
been very convenient reading about all the inconvenience in the world.
:-))
Jack0 -
Most of our
family has long supported "nukular" given that most are in science and engineering related fields with one former member in the nuclear industry. My Dad (electrical engineer) was involved in the design of a small hydro plant to run a paper mill soon after he got out of college.
Everyday we see examples of electrical use that just make you wonder. Drive along any sizeable highway and at the ramps or interections there are these hugh lamp clusters mounted on very high poles that provide daylight within a 1/2 mile diameter whether there is roadway all around the lamp or not. Every new and used car lot is lit to daylight levels all night long.
In my small town there are about eighty 250 watt HPS lamps along a waterfront walkway that are on from dusk to dawn. They are acorn lamps, the most wasteful design available where more than 50% of the light goes above the 90* horizontal plane. In fact there is a law in Maine that expressly forbids these lamps where government money is used for their purchase. It is routinely ignored.
In the winter, the walkway is not plowed and no one uses it. It costs approx. $14,000 per year for power. If they were on timers for 5 hours a night (winter and summer) the cost goes down to $6500 per year. If they were replaced with 150 watt lamps designed to actually illuminate the walkway and immediate surrounding area, the cost goes down to $4200 per year. There must be thousands of walkways and sidewalks like this where just the right fixture would cut out a powerplant or two.
I use this to calculate lighting power consumption.
http://www.selene-ny.org/lightcost.asp0 -
Then he'd ask
how come so many people misunderestimate him....
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Found this information too.
> been very convenient reading about all the
> inconvenience in the world.
>
> :-))
>
> Jack
Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"
10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocols energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the worlds population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate wont vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.
Dont demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europes CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?
Given Al Gores proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.
9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that wealthier is healthier and cleaner. Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europes former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide (in other words, bailing them out).
8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning witches. The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.
7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.
Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized Summary for Policy Makers of the UNs IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.
6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!
For some reason, Al Gores computerized polar bear cant swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?
5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of mans greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?
4. The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.
3. Climate was stable until man came along.
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as witches were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The hockey stick chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UNs alarmist repertoire.
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming consensus to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).
What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earths atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.
Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.
1. Its hot in here!
In fact, Its the baseline, stupid. Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe thats why the greens tried global cooling first.
The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. On record obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of sprawl (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.
0 -
Found this information too.
Again I am sharing the information, not making judgements. I agree with conservationism (for both financial and personal reasons) but am having a hard time believing in global warming from what I have found. Summers are still hot, and winters are cold
Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"
10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocols energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the worlds population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate wont vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.
Dont demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europes CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?
Given Al Gores proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.
9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that wealthier is healthier and cleaner. Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europes former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide (in other words, bailing them out).
8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning witches. The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.
7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.
Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized Summary for Policy Makers of the UNs IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.
6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!
For some reason, Al Gores computerized polar bear cant swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?
5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of mans greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?
4. The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.
3. Climate was stable until man came along.
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as witches were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The hockey stick chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UNs alarmist repertoire.
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming consensus to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).
What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earths atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.
Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.
1. Its hot in here!
In fact, Its the baseline, stupid. Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe thats why the greens tried global cooling first.
The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. On record obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of sprawl (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.
0 -
Nuclear is bright
Nuclear Power is better than global warming.
Even Stewart Brand said so two years ago. (One of the early environmentalists, the Whole Earth Catalog guy)
Technology Review article from May 2005
Much less CO2 than coal or gas, and even less CO2 than created with solar semiconductor mfg.0 -
nuclear security
Nuclear fission reactors and their byproducts would be very
useful to our enemies. It is the only generation technology which requires bulletproof, bombproof, impenetrable, incorruptible security 24/7, not just for a week or a month or a year, but indefinitely.
Perhaps Perry will chime in and tell us who pays the cost of maintaining squadrons of fighter planes ready to scramble at a moments notice, should a freshly fueled, fully loaded 747 (or two) stray from their scheduled course toward a nuke plant. Then there are the guys at Homeland Security gaming the scenarios and developing proper protocols for shooting down approaching aircraft. Let's not forget the FBI agents continually investigating employees of the nuke plants.
Are these ancillary costs figured in to the very low figures we see per kwh?
As Donald Rumsfeld would say there are many "unknown unknowns" involved in the operation of nuke plants, like what exactly would happen if the above-mentioned 747 collided with the containment vessel. We have a good set of calculations based on the properties of the materials when they were new 30, 40, or 50 years ago, but what are they really like now?
Since access to the "hot zone" is so restricted it's very easy to manage information flow. That is, until a valve assembly the size of a heavily loaded straight truck comes crashing down causing an automatic shutdown (this recently happened at the Monticello plant)steaming several thousand fish. Did they really not see the welds cracking? Was there a coverup? We'll never know. I do know that stuff like this happens on a daily basis in the US nuke industry and the company flaks can talk until they're blue in the face about how "all safety systems functioned as designed", it's not going to increase my confidence.
-JimH0 -
some of those
expenses you mention (jets on alert, FBI etc) are not new expenses, maybe increased, but htey have been there for ages.. In addition nuclear power plants would not neccessarily be the target..
remember the big east coast black out?
everyone thought it was a terrorist thing, but there wasn't a single rumour that it originated from a Nuke.
Truth is there are many more non-nuke power plants that we depend on.
Pery can chime in on whether the results of a 747 hitting a nuke plant have been simulted and what would be done (but I imagine that has already happened after 911)0 -
Interesting article! I wish the general public would get over their aversion to nuclear power and understand the implications of not fully utilizing it.
What really bothers me is the use of natural gas for electric power production. This is much too inherently valuable a fuel to use in a large scale power plant. A power plant has the economies of scale to make pollution control strategies possible and economical with other fuels. Not so with home heating. Other than for political expediency, it makes no sense to use natural gas to generate electric power. Rather it should be conserved and used for purposes like home heating, to which it is ideally suited.
I live near NYC, about 20 miles from a nuclear facility which has operated safely for almost 40 years. The politicians are constantly talking about trying to shut it down. What would they replace it with? A gas fired plant!
Just makes no sense to me!0 -
the new pebble bed reactors show promise, but conventional nuclear is a dead end street. If it weren't for government subsidies, they wouldn't even exist. Waste disposal costs are huge (and risky). And ultimately, they barely generate more energy than it takes to build, run, and decomission them.
the new pebble beds do seem quite interesting though...0 -
al gore=
equals another Michael Moore, uses a little bit of facts here and there to make a cute story......drama moma's
wonder if I can sell him some of my carbon credits?0 -
Speaking of Tesla...
check out this car. If you have the money, you can go 0-60 in 4 seconds and NEVER buy gas - it's all electric with a 250 mile range.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
Just figured I would toss the electric car idea into the mix...
Take Care, PJO0 -
Rob, could you show us
the level of subsidies for each type of currently used power plants and alternative power? It would be interesting to see not just the direct subsidies but the related ones also. For coal, the low cost mining rights and years of strip mining without land remediation would be also be a form of subsidy.
Have you seen any numbers on what reduction one might expect in health costs and related impact costs if coal mining and burning were not expanded as is anticipated?
>>>>If it weren't for government subsidies, they wouldn't even exist.<<<<0 -
Here's some info on just want happened with the recent "clean energy policy":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901128.html
The big winner? Nuclear. What's funny is no private investment firms have EVER built a nuclear power plant without government investment. Why? because it's not profitable on its own, with too much risk and liability.
we'd be far better off spending the money on proven alternatives like wave, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass... all kinds of stuff that works out there.
I'm not saying we should stick with coal. But our current nuclear technology is a dead end. the new pebble bed reactors MIGHT change that. But if we're building the same old reactors, it's a waste of it.
The Rocky Mountain Institute is a pretty sharp org focusing on energy and efficiency stuff. Here's some of what they have to say, which they go into in a lot more detail in some of their publications: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid305.php
0 -
Mind wide open
Apparently, the film is catching on in other areas of life as well.
Link
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Mark H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
OK Mark, I'm a believer!
I'm going green! Hope it doesn't hurt...
Rick0 -
Not just water vapur
This just in:
"Soot from the factories of Asia is changing weather across the Pacific Ocean and causing storms like the December howler that clobbered Vancouver's Stanley Park, a new study says.
For a change, scientists aren't blaming global warming for the increase in number and intensity of storms. The new study blames sooty, sulphurous coal smoke from Asian industry -- largely in China and India -- for altering the eastbound "storm track" in the Pacific.
Floating soot particles change the chemistry of the air, scientists say, making regular clouds form into towering storm clouds through convection, or rising warm air. And they say the effect could influence weather patterns around the world."
More at this link:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e28e0f63-8add-4f03-aa2e-f64a8499bad5&k=5988
0 -
They just don't get it.
Green love = more babies = more diapers + more energy to produce diapers which = more global warming + diapers in landfills. : (0 -
Not
if they use the bamboo condoms.
Mark H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Ouch !!!!!!!!!
0 -
I read today
China will pass the USA this year as being the most polluting country on earth. Wasn't China on the exempt list of the Kyoto Protocol due to it's status as a developing country? Maybe I'm mistaken..........
Granted, China does a lot of heavy manufacturing which is far more polluting than most "service" type industries are, but you have to remember that China doesn't want to match the US, it wants to beat us, be Numero Uno. This can only mean that the pollution presently emitted by that country is but the tip of the iceberg.
BTW, aren't we downwind of them?0 -
Stop telling me what to do Mr & Mrs Gore
First it was Tipper and the PMRC trying to stop us from listening to Heavy Metal. Now this - please leave us alone AL! Anyone ever read Animal Farm???0 -
It's a little bit different than what you indicate...
Golly;
This is almost too easy...
Lets start out with your first point. If this material was so usefull to our enemies... Ahh.... why don't they have it?
You are correct that here in the US the most publicized nuclear instalations (power plants) have robust security. I assure you that is not all US nuclear facilities - not by a long shot.
In fact; there are litterally tens of thousands of nuclear devices with "harmfull" radioactive elements in commercial companies possession with virtually no security at all.
If you look at the rest of the world you will see the same thing... only some countries do not have armed gaurds on their nuclear power plants. Like you can drive up to them - and walk in unimpeeded. A bunch of other countries have a fence and a gaurd shack you have to go through after signing in - and they don't search you (a lot like a lot of factories in the US)
Here in the US we have taken everything to an extreem. We litterally have a small army at each nuclear site - which is extreemly costly for the US; but is paid for as part of the production cost.
So I guess if someone - some enemy wanted to get some of that harmfull radiactive stuff... They would already have it. I assure you that anyone who knows what is out there could quickly assemble all they needed for a dirty bomb.
Of course - the Fear Mongers here in the US want people to think that nuclear power plants are the only source of this stuff - and that we must heavily guard the plants forever because of it.
Yawn... It seems that most of the rest of the world does not think so.
Should any 747 - or any other plane get hijacked with the intentionn of crashing it into something the US government will do their best to shoot it down. Regardless of the target.
Ever wonder why the 9-11 terrorist chose the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, etc to hit with airplanes... Because they are easy targets and would kill a lot of people.
Hitting a nuke plant is not easy (they are not very tall) and you are not likely to kill many people - and ohh... Flying a jet into a containment/shield building would not do much. Spall a little concrete - it just might put a hairline crack through the concrete (this has been studied). But that would not breach the inner liner - and it probably would not even affect the structural strenght of the containment/shield building. Of course you could fly the plane into the general plant... You might even take out some secondary side equipment. You would have to be very luck to affect something that would prevent the safe shutdown of the reactor. Redunency after redundency... and anything critical seems to be in reinforced concrete valuts.
A number of security studies have been done by a variety of federal groups - and everyone agrees: US Nuclear Power Plants are the "hardest" installations in the US (even harder than almost all military installations).
They also agree that chemical factories would make much better terrorist targets... and are easier to hit. Remember Bopahl India...
Of course, no one is complaining about the security features of the local chemical company... (nor the waste they dispose of that will last forever).
Jim is also correct that an FBI review is done for every nuclear plant worker in the US. First: Federal Law imposes the security screaning requirments - the nuclear industry did not go asking for this. The other thing is that like many things that the Federal Government mandates - they don't pay for it. The plants pay for it. The security screening is expensive - thousands of dollars per employee - and must be done every 5 years as per Federal Law. But like the costly security force - its paid for as part of the production cost of the power plant.
So yes, all those cost - and lots more that you think are paid for by others - are in those low power production cost.
Here are some others:
Waste disposal cost - is being paid to the US Govenment at twice the expected cost of deep burial (Yuca Mountain type disposal). When you hear the the Congress is "appropriating" money to the DOE for Yuca Mountain - they are really appropriating money from a nuclear waste disposal fund that is huge. Fact is the US goverment - whatever they do with the waste - will make many tens of billions of dollars profit from just the existing nuclear power plants on waste disposal.
Nuclear Disaster Insurance Fund: The industry has paid and set up a disaster fund in accordance with federal law that should cover the worst case disaster that anyone can realistically imagine - with ease. Should the fund prove insufficient Congress must act to raise the money needed - and everyone in the industry knows that Congress is most likly to just increase the standard tax on nuclear power now to raise that additional money (another thing fully paid for in those low nuclear power rates).
What has some people upset about this is that it will be no-fault. People will get paid based on apprasials of damage (the process is laid out somewhere: You have lost your property, its value was $375,000 based on a team of independent appraisers - here's a check for $375,000; Your medical bills were.... here's a check for...;next). Neither the Utility or Reactor designer will get sued, and the lawyers are essentially cut out. When you here people complain about the Price Anderson act... they are complaining because it is actually set-up to pay people for their damages quickly without a bunch of lawsuits. It is not a federal subsidy as the nuclear power plants pay I believe 0.1 cents for every KWHr of electricity they generate every day, every month, every year such that they have this huge multibillion dollar fund just sitting there (the fund value is capped, and the extra earnings and interest are now paid back to the utility companies as it is not needed).
As far as how strong is the containment building... Plants have full time staff positions (Containment Engineers) who's only job is to monitor it and test it. We actually know how strong the concrete is. We actually periodically take core samples. We actually periodically fully pressurize the containment building to its maximum pressure to ensure that it not only holds the pressure - but that all the seals have only a minimal amount of leakage that is well within allowable tolerences.
And if you did not know it: Concrete typically gets stronger with age unless allowed to deteriorate.
There is no restriction on information flow. There is nothing hidden - except for some specific security plans and features (on a need to know basis).
Power plants are just like any other industrial plant out there. Equipment can breakdown. Welds can crack.
The Monticello incident you cite was on a non-safety related system - which are not subject to intense scrutiny. Its failure did not - and could not affect plant safety. The plant tripped and safely shutdown. The sudden trip unfortunately casues a fish kill because the fish that had been living in the warm outlet could not rapidly adjust to the very cold river water of mid winter.
If you wanted to see the full investigation report the plant would provide it to you. If you wanted to talk to people as an interested citizen the plant will provide people to talk to you.
There's nothing hidden. Nuclear power plants are the most open on all kinds of information of anywhere I have ever worked.
And, you can bet that the NRC and INPO will dig into that event (and many others you never hear of) very carefully. And they have full baddeged access and know exactly what to look for (and I have been on that type of investigation myself - and have been on the recieving end of those as well).
You are of course free to decide how you feel. By the way, have you ever asked why the fossil plants always shut down. Most of those shut downs never even get announced, nor what caused them unless their is serious injury or death. But, since you don't know I'll bet you have a lot more confidence... Human nature.
Do have a nice day - and I hope that the next time you pay your electric bill you can imagine it being about 1/3 to 1/2 higher if those three nuclear plants were not in Minnessota.
Perry0 -
Here is the data most are looking for
By the way - for clarification: The Rocky Mountain Institude is a dedicated anti-nuclear organization. I actually don't think they are very sharp at all. They keep repeating stuff that has been rebuted by many different organizations with solid credible eveidence many times.
Anyone wanting a ballance view should look at other sources. If you want a fairly complete list of pro and anti sites; it is listed on the right side of one of the sites that I routinely check (along with lots of industry and government sites):
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/
Actually, Rob has a point about the recent 2006 energy bill. Nuclear power did indeed come out with some sustaintial subidies.
He is wrong in that nuclear is the big winner. In reality, wind is the big winner. They just did not list how many Billions was promised... They only list the payout forumla.. (and I think it is not quite 5 cents per KWHr for all wind power generated from a wind turbine built under the provisions for 20 years of operation). We'll come back to this later...
But back to nuclear. The 2006 subsidies are actually the first substaintial subsidies in several decades (and I will provide the information later and in attachments).
In actuallity nuclear power is litterally the least subsidezed energy sources based on governemnt money for KWHr (A recent number I have seen was 0.6 Cents per KWHr generated, coal gets more, oil and gas gets more, wind gets more, and solar tops out at about 21 Cents per KWHr).
The key focus of the current nuclear subsidies is to get several companies through the intense US regulatory environment. The US regulatory environment was severaly broken from several perspectives (and I'll even agree that they were not properly evaluating plant operation and safety issues a decade and more ago).
I need to provide some background: Most countries in the world review and approve a site license, a plant design, and even operator training programs for a nuclear power plant in 1 to 3 years.
Under the previous existing plant licensing process it had grown to 20 years in the US. During which time the plant was built - regulators would change their requirments for the plant - and staff - ect, etc, and finally an Operation license was granted (like an occupancy permit for a house). The result was that billions of dollars in plant changes and interest accumulated. Some plants were never even completed. Investors in the US lost their shirts.
That is why no one was willing to finance another US nuclear power plant. They could finance one in Japan, South Korea, China, India, etc and do very well because the plants got built and started up in typically 6 -7 years from when someone suggested building a nuclear plant at that site.
The NRC has admitted the problem, and developed a different process. It would start with pre-approved reactor designs. If you use a pre-approve reactor design you will need no further "reactor safety system" reviews to build and operate a nuclar power plant. Right now there are 4 such preapproved reactor designs in the US, and several more in process. But it took about 5 years of review for each of those designs (remember the rest of the world does that in a year or two).
Then there would be an Early Site Permit (ESP) which is where you submit the information on the site you plan to build on demonstrating that it is appropriate for a plant. It was intended that this process would take about 2.5 years to license a site. In reality, there are three companies at about 3.5 years in the "early site permit process" with two of the companies expecting ESP's soon.
What is stranger yet is that the first two sites were existing nuclear power plant sites. Does it really take 3.5 years to decide that an existing nuclear plant site is appropriate to build another nuclear plant at? The rest of the world is laughing at this... Litterally. But here in the US we are rigourous to every detail. I believe that it is costing about $20 million for the companies to get an early site permit (we have to pay the NRC for every manhour and other cost they spend reviewing such permits - and regulating the plants too; its arround $100 per manhour).
Finally their is a Construction and Operating License (COL) - where a company demonstrates that they have the financial wherwithal and managment expertise - with appropriate plans to build and operate a nuclear power plant.
The goal is to get that process down to 2.5 years as well for sites with an ESP (5 years total for a ESP and COL). It will be possible for a company without an ESP to file for a COL - but then it will take a lot longer than for the companies with an ESP.
It is currently expected that the COL process will be about 3.5 years for the companies with a ESP (and cost $30 -$40 Million).
Once a company holds a COL they can build a nuclear plant; which will take about 5 years, and then start up. This way, no really signifiant dollars are spent up front until all the permits are in place.
Well that is how it should work.... Not surprisingly, many people (not just major investors) are skepticle and want to see it to believe it - given what happened in the 1980's. Thus, the federal subsidies are there to offset the cost and help with some risk money to get sevearl plants through the process. Once the process is up and running - and people can predict how long it will take, how much it will cost, and how fast they can get an operating nuclear power plant... then there will be a number of privately funded nuclear plants. The oil companies wish to build some just to generate hydrogen to be used in cracking oil in the refineries.
As far as the comment that no private investment ever built a nuclear plant. Not true, almost 100 of them were built in the US with private investment money (bonds, stock sales by companies, etc). With the exception of TVA which is inherently federal government - all other nuclear plants were built by Utilities that funded their contruction by one of several common utiltiy funding mechanism. Remember WHOOPS out west. While it failed in general and only completed one nucler unit (Columbia - which is running stron) - it was all private money.
However, due to the problems discussed above with the never-ending government mandated modifications and never ending licensing process.... Investors took it in the shorts badly except for the first 30 or so nuclear plants - which actually got built and licensed in a reasonable timeframe.
Nuclear plants tend to be highly profitable these days - which is why most of them are now owned by investment companies instead of Utilities (and my plant is being sold for about $1 Billion Dollars to an investment company - which plans on making lots of money).
Public Utilties have strange financial rules that restrict their abilty to make any real money on these plants - and are finding that it makes more financial sense for them to sell these plants, sign a purchase power agreement, and move on (the wonderful world of Utility Financing - and tax laws). Please don't ask to to explain it - as it doesn't make any real sense. I used to have to report the cost of a small municipal coal plant to the PSC. The accouning rules are truely wierd.
Of course - if you meant that no nuclear plant has ever been built without some form of governemt subsidy somewhere in nuclear; you are correct. Unfortunately the argument falls flat on its face because all power plants and all technologies have recieved such subsidies. None of them have been built with pure private dollars.
I am attaching two charts:
The first one shows the total dollars in all government subsidies by energy sector (which includes gasoline and fuel oil); with the exception of Wind (I don't know why they did not include wind).
This chart shows all governemt subsidies from like the 1930's to 2003.
I will add some information on actual geneartion:
Nuclear recieved 9.8% and generates 20% of US Electricty.
I note that virtually all of the nuclear subsidy was in research and development from over 30 years ago.
Hydro recieved 11.3% and generates 7% of US Electricity.
Coal recieved 12.6% and generates 51% of US Electricty.
Oil Recieved 46.9% and Natural Gas recieved 13.5% (63.4% total subsides) and generates 20% of US Electricity and provides allmost all vehicle, home, and industrial fuel.
Solar recieved 5.1% and generates about 0.001% of electricty and provides some solar heat.
Geothermal recieved about 0.9% and generates about 0.002% of electricity and provides a lot some geothermal heat.
So who couln't survive without governemet subsidies.
As stated about; total nuclear subsidies amount to about 0.6 cents per KWHr (and decreasing as the money was spent decades ago).
The second chart is more interesting as it shows that Wind power recieved from 1976 to 2003 not quite $1.5 Billon ($1500 Millon) dollars in subsidies.
In the same period nuclear (LWR - for Light Water Reactor) recieved just over $1.5 Billion.
So, wind power - which generates about 0.1% of US electricity was funded to about the same extent as the nuclear industry that generates about 20% of US electricity.
As stated above. Wind power is the true big winner in the 2006 and previous energy bills. That is becase the US government pays about 5 cents per KWHr to the owner of a utlity sized windmill for every KWHr generated for the first 20 years of operation for geneartion built under the terms of the bill (this has been the standard rate for a number of years).
Dispite that this is almost twice the cost of current coal and nuclear generation - this does not cover the cost of windpower. The utility then sells it to people at a premium price. In reality, windpower is about 10 - 12 cents per KWHr; and if enough windmills get built it will have a substaintial impact on governemet debt and totally blow away any subsides that the nuclear, solar, or anything else out there.
Also, after about 30 years of development the cost of windpower has essentially stabilized. It's not going to get much cheaper folks. There is a lower cost that you cannot go below to build a reliable wind generator - and mass production cannot change it much.
Anyway, I hope that answers most of the questions. Off to bed for me now.
Perry0 -
From a former Midwesterner, I just loved the post describing a hot and humid day in Iowa....I remember the corn fields there well......one small point....the prairie(which existed before the corn came).....released the same water vapor, but at a far slower rate...through plant transpiration..which was not highlighted by the post....otherwise, a terrific thread!...John0 -
Yes...
China was a "Developing country" under Kayoto; so is India and a few other substaintial countries.
They refused to be go along unless they were exempt.
The real reason the US Senate did not reatify Kayoto was that it did not apply polution controls to all the countries in the world (go read the senate resolution that was passed). Their could have been a sliding scale: i.e, 3rd world countries could have been allowed lesser controls until their economies developed.
I should point out though. China and the other countries are required to take some actions under Kayoto.... They must talk about polution and the world envirnment (go read the treaty).
Other than that - the treaty specifically prevents anyone from trying to impose any limits on the exempt countries. That is why all of those countries signed it.
Perry0 -
Opps... Correction of a mistake
I'm off to work early, and would like to correct an mistake I'm fairly sure is in that above post.
Coal fired electrical generation has the lowest goverment subsidies on a pure KWHr bases.
Nuclear has the lowest of the "emmission free" technologies.
Overall, nuclear is the cheapest major power source out there - even in the US with all its extra cost and regulations. Period.
There are a lot of Fear Mongers who want you to believe otherwise - and raise all kinds of old myths as susposed facts. Many of the groups who keep doing that refuse to actually look at the facts. Multiple groups have compiled the actual cost of not just Nuclear but the other technologies. That is the reason that so many countries in the world are going nuclear and about 30 nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide right now.
Check out the NEI link above if for no other reason to get the links to all the major pro and anti nuclear sites. Then go read and compare. You are of course free to form your own opinion - but please do the research necessary to form an reasonably one.
Nulcear - like all technologies - is not perfect. But its real problems are very similar to the real problems of many other technologies.
Have a great day now... Off to work on 4 hours of sleep.
Perry0 -
indirect nuke costs
Hi, Perry, I guess the point I'm driving at is that with
renewables you know exactly how much the subsidy is and where it's going, whereas the security needs of nuclear require government expenditures which aren't included in the usual per KWH cost figures, like fighter planes to guard the plants, FBI agents to monitor the employees, homeland security people to develop emergency response scenarios, etc.
These are costs unique to nuclear. Windmills are useless to terrorists.
Can you give us a rough figure of these ancillary costs, so I can add it to the basic operational expense of the plants to determine the full cost of nuclear power.
We need the full cost, not just the direct operational cost.
Also, can you explain why we shouldn't find unplanned events like the recent Monticello shutdown unnerving?
-JimH0 -
a First
totally beside the issue here but this is the first thread I have started that has broken the 100 reply barrier...
Cool.
Thanks for you interest and keep it going because this is populated with some incredible responses and information.
Mitch0 -
I am doing my part
Here's my self contained energy efficient recycling suit. (hint) Don't eat at Taco Bell before wearing or this can happen...
Rick0 -
Not a problem Jim
You actually missed a point I made above about the FBI cost.
But here is a point by point explaination:
First, the military has not and does not dedicate jet fighters to soley defend nuclear plants.
The military has and does dedicate jet fighters to defend a wide variety of potential targets - of which nuclear plants are in a very low minority by number count. Should someone actually have a magic wand and made all the nuclear plants disappear (safely) the military's potential planning for various responses would not be affected much - and would not affect how many jet fighters they have.
Thus, there really is no indirect cost for miliary planning. No more than for any of a couple dozen companies in the twin city area (some of which are really juicy targets: put your thinking cap on and I'll bet you can figure out at least half of them - the others you probably do not know what they do).
FBI cost to monitor empoyees as part of the security process: Zero. The nuclear plants pay the US and State Governement for the cost of such services.
The additional cost for local, state emergency planning - which is what homeland security has adopted. Zero (actually negative because it's a benifit to the community). Nuclear power plants have always been responsible for funding and developing both local emergency plans and building up the local, regional, and state organizations so that they have the capability, equipment, and training to respond to the worst case concivable accidents and events at a nuclear plant. All that training, procedures, equipment, and facilities are also very very usefull for many other kinds of emergencies that can occur.
In fact - any one who lives near a nuclear power plant also lives in an area with the best developed and best funded emergency prepardness and emergency departments in the US. One of the studies that was done related to how prepared counties were for any disaster quickly identified that the counties with nuclear plants were about the only counties in the US who could really be considered "well prepared." Thus nuclear plants are a huge benifit from an emergency response status to the local communities.
Homeland security has not really invested any dollars into nuclear power plant disaster response. They basically got a copy of the plans filed at the NRC and made that their emergency response plan. Those plans are far more robust than any other plans for any other industry, plant, or disaster.
How much additional cost to the federal government to oversee the nuclear plants. Zero (again actually a negative as I'll explain later). Every hour of every NRC employee dedicated to review, inspections, or oversight of a nuclear plant or a license application is billed to that plant. In fact - it is billed at a much higher cost than the service cost - without objection by the power plants. This allows the NRC to charge hospitals, small comercial users, educational, and research orginizations less than the cost of the oversight so that nuclear medicine, education, and research can be performed at a more reasonable cost, and nuclear testing or isotope usefull services can more economically exist (most smoke detectors are a nuclear device...).
As mentioned above we (actually anyone who gets nuclear electricity) have already prepaid all disposal cost at about twice what the worse case disposal cost are. A huge multibillion dollar disaster fund is fully funded by the industry (actually anyone who gets nuclear electricity). In both of these two cases more rolls in every year because these are actually part of our base KWHr rate.
I will also note that the cost of the recovery and cleanup of Three Mile Island - which was a core meltdown accident was I believe about 1/4 of the value of the existing prepaid disaster fund (I could look up the numbers later if you need it; but need to do other things tonight - my memory is about 1/4).
The nuclear power industry is unique in the US. It not only pays all of the various cost associated with it directly - but it pays more than its fair share so that the general community and country is improved. You name the service and potential issue... and I can tell you that it is already paid for in the cost of power. No other industry can claim the same. In reality - I suppose the industry could claim that they are reverse subsidizing the government. They have never figured it out and has never claimed it. They consider it a public service.
So, the 2006 number of 1.66 cents per KWHr is it... all of it and then some.
Now it is of course true that there are now some subsidies available for the first 4 plants to get through the regulatory process. That was created because the government recognized that they created a monster that no one was going to attempt to negotiate without the government helping to pay the cost of finding out how expensive and time consuming it would be. Also, in reality, these subsides are only a fraction of the "extra" waste disposal money that the government is making.
How is it that almost all other countries in the world can certify a reactor design, license a site, and license a company to build and operate a plant in 1-3 years (on a new site that has never had a nuclear unit); yet the US takes 5 years to liscense a reactor design, then currently an estimated 7 years to lisence exising nuclear sites and the companies to build and operate a plant (we hope -- what if it turns to 10 or 15 years). That is why the subsidies were necessary.
Onto your last question. I am really glad you asked it.
I am not going to claim that all nuclear plants are A-OK. Some have problems; and you need to understand where and what level of problems - and how to figure it out. A truely concerned citizen can have a very positive impact if they want to.
The first key question is how can you trust the safety of a nuclear plant.
Their biggest and main safety features are designed in. Key item #1 - the contaiment building. In the worst case... the contaiment building will contain a true disaster. They might leak a bit - but only a bit. Now in the right conditions I admit that bit could be a problem for a small area (the worst stuff will fall to the ground in 10-12 miles due to its weight). That is why fully developed emergency and evacuation plans exist. People can be evacuated from a small area downwind of the plant.
I would also note that many people are scared stiff of ordinary levels of radiation. If the dentist or Dr zapps you with it - or you undergo radiation tracer studies or treatment you will get far more radiation than what is expected to leak from a containment building to a specific area - but no problem; its safe.
On the other hand if you tell people its radiation from the plant - at any level (even the level that naturally occurs in a bannanna) - they panic. That is because of the Fear Mongers who want to keep you afraid so that they can control.
Also, please keep in mind that it truely takes a huge amount of radiation to do real damage. There is only perhaps faint evidence of severe longterm or genetic damage amoung the atom bomb survivors who were not either killed outright or obviously ill within a few days (very close to the kill zone). These people absorbed massive amounts of radiation. They live in an area with a very high background radiation due to the bombing and all the rubble. Yet, no real evidence of permanent radiaton illness or disability.
In most cases if a person gets contaminiated - all they need to do is take a good shower to wash it off (that's what we do at the plants). In a few cases more monitoriing may be needed. In very very rare cases - you may need medical treatment (usually minor).
So the contaimemt building stops a disaster from becomming a radiation castrophy. Note that Chernobly did not have a contaiment building because the Soviet Union did not think they were cost justified. They do now...
But the design is even more solid than that... Let's stop a core meltdown in the first place - then you don't need contaiment at all... (which is why the Soviet Union did not thing they needed them. They forgot that people sometimes like to experiment with things... and turn off safety systems so that they could "try" something to see if it worked... It didn't: The story of Chernobyl).
Monticello is a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). I work at a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). I am going to describe how it works for a PWR - knowing that the BWR's have the same basic design. I just don't know the exact terminology and don't want to get it wrong.
In both cases our reactor fuel is under water, and the idea is that it should always stay under water and have a good flow of water through it to prevent it from melting.
In both cases the reactors have huge pipes that feed in cold water to be heated up. In a PWR we have a hot water pipe taking the heat away. In a BWR they have a huge steam pipe to take away the heat in the form of steam.
The worst case accident is if those large pipes were to break stoping the flow of cooling water to the reactor - and allowing the hot water or steam to just vent to the atmosphere. Either pipe break would lower the pressure in the reactor and a bunch of superheated water would flash to steam and escape to containment...
Now in the real world - pipes tend to crack and leak before they break off. In the real world should a pipe actually break all the way arround it might move aside just a bit in the situation where the pipes are mounted with pipe supports that fixed the pipe in position and the vessel is mounted in a fixed posisiton. In this case you only have part of the area of the pipe leaking (honestly spraying water and steam). That is what happens in the real world.
For nuclear accident analysis they pre-supposed that Darth Vader (or one of his minions) takes a light saber and instantly cleanly cuts that 36" + pipe in two places such that it disappears entierly so that there is no restriction at all for water and steam to escape from the reactor vessel. This is called Loss Of Colant Accident (LOCA); and may be called Large Break LOCA.
All reactors and their protection systems are designed such that the fuel will never become uncovered and sufficient cooling flow will always occur through the fuel if a Large Break LOCA were to occur at full power.
Thus, you should never ever have a core meltdown - if you just let the automatic safety systems take over. (you might see the bottom of contaiment fill up with water though.. The released steam gets condensed by a vairity of coolers or spray systems).
Unfortunately, at Three Mile Island they did not just let the safety systems take over when the reactor was tripped. They were going to instantly restart the reactor and get the plant back on line - need to generate electricty after all....
Now you can't restart if the "Safety Injection" system is on - so they turned it off (one of several fundamental mistakes in hindsite). It also did not help that they did not have instrumetation that would have told them that the reactor was not full of water. Core meltdown eventually resulted - which was contained in the containment building.
Now every plant in the world has trained their operators that if the plant trips that your function is to make sure all the safety systems are online and operating, then stabilize the plant, then figure out what went wrong (which usually takes a day or so with all of our very formal review processes), and only then do you restart the plant. There is no need to be a hero and get the plant back on line - or even try to save the plant. Just let it go down - its designed to automaticlly shut down safely without any human intervention at all.
A plant I am familiar with (not my own) tripped about a week ago when they were testing some nuclear instrumtation and safety circuits (plants have multiple sets of redundant circuts so that we can work on any circuit at any given time). They are still down and don't know when they will restart because they have not yet adequatly answered all the questions regarding the trip to their satisfaction. I note that they were initially ready to restart within hours of the trip. Caution is now the rule.
There are many more accident scenerios that each nuclear plant had to be designed to withstand without core damage (or spent fuel damage). It's a fairly comprehensive list (and even includes attach by a modest sized group of terorist that are well armed).
The plants have many redundant systems and often completely different approaches for various accidents. My plant has essentially 4 independent systems to condense the steam resulting from either a Large Break LOCA or a Main Steam Line Break (Steam Generator outlet). All it takes is only one of those 4 systems to work. That is the kind of redundancy we have for anyting that is critical.
As long as the equipment is maintained properly and the operators are trained properly an awfull lot can go wrong at a nuclear plant without ever beginning to affect the ability to safely shutdown the plant.
Of course the problem inherent in the design is that while very substaintial safey is designed into the plants... back in the 60's and 70's when all these plants were really designed they only knew how to do that with lots of equipment and controls. Thus, their is truth to the statement that a nuclear power plant is the most complex technological machine ever built. Properely maintaining it and proper operation is not easy.
We are all taught to stop and question everything. We can even go back to original design calcs and ask... is this right. Once in a while we find something that isn't - where they missed something years ago. This can result in immediate plant shutdown, costly modifications, and even plant decomisioning (it has happened). More likely we just have to redo a calculation because of the conservative nature of our design and the original calculations (kinda like having a boiler 4 times the size of what you need for your house... Oh, the SFP wall calc missed something and is off by about 5% - but, the wall is an extra 2 ft thick and its not unsafe).
The difficulty is in people becoming complacent - and start just doing the same job without paying attention - so that they miss something that has started to degrade. They start to minimize maintenace by streaching intervals too far...
What to watch for. How often does the plant shutdown between refueling outages. More than once or twice indicates brewing trouble (and some plants almost never have to shut down). What kinds of reports does the NRC and INPO give the plant - pay attention to those.
NRC and INPO know exactly where to look and for what kinds of problems. I will admit it is not perfect and some plants have a reputation as a good plant and get away with some things - and others have a bad reputation and can't get credit for even there industry lead performance in an area... but in general, the NRC and INPO has been getting a lot smarter. If there are reported problems.... does the plant blame others, or tell you that they cannot be compared to other plants... not a good sign.
But, I think that you will find that Montecello is a highly rated plant. But call them up and ask them. They will have someone who's job it is to talk to you (communication specialist perhaps) and who can hook you up with real plant people to explain things to you. Even ask for the "root cause" report on the control box failure. I think you will be impressed with the completeness of it and the actions they took.
In the end, when the plant starts having problems the NRC tends to step on them pretty hard. Due to all the inherent designed safety feathers it is very rare for a plant to actaully be unsafe; and you do not see what the regulator is forcing the plant to do for changing attitudes, training, etc for the operators to get them back where they are not complacent.
My plant just went through that. I hired in 6 years ago and noticed it as a newbie to the nuke world. 3 years in "column 4" sure changed a lot of people's attitudes; and several managment teams were essentially told they were not doing an adequate job and were replaced.
The NRC has been know for certain problems to ask the Operator license holder what is being done. Oh, we have replaced the xx manager. "really"... says the NRC... OK, we're replacing the Plant Manager too. "Hmmm..." The corporate VP of production has now been replaced... and in one case the NRC said "not enough" and a few days later a new person showed up at the regional NRC office and announced that they were the new President of XYZ corporation and the NRC said "OK, lets talk about what you have to do to improve your plant performance." John Q public does not see that. It happens (but only once that I know of did it go all the way to the president of the corporation - now do you think the new managers were willing to change how business was being done). So if you hear that the NRC is reporting more than minor problems - and a major plant manager or higher moves on... Chances are that its connected.
I do note that like any complicated piece of equipment - there are constant problems of one sort or another. Their are numerous NRC inspections for many things. Invariably they find a few things in all plants. It takes a bit to learn what is a normal level - and what indicates things are not going well. The good companies tend to nip things in the bud fast when things start going downhill.
Should the plant not come arround to the new and improved way of doing business.... The NRC holds the stick. Look up Zion Nuclear Plant. Two about 1000 MW reactors in good mechanical shape. The Operator's and Maintenace workers Union felt that they were going to run the plant. No one... and I mean no one was going to interfear with how they wanted to do business (I did two temp jobs down there ... ugg, not impressed). Stunned disbalief occured when the NRC decertified all the operators, pulled the plant license, and imposed the largest fines ever (at the time). The union members were right. No one was going to tell them how to operate and maintain the plant. The NRC just took the plant away from them. It has never run since.
So, the system is not perfect; but it is pretty good. I think the US Oversight system is probably the best in the world. Not perfect - but good enough to prevent truely major industry problems. I will admit that at times the news does not seem that way.
In the end, any plant at any time can have a major failure and then all that training goes into play. A big ebough failure and the plant will never run again.
The next generation plants will be inhernently much more safer and easier because we now have designed in many of the safety features as passive responses (instead of a pump to pump water arround contaiment with its requirment for multiple pumps, valves, backup diesel generators, etc - just put a very large tank of water on top and let it gravity drain in an accident - and use sprinkler head type fusable plugs to open the gravity drain valves).
Here is a link to my favorate desing: The AP-1000
www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/
Check out the link to the smaller AP-600 for a full explaination of all the features.
I hope that helps.
Perry0 -
Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants
One of the keys to believing that your local nuclear plant is being operated safely lies in the number of plants that have been shutdown for various reasons.
The reasons range from core meltdown (3 Mile Island - Unit 2), too expensive to fix equipment problems, to labor/manangement problems where the US NRC lost confidence that the people at the plant would indeed focus on nuclear safety over electrical production, and one case that I view of not being able to get along with the local political environment.
These plants are examples of what actually happens when things go wrong - or when plant management and workers arn't willing to dance to the NRC's - or even the State's tune...
I note that Davis Bessie almost joined this list several years ago. In fact it would have if First Energy (the operating company) had understood up front just how expensive it was going to be to repair the plant and perform a significant culture change - several Billion dollars in the end and it almost bankrupted First Energy.
The plants are listed by name, state, and years that they operated:
Zion 1 & 2, IL => 1973-1998
Millstone 1, CT => 1970-1998
Maine Yankee, ME => 1972-1997
Conn. Yankee, CT => 1967-1997
Trojan, OR => 1976-1993
San Onofre 1, CA => 1968-1992
Yankee Rowe, MA => 1961-1992
Shoreham, NY => 1989-1989
Fort St. Vrain, CO => 1979-1989
Rancho Seco, CA => 1975-1989
TMI-2, PA => 1978-1979
Dresden 1, IL => 1960-1978
Indian Point 1, NY => 1962-1974
There are a number of smaller units (under 200 MW that were demonstration plants that have been decomissioned as well.
For a complete list of shutdown plants (for any reason) see:
http://www.nei.org/documents/Decommissioning Status for Shut Down U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors.pdf
There are also one or two reactors that still have licenses that have not operated for decades due to an issue, and the company who owns the plant is holding it in reserve becasue maybe they will fix it someday: Browns Ferry is one of them - they had a major fire long ago. Currently - repair work is in progress and it is expected that the plant will restart.
Hope this helps,
Perry0 -
Regarding \"Not a problem Jim\"
> You actually missed a point I made above about
> the FBI cost.
>
> But here is a point by point
> explaination:
>
> First, the military has not and
> does not dedicate jet fighters to soley defend
> nuclear plants.
>
> The military has and does
> dedicate jet fighters to defend a wide variety of
> potential targets - of which nuclear plants are
> in a very low minority by number count. Should
> someone actually have a magic wand and made all
> the nuclear plants disappear (safely) the
> military's potential planning for various
> responses would not be affected much - and would
> not affect how many jet fighters they
> have.
>
> Thus, there really is no indirect cost
> for miliary planning. No more than for any of a
> couple dozen companies in the twin city area
> (some of which are really juicy targets: put
> your thinking cap on and I'll bet you can figure
> out at least half of them - the others you
> probably do not know what they do).
>
> FBI cost
> to monitor empoyees as part of the security
> process: Zero. The nuclear plants pay the US
> and State Governement for the cost of such
> services.
>
> The additional cost for local, state
> emergency planning - which is what homeland
> security has adopted. Zero (actually negative
> because it's a benifit to the community).
> Nuclear power plants have always been responsible
> for funding and developing both local emergency
> plans and building up the local, regional, and
> state organizations so that they have the
> capability, equipment, and training to respond to
> the worst case concivable accidents and events at
> a nuclear plant. All that training, procedures,
> equipment, and facilities are also very very
> usefull for many other kinds of emergencies that
> can occur.
>
> In fact - any one who lives near a
> nuclear power plant also lives in an area with
> the best developed and best funded emergency
> prepardness and emergency departments in the US.
> One of the studies that was done related to how
> prepared counties were for any disaster quickly
> identified that the counties with nuclear plants
> were about the only counties in the US who could
> really be considered "well prepared." Thus
> nuclear plants are a huge benifit from an
> emergency response status to the local
> communities.
>
> Homeland security has not really
> invested any dollars into nuclear power plant
> disaster response. They basically got a copy of
> the plans filed at the NRC and made that their
> emergency response plan. Those plans are far
> more robust than any other plans for any other
> industry, plant, or disaster.
>
> How much
> additional cost to the federal government to
> oversee the nuclear plants. Zero (again actually
> a negative as I'll explain later). Every hour
> of every NRC employee dedicated to review,
> inspections, or oversight of a nuclear plant or a
> license application is billed to that plant. In
> fact - it is billed at a much higher cost than
> the service cost - without objection by the power
> plants. This allows the NRC to charge hospitals,
> small comercial users, educational, and research
> orginizations less than the cost of the oversight
> so that nuclear medicine, education, and research
> can be performed at a more reasonable cost, and
> nuclear testing or isotope usefull services can
> more economically exist (most smoke detectors are
> a nuclear device...).
>
> As mentioned above we
> (actually anyone who gets nuclear electricity)
> have already prepaid all disposal cost at about
> twice what the worse case disposal cost are. A
> huge multibillion dollar disaster fund is fully
> funded by the industry (actually anyone who gets
> nuclear electricity). In both of these two cases
> more rolls in every year because these are
> actually part of our base KWHr rate.
>
> I will
> also note that the cost of the recovery and
> cleanup of Three Mile Island - which was a core
> meltdown accident was I believe about 1/4 of the
> value of the existing prepaid disaster fund (I
> could look up the numbers later if you need it;
> but need to do other things tonight - my memory
> is about 1/4).
>
> The nuclear power industry is
> unique in the US. It not only pays all of the
> various cost associated with it directly - but it
> pays more than its fair share so that the general
> community and country is improved. You name the
> service and potential issue... and I can tell you
> that it is already paid for in the cost of power.
> No other industry can claim the same. In reality
> - I suppose the industry could claim that they
> are reverse subsidizing the government. They
> have never figured it out and has never claimed
> it. They consider it a public service.
>
> So,
> the 2006 number of 1.66 cents per KWHr is it...
> all of it and then some.
>
> Now it is of course
> true that there are now some subsidies available
> for the first 4 plants to get through the
> regulatory process. That was created because the
> government recognized that they created a monster
> that no one was going to attempt to negotiate
> without the government helping to pay the cost of
> finding out how expensive and time consuming it
> would be. Also, in reality, these subsides are
> only a fraction of the "extra" waste disposal
> money that the government is making.
>
> How is it
> that almost all other countries in the world can
> certify a reactor design, license a site, and
> license a company to build and operate a plant in
> 1-3 years (on a new site that has never had a
> nuclear unit); yet the US takes 5 years to
> liscense a reactor design, then currently an
> estimated 7 years to lisence exising nuclear
> sites and the companies to build and operate a
> plant (we hope -- what if it turns to 10 or 15
> years). That is why the subsidies were
> necessary.
>
> Onto your last question. I am
> really glad you asked it.
>
> I am not going to
> claim that all nuclear plants are A-OK. Some
> have problems; and you need to understand where
> and what level of problems - and how to figure it
> out. A truely concerned citizen can have a very
> positive impact if they want to.
>
> The first key
> question is how can you trust the safety of a
> nuclear plant.
>
> Their biggest and main safety
> features are designed in. Key item #1 - the
> contaiment building. In the worst case... the
> contaiment building will contain a true disaster.
> They might leak a bit - but only a bit. Now in
> the right conditions I admit that bit could be a
> problem for a small area (the worst stuff will
> fall to the ground in 10-12 miles due to its
> weight). That is why fully developed emergency
> and evacuation plans exist. People can be
> evacuated from a small area downwind of the
> plant.
>
> I would also note that many people are
> scared stiff of ordinary levels of radiation. If
> the dentist or Dr zapps you with it - or you
> undergo radiation tracer studies or treatment you
> will get far more radiation than what is expected
> to leak from a containment building to a specific
> area - but no problem; its safe.
>
> On the
> other hand if you tell people its radiation from
> the plant - at any level (even the level that
> naturally occurs in a bannanna) - they panic.
> That is because of the Fear Mongers who want to
> keep you afraid so that they can control.
> Also, please keep in mind that it truely takes a
> huge amount of radiation to do real damage.
> There is only perhaps faint evidence of severe
> longterm or genetic damage amoung the atom bomb
> survivors who were not either killed outright or
> obviously ill within a few days (very close to
> the kill zone). These people absorbed massive
> amounts of radiation. They live in an area with
> a very high background radiation due to the
> bombing and all the rubble. Yet, no real
> evidence of permanent radiaton illness or
> disability.
>
> In most cases if a person gets
> contaminiated - all they need to do is take a
> good shower to wash it off (that's what we do at
> the plants). In a few cases more monitoriing may
> be needed. In very very rare cases - you may
> need medical treatment (usually minor).
>
> So the
> contaimemt building stops a disaster from
> becomming a radiation castrophy. Note that
> Chernobly did not have a contaiment building
> because the Soviet Union did not think they were
> cost justified. They do now...
>
> But the design
> is even more solid than that... Let's stop a
> core meltdown in the first place - then you don't
> need contaiment at all... (which is why the
> Soviet Union did not thing they needed them.
> They forgot that people sometimes like to
> experiment with things... and turn off safety
> systems so that they could "try" something to see
> if it worked... It didn't: The story of
> Chernobyl).
>
> Monticello is a Boiling Water
> Reactor (BWR). I work at a Pressurized Water
> Reactor (PWR). I am going to describe how it
> works for a PWR - knowing that the BWR's have the
> same basic design. I just don't know the exact
> terminology and don't want to get it wrong.
>
> In
> both cases our reactor fuel is under water, and
> the idea is that it should always stay under
> water and have a good flow of water through it to
> prevent it from melting.
>
> In both cases the
> reactors have huge pipes that feed in cold water
> to be heated up. In a PWR we have a hot water
> pipe taking the heat away. In a BWR they have a
> huge steam pipe to take away the heat in the form
> of steam.
>
> The worst case accident is if those
> large pipes were to break stoping the flow of
> cooling water to the reactor - and allowing the
> hot water or steam to just vent to the
> atmosphere. Either pipe break would lower the
> pressure in the reactor and a bunch of
> superheated water would flash to steam and escape
> to containment...
>
> Now in the real world -
> pipes tend to crack and leak before they break
> off. In the real world should a pipe actually
> break all the way arround it might move aside
> just a bit in the situation where the pipes are
> mounted with pipe supports that fixed the pipe in
> position and the vessel is mounted in a fixed
> posisiton. In this case you only have part of
> the area of the pipe leaking (honestly spraying
> water and steam). That is what happens in the
> real world.
>
> For nuclear accident analysis they
> pre-supposed that Darth Vader (or one of his
> minions) takes a light saber and instantly
> cleanly cuts that 36" + pipe in two places such
> that it disappears entierly so that there is no
> restriction at all for water and steam to escape
> from the reactor vessel. This is called Loss Of
> Colant Accident (LOCA); and may be called Large
> Break LOCA.
>
> All reactors and their protection
> systems are designed such that the fuel will
> never become uncovered and sufficient cooling
> flow will always occur through the fuel if a
> Large Break LOCA were to occur at full
> power.
>
> Thus, you should never ever have a core
> meltdown - if you just let the automatic safety
> systems take over. (you might see the bottom of
> contaiment fill up with water though.. The
> released steam gets condensed by a vairity of
> coolers or spray systems).
>
> Unfortunately, at
> Three Mile Island they did not just let the
> safety systems take over when the reactor was
> tripped. They were going to instantly restart
> the reactor and get the plant back on line - need
> to generate electricty after all....
>
> Now you
> can't restart if the "Safety Injection" system is
> on - so they turned it off (one of several
> fundamental mistakes in hindsite). It also did
> not help that they did not have instrumetation
> that would have told them that the reactor was
> not full of water. Core meltdown eventually
> resulted - which was contained in the containment
> building.
>
> Now every plant in the world has
> trained their operators that if the plant trips
> that your function is to make sure all the safety
> systems are online and operating, then stabilize
> the plant, then figure out what went wrong (which
> usually takes a day or so with all of our very
> formal review processes), and only then do you
> restart the plant. There is no need to be a hero
> and get the plant back on line - or even try to
> save the plant. Just let it go down - its
> designed to automaticlly shut down safely without
> any human intervention at all.
>
> A plant I am
> familiar with (not my own) tripped about a week
> ago when they were testing some nuclear
> instrumtation and safety circuits (plants have
> multiple sets of redundant circuts so that we can
> work on any circuit at any given time). They are
> still down and don't know when they will restart
> because they have not yet adequatly answered all
> the questions regarding the trip to their
> satisfaction. I note that they were initially
> ready to restart within hours of the trip.
> Caution is now the rule.
>
> There are many more
> accident scenerios that each nuclear plant had to
> be designed to withstand without core damage (or
> spent fuel damage). It's a fairly comprehensive
> list (and even includes attach by a modest sized
> group of terorist that are well armed).
>
> The
> plants have many redundant systems and often
> completely different approaches for various
> accidents. My plant has essentially 4
> independent systems to condense the steam
> resulting from either a Large Break LOCA or a
> Main Steam Line Break (Steam Generator outlet).
> All it takes is only one of those 4 systems to
> work. That is the kind of redundancy we have for
> anyting that is critical.
>
> As long as the
> equipment is maintained properly and the
> operators are trained properly an awfull lot can
> go wrong at a nuclear plant without ever
> beginning to affect the ability to safely
> shutdown the plant.
>
> Of course the problem
> inherent in the design is that while very
> substaintial safey is designed into the plants...
> back in the 60's and 70's when all these plants
> were really designed they only knew how to do
> that with lots of equipment and controls. Thus,
> their is truth to the statement that a nuclear
> power plant is the most complex technological
> machine ever built. Properely maintaining it and
> proper operation is not easy.
>
> We are all
> taught to stop and question everything. We can
> even go back to original design calcs and ask...
> is this right. Once in a while we find something
> that isn't - where they missed something years
> ago. This can result in immediate plant
> shutdown, costly modifications, and even plant
> decomisioning (it has happened). More likely we
> just have to redo a calculation because of the
> conservative nature of our design and the
> original calculations (kinda like having a boiler
> 4 times the size of what you need for your
> house... Oh, the SFP wall calc missed something
> and is off by about 5% - but, the wall is an
> extra 2 ft thick and its not unsafe).
>
> The
> difficulty is in people becoming complacent - and
> start just doing the same job without paying
> attention - so that they miss something that has
> started to degrade. They start to minimize
> maintenace by streaching intervals too
> far...
>
> What to watch for. How often does the
> plant shutdown between refueling outages. More
> than once or twice indicates brewing trouble (and
> some plants almost never have to shut down).
> What kinds of reports does the NRC and INPO give
> the plant - pay attention to those.
>
> NRC and
> INPO know exactly where to look and for what
> kinds of problems. I will admit it is not
> perfect and some plants have a reputation as a
> good plant and get away with some things - and
> others have a bad reputation and can't get credit
> for even there industry lead performance in an
> area... but in general, the NRC and INPO has been
> getting a lot smarter. If there are reported
> problems.... does the plant blame others, or tell
> you that they cannot be compared to other
> plants... not a good sign.
>
> But, I think that
> you will find that Montecello is a highly rated
> plant. But call them up and ask them. They will
> have someone who's job it is to talk to you
> (communication specialist perhaps) and who can
> hook you up with real plant people to explain
> things to you. Even ask for the "root cause"
> report on the control box failure. I think you
> will be impressed with the completeness of it and
> the actions they took.
>
> In the end, when the
> plant starts having problems the NRC tends to
> step on them pretty hard. Due to all the
> inherent designed safety feathers it is very rare
> for a plant to actaully be unsafe; and you do not
> see what the regulator is forcing the plant to do
> for changing attitudes, training, etc for the
> operators to get them back where they are not
> complacent.
>
> My plant just went through that.
> I hired in 6 years ago and noticed it as a newbie
> to the nuke world. 3 years in "column 4" sure
> changed a lot of people's attitudes; and several
> managment teams were essentially told they were
> not doing an adequate job and were
> replaced.
>
> The NRC has been know for certain
> problems to ask the Operator license holder what
> is being done. Oh, we have replaced the xx
> manager. "really"... says the NRC... OK, we're
> replacing the Plant Manager too. "Hmmm..." The
> corporate VP of production has now been
> replaced... and in one case the NRC said "not
> enough" and a few days later a new person showed
> up at the regional NRC office and announced that
> they were the new President of XYZ corporation
> and the NRC said "OK, lets talk about what you
> have to do to improve your plant performance."
> John Q public does not see that. It happens (but
> only once that I know of did it go all the way to
> the president of the corporation - now do you
> think the new managers were willing to change how
> business was being done). So if you hear that
> the NRC is reporting more than minor problems -
> and a major plant manager or higher moves on...
> Chances are that its connected.
>
> I do note that
> like any complicated piece of equipment - there
> are constant problems of one sort or another.
> Their are numerous NRC inspections for many
> things. Invariably they find a few things in all
> plants. It takes a bit to learn what is a normal
> level - and what indicates things are not going
> well. The good companies tend to nip things in
> the bud fast when things start going downhill.
> Should the plant not come arround to the new and
> improved way of doing business.... The NRC holds
> the stick. Look up Zion Nuclear Plant. Two
> about 1000 MW reactors in good mechanical shape.
> The Operator's and Maintenace workers Union felt
> that they were going to run the plant. No one...
> and I mean no one was going to interfear with how
> they wanted to do business (I did two temp jobs
> down there ... ugg, not impressed). Stunned
> disbalief occured when the NRC decertified all
> the operators, pulled the plant license, and
> imposed the largest fines ever (at the time).
> The union members were right. No one was going
> to tell them how to operate and maintain the
> plant. The NRC just took the plant away from
> them. It has never run since.
>
> So, the system
> is not perfect; but it is pretty good. I think
> the US Oversight system is probably the best in
> the world. Not perfect - but good enough to
> prevent truely major industry problems. I will
> admit that at times the news does not seem that
> way.
>
> In the end, any plant at any time can
> have a major failure and then all that training
> goes into play. A big ebough failure and the
> plant will never run again.
>
> The next
> generation plants will be inhernently much more
> safer and easier because we now have designed in
> many of the safety features as passive responses
> (instead of a pump to pump water arround
> contaiment with its requirment for multiple
> pumps, valves, backup diesel generators, etc -
> just put a very large tank of water on top and
> let it gravity drain in an accident - and use
> sprinkler head type fusable plugs to open the
> gravity drain valves).
>
> Here is a link to my
> favorate desing: The
> AP-1000
>
> www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/
> Check out the link to the smaller AP-600 for a
> full explaination of all the features.
>
> I hope
> that helps.
>
> Perry
Perry,
I'll take issue with a few of your points. I never wrote anything about nuclear issues before, so I'm a neophyte on this issue. Also, I haven't read the whole thread...
But, your post struck me as painting an unbelievably rosy scenario for nuclear power plants, so I did a little research.
It appears that there haven't been any commercial plants built in this country since 1993, if my search at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site found the latest one. I could be wrong, so please correct me, if necessary. But if correct, investors don't seem eager to invest in nuclear power plants.
Also, you wrote:
"How much additional cost to the federal government to oversee the nuclear plants. Zero (again actually a negative as I'll explain later). Every hour of every NRC employee dedicated to review, inspections, or oversight of a nuclear plant or a license application is billed to that plant. In fact - it is billed at a much higher cost than the service cost - without objection by the power plants."
I found tha that the Nuclear Energy Institute is disputing the NRC fees to the power plant. See the letter dated March 5, 2007 to Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Anthony R. Pietrangelo, Vice President,Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute. I found this at the NEI website under their Public Affairs link.
Also, although probably unintentional, your first sentence in the paragraph I quoted, could mislead us to believe that the nuclear powerplants, not us taxpayers, fully fund the NRC. I hope we can agree that such an interpetation would be gross mischaracterization of who pays for the NRC. The power plants may pay fees for inspections, but "every employee" probably doesn't include the managers that review the inspectors reports. My main point is that there is probably much overhead that is paid by the taxpayer rather than the power plants.
The last point I'll dispute is:
"As mentioned above we (actually anyone who gets nuclear electricity) have already prepaid all disposal cost at about twice what the worse case disposal cost are."
I can't prove that you are wrong, but let's look at a few facts, if you can believe Wikepedia and NEI.
First NEI says the following: "Consumers of electricity from nuclear power plants have committed $28 billion since 1983 to pay for federal management of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors.
This commitment has supported a growing reliance on safe, clean nuclear energy to meet the nations electricity needs. For the past eight years, the federal government has defaulted on its obligation to manage this fuel. Assuming that the government eventually meets this obligation, each additional year of delay costs taxpayers an estimated $1 billion, according to the Department of Energy."
How do you reconcile NEI's characterization versus your claim that the worst case scenario has already been paid. Yucca Mountain has been studied since 1978 according to Wikipedia, so after 29 years, it is still a no-go for waste disposal. Wikipedia also says:
"In the Fall 2006 elections, the Senate majority was won by the Democratic Party. As a result, Senator Harry Reid D-(NV), a long time opponent, will become the Senate Majority Leader and in the next Congress will be in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted to have said "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."
The Republicans had the Presidency and Congress since 2000, and they had to be friendlier than Harry Reid, toward Yucca Mountain. So, what is the cost of disposal if Yucca Mountain goes belly up? Does worst case include the present scenario?
Also, just thinking off the top of my head, are the wastes (that are currently stored at the commercial nuclear power plants) useful to terrorists? I really don't know the answer, but I'd bet a lot of money that "worse case disposal cost" does not include the outcome of having the wastes fall into the wrong hands.
I don't think the case for nuclear reactors is anywhere near as rosy as the picture I infer from your writing, but I could be wrong.
Bill0 -
Perry,
I'll take issue with a few of your points. I never wrote anything about nuclear issues before, so I'm a neophyte on this issue. Also, I haven't read the whole thread...
But, your post struck me as painting an unbelievably rosy scenario for nuclear power plants, so I did a little research.
You wrote:
"How much additional cost to the federal government to oversee the nuclear plants. Zero (again actually a negative as I'll explain later). Every hour of every NRC employee dedicated to review, inspections, or oversight of a nuclear plant or a license application is billed to that plant. In fact - it is billed at a much higher cost than the service cost - without objection by the power plants."
I found that the Nuclear Energy Institute is disputing the NRC fees to the power plant. See the letter dated March 5, 2007 to Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Anthony R. Pietrangelo, Vice President,Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute. I found this at the NEI website under their Public Affairs link.
Also, although probably unintentional, your first sentence, in the paragraph I quoted, could mislead us to believe that the nuclear powerplants, not us taxpayers, fully fund the NRC. I hope we can agree that such an interpetation would be gross mischaracterization of who pays for the NRC. The power plants may pay fees for inspections, but "every employee" probably doesn't include the managers that review the inspectors reports, nor all the other support personnel like Human Resources, procurement personnel, etc. My main point is that there is probably much overhead that is paid by the taxpayer rather than the power plants.
The last and most important point I'll dispute is:
"As mentioned above we (actually anyone who gets nuclear electricity) have already prepaid all disposal cost at about twice what the worse case disposal cost are."
I can't prove that you are wrong, but let's look at a few facts, if you can believe Wikepedia and NEI.
First NEI says the following: "Consumers of electricity from nuclear power plants have committed $28 billion since 1983 to pay for federal management of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors.
This commitment has supported a growing reliance on safe, clean nuclear energy to meet the nations electricity needs. For the past eight years, the federal government has defaulted on its obligation to manage this fuel. Assuming that the government eventually meets this obligation, each additional year of delay costs taxpayers an estimated $1 billion, according to the Department of Energy."
How do you reconcile NEI's characterization of taxpayer costs versus your claim that the worst case scenario has already been paid. Yucca Mountain has been studied since 1978, according to Wikipedia, so after 29 years, it is still a no-go for waste disposal. Wikipedia also says:
"In the Fall 2006 elections, the Senate majority was won by the Democratic Party. As a result, Senator Harry Reid D-(NV), a long time opponent, will become the Senate Majority Leader and in the next Congress will be in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted to have said "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."
The Republicans had the Presidency and Congress since 2000, and they had to be friendlier than Harry Reid, toward Yucca Mountain. So, what is the cost of disposal if Yucca Mountain goes belly up? Does worst case include the present scenario?
Also, just thinking off the top of my head, are the wastes (that are currently stored at the commercial nuclear power plants) useful to terrorists? I really don't know the answer, but I'd bet a lot of money that "worse case disposal cost" does not include the outcome of having the wastes fall into the wrong hands.
I don't think the case for nuclear reactors is anywhere near as rosy as the picture I infer from your writing, but I could be wrong.
Bill0 -
Part 1 response...
Jim:
Thank you for taking the time to do some reseach.
I only have a few minutes tonight so I do not have time to dig everything up.
I do not believe that I claimed that the nuclear power industry fully funded the NRC. By law the NRC is required to collect at least 90% of its operating cost from license holders.
Thus, the 2007 NRC budget looks like this:
Authorized Spending: $821.6 Million
Expected Fees: $666.5 Million
Federal Funding: $155.1 Million
The NRC does a lot more than just regulate power reactors. I don't know how many license holders their are for all nuclear processes and aplications - but I'd not be surprised if there were at least a thousand of them; while there are only 104 operating power reactors in the US.
However, the fee structure is such that the power industry pays the lions share of those fees collected - in a disproportinate fashion to the cost of NRC service. I cannot come up with the numbers tonight.
I was unaware of the letter you found. In part, it verifies my point about having to pay for every hour and I note that the new hourly rate for the power industry is $256 per hour.
Several years ago I saw a list of the hourly rates based on the type of license:
Enrichment facilities and power reactors were the top rate, Medical facilites were a mid rate, and research and test reactors at educational facilities were a very low rate. It was explained to me that the nuclear power industry did not object to subsidizing the medical and educational programs. Various businesses fell into different rate depending on what they did (but power plants and fuel facilities were the highest - by far).
I'll see if I can find that chart. When you see that - and when you see the differences in annual license fees (over $3 millon per power reactor a year, to $500 per year for many users of nuclear materials) I think you will understand.
As far as the cost of the waste disposal and how that is playing out. I need to dig up some information.
But, you are also correct that the governments refusal to accept the waste they promised to take is causing problems... and recently the courts have ruled that the federal government is liable for that (where the federal government is normally immune from such liability).
I'll follow up with a part 2 another time. Off to bed as I have another long day tomorrow.
Meanwhile - what use do you think someone could do with a used fuel bundle (they weigh a lot and cannot be moved without a crane or other lifting device). You need a big truck to haul them anywhere (tough to hide that).
There are thousands of portable devices that you can carry by hand (or by two people) in their safety container - that are bad enough to create real problems in thousands of businesses arround the world. Very easy to get those and lug them away - stash them in a trunk of a car or a pick-up truck. Usually locked with no more than a paddle lock in a room in a comon building, or locked with a chain in the back of a pickup truck. Missing devices like these are reported all the time.
Perry0 -
Bill and Perry
I do not believe that I claimed that the nuclear power industry fully funded the NRC. By law the NRC is required to collect at least 90% of its operating cost from license holders.
In the end does it really matter whom is paying for what? As far as where the money is coming from it is you and me the consumer that is paying it in the end. It just depends on which pocket I have to pay it out of.0 -
Ultimately true; but that is not the debate
Ultimately, you are correct.
However, there are a number of people - and orginzations that claim that the taxpayers are subsidizing the nuclear industry through their taxes - which is the reason why nuclear power rates are so low.
Alternately, they believe that the other electrical power sources are undersubsidezed and cost competitive.
That is what this debate is about.
The reality is that the Utilities (the power plants) collect the money for all the fees, insurance fund, disposal fund, plant demolition and cleanup funds, etc by including it in their operating cost and in the KWHr cost of a nuclear plant.
So I think the debate is important so that people know the truth - and not the myths...
The reality is that all other form of methods of generating electricity or fuel usage is subsidized by the government. Coal gets the lowest subsidy on a cost per KWHr basis. Wind power, solar, and others are heavily subsidized on a cost per KWHr basis (and in the last 30 years wind power has gotten about the same subsidy as nuclear power - only nuclear power produces 20% of the nations electricity and wind power produces 0.1% of the nations electricity). How many people noticed that oil and gas gets over 60% of all federal subsidy dollars... Yet no one discusses that.
Perry
Perry0 -
The figure of 10,000 nukular plants...
is from a speech by Caltech vice provost and professor of physics and applied physics David Goodstein from an April 29, 2004 program of a group called Caltech Associates. His talk can be found at http://www.energybulletin.net/2327.html. Register as a new user and search for Goodstein.
A Goodstein book titled Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil was published Feb. 2004 by W. W. Norton.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86.4K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 53 Biomass
- 423 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 94 Chimneys & Flues
- 2K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.5K Gas Heating
- 101 Geothermal
- 156 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.5K Oil Heating
- 64 Pipe Deterioration
- 925 Plumbing
- 6.1K Radiant Heating
- 383 Solar
- 15K Strictly Steam
- 3.3K Thermostats and Controls
- 54 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements