The End of The Age of Oil...

Mark Hunt

Good points


And I agree.

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

Not cost effective then?


That would definatley be a good reason not to pursue Nuclear.

Is it possible to make them cost effective?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

Constantin


What do the french do with the spent fuel rods?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Jason_15

The French reprocess the spent rods into new fissionable reactor fuel for the next run, and the small amount of high level radioactive waste that is left gets vitrified into glass and put into long term storage. the final volume of waste is very small, although it is very radioactive and must be kept away from people.

Mark Hunt

Thanks Jason


Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Jason_15

New ones could be cost effective if they are all uniform as the european ones are. Our government is now offering incentives to companies looking into building new style reactors. I just heard construction may start on one in South Carolina by 2010. And, if we reprocess fuel it will bring costs down even more. We are currently constructing a plant that will take ICBM missile warheads and turn them into reactor fuel. Great Idea!!

Jason_15

So was Trojan plant in Oregon, and Big Rock in Michigan is currently being demolished. Decommissioning/ deconstruction costs are included in the rates users pay while the plant is operational.

Jason_15

It is not physically possible for a commercial nuclear reactor to explode as a bomb explodes. they can only melt.The explosion at Chernobyl was only a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion. They had no containment building like we do. Three mile island was basically quite similar, with no consequences. Our designs cannot be compared to the soviet designs for numerous reasons.

Unknown

It doesn't have to explode to have unimaginably devestating consequences for the surrounding area. There are times where "safe enough" is ok. A plane crashing can only take out a few thousand people at once, and we need air travel. It's a risk we have to take.

We don't, however, need to nukes to create energy, we only need them to do it relatively cheaply. They are very safe, generally, however as I noted, any lock can be picked. With that in mind, I don't think risking the lives of millions is worth paying a bit less for energy. Far better would be to pay more, and use less.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Lurker_2

re

IIRC the vast bulk of radioactive material from a nuke plant is not the fuel rods. it is the bulk of lower level material. it is huge in comparison to the fuel, but still must be disposed of. Can't just throw it in the dump.

imatellerslie

We won't build Chernobyl

It isn't really accurate or fair to compare Chernobyl to any reactor found in the US or Europe. In the US, we use Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). These reactors are inherently stable. The reactors at Chernobyl were breeder reactors, designed to produce weapons grade nuclear materials. Those reactors aren't designed to safely produce power. They lacked any kind of containment to prevent the spread of radioactive material in the event of an accident. Further, the reactors at Chernobyl were a solid moderator design, which is an inherently unstable setup.
For fission to occur, a neutron must collide with the nucleus of a Uranium fuel atom. The Uranium fuel atom is inherently unstable, so when the neutron hits it, it breaks apart. The two fragments that result when the Uranium breaks apart, which both have a pretty large positive charge, are repelled from each other and accelerate apart. This is simplified, but it is pretty obvious where the heat comes from in this reaction. These fission fragments, along with a bunch of other particles that come zooming out when the Uranium breaks apart, collide with other things, causing the whole system to heat up. When the reaction occurs, some neutrons inevitably break free and go zooming off at high speed. Those neutrons can cause other fissions to occur if there's enough Uranium of the correct isotope around, and they happen to collide with one of those atoms. However, It's unlikely that they'll collide with another Uranium fuel atom unless they slow down, otherwise they'll just go off at very high speed out of the vicinity of the Uranium. The material that slows these neutrons down is called a MODERATOR. The type of moderator used is very important to how the system operates.

At Chernobyl, a solid, graphite moderator was used. The only way to reduce power in that reactor was to insert control rods, which absorb neutrons. Power in the reactor was controlled with control rods. These are driven in and out using motors, which we all know never malfunction. If power in the plant started to rise, then the number of neutrons causing fissions starts to go up, making power go up more. This causes power to increase EXPONENTIALLY. It was a very stupid and unstable design.

In a pressurized water reactor, like those used in the US, and on nuclear submarines, the coolant, which is water, acts as the moderator. In order for the neutrons to be slowed enough to continue causing fission, water has to be present. If you lose your coolant, the reactor shuts down automatically. Furthermore, if reactor power goes up, the coolant gets hotter, which causes the water to expand (reducing its density), which makes it a less effective moderator, causing power to go down. The reactor is INHERENTLY STABLE. In fact, the power of the reactor naturally levels out at exactly the power being removed from the cooling system. If you remove heat from the coolant, it cools down, becoming a more effective moderator, causing reactor power to go up, until reactor power is equal to the power being taken out of the coolant.

The power plants being used in the United States and Europe are inherently stable. They have reduntant systems to prevent accidents. If they lose their coolant, they shut down without any operator action. There are back up systems to remove decay heat. There are very robust containment buildings to prevent the release of any radioactive material if the many other systems should fail.

The "containment buildings" at Chernobyl were corrugated steel. They built a Sears shed over the reactor. How concerned with safety were they?

A single power plant operating on fossil fuel rains more radioactive material, which is present in the fuel, down on the countryside every day than all the nuclear reactors combined.

Most fear is rooted in a lack of knowledge. It is unfortunate that we haven't been able to build a nuclear reactor in this country for so many years. That we haven't says a lot about politics and education in this country.

jcarta

end of oil

it amazes me each day people complain how much it costs to heat there home-you tell them that they should replace there heating system and they will save money on fuel-but they dont want to hear it-cant come up with the money can you make my 50 yr old unit last another year-2 high end suvs in driveway-there needs to be an energy policy to start to get rid of the wasteful junk out there-if we started consereving we would all benefit-i have seen jobs where a heating system had to be replaced-sized-installed properly- people complained about how much they had to spend-then realize the money they are saving on fuel--then they say should have replaced it sooner look at all the money i wasted-lets all hope something is done before it is too late

Jason_15

KUDOS !!!!!

You said it better than I could have. But that's exactly what I think. Don't forget we also run a few GE boiling water reactors in the US, although the water coolant and stability factors are the same as the pressurized water reactors. Fear of the unknown- being taken advantage of by Hollywood and the media all too often..... it really is sad.

Mark Eatherton1

Whew!!

I know more now about nuclear power than I ever thought I'd need to. Thanks for the information. For the record, what is your background?

Thanks for the information.

ME

imatellerslie

my background

Mark,

I'm glad to have returned the favor and written something you found interesting to read. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts. I'm a submarine officer, getting out of the Navy here in about two weeks.

By the way, based on the reading of my dosimeter (measures radiation exposure), I used to get more exposure when we were in port with the reactor shut down than I did when we were at sea with the reactor operating. This is because at sea, the water over my head protected me from the radiation exposure everyone gets from the sun. Living in a steel tube underwater with an operating nuclear reactor gave me less radiation exposure than everyone else gets all the time.

unknown_3

oil heats best

Tony Conner

I Found...

...some info on-line. I don't like how "decommissioning" is often identified as being the same as "demolished". These are very much NOT the same activities. I formerly worked at a huge utility (not at a nuke plant) and remember the media routinely confusing "availability" and "efficiency", among other errors. (Both were percentages.) Ever since then, I have been wary of media reports on technical matters.

If these plants really are being demolished, where, exactly, is all of the demo'd material going? Much of this material is very nasty, and will be HOT (and REALLY HOT) for...well, pretty much forever. And that really worries me. How can a cost based on completely theoretical numbers be accurately built into any rate structure? I'm not aware of any nuclear plant construction or major maintenance project coming in at anything even remotely CLOSE to on time and on budget. How can they be so deadly accurate with the demolition and decontamination costs? Only if they've got some ex-Enron accounting people doing their books.

jcarta

1solarguy

article

Tony, if you go to www.sciam.com and type maine yankee into the search box it will let you download the article (i think) without subscribing

Maine doug

In the US,

and most likely elsewhere, there are several manufacturing plants, research labs etc that are so severely contaminated they are fenced and posted. All are related to weapons production and research. Most of the high level waste materials (IIRC, about 90 plus %) are from weapons. There are deaths and cancers caused by working in these plants.

The typical manufacturer in weapons dumped into the air, the water, the earth and the employees waste products and contaminants as byproduct of the process. Greed and handouts from the government were a great incentive as it still is today.

A lot of the issues with the word nuclear (pronounced nuk-u-lar by many politicos) came from the weapons industry and government labs prior to the large scale use in generating electric power. Today we call NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) MRI for magnetic resonance imaging because people were afraid of the "nuclear" part.

So even before the big ooops, the industry kind of had a black eye. If we add up the oil spills, coal mine accidents and death, black lung and asbestosis, pollution and health effects from burning coal (in Maine we get the Ohio Valley and mid-west pollution), it sort of puts the US nuclear power generation in a different light.

Tony Conner

Many Plants...

...nuclear or fossil, are now operated by private sector companies. I think you'll find that a LOT of these companies are far more interested in the next quarter profits than anything else. There are some scary things going on in merchant power plants, as compared to utility or military ones. Corners are being routinely cut, that twenty years ago wouldn't have even been considered. MBA's, not engineers, run many of these plants now.

Unknown

Anyone ever heard of

Three Mile Island. It was almost an accident not to far back in time.

Jason_15

Plant demolition

The high level stuff is put in casks, and currently sent to utah . I realize this doesn't sound good, but at least it is contained well. The former site of the plant can then be used for any use at all. Maine Yankee is possibly going to be a public nature area (park). Check the NRC website for decomissioning news.

Jason_15

RE TMI

I'm sure we all remember it. Look at the facts. It was a serious core melt accident at a plant right near Harrisburg, Pa. in 1979. About 50,000 people live right near the plant. NOT ONE single person was exposed to any radiation as a result of this anywhere outside of that plant. Three Mile Island basically proved that the redundant safety factors in place on western style reactors WORK. it is not possible for "the China syndrome" to really occur. The melted portion of the core was contained as designed. Three mile island's sister unit is still producing power, and is a model of efficiency.

Mark Eatherton1

Thanks!!

For serving and protecting our country AND educating us on the workings of things we wonder about...

ME

imatellerslie

you're welcome

Mark,

I've gotten more from than I've given to this website. And it was a privilege to serve my country.

Mark Hunt

Ditto what ME said


I appreciate your service to this country. Thank you very much!

My wife retired from KAPL several years ago. I got to tour the place once. Admiral Kesselring is still feared in those halls!

I missed out on a chance to tour a Sea Wolf class sub in Connecticut when the tour was scrapped last minute. I got a nice t-shirt though!

Again, thank you for your service.

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

And


I hear that we are looking into building reactors that will not produce by-products that can be refined into weapons grade material. South Korea is on board with this as well.

I think we can make nuclear safe and cost effective if we try.

Thanks for your informative posts!

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

imatellerslie

you're welcome

I appreciate your gratitude Mark.

By the way, my dad was an oil burner mechanic. I had an early exposure to moving energy with hot water. It laid the groundwork for what I ended up doing.

Marty_3

More nukes, less kooks. I volunteer my back yard for a nuke plant any day.

ScottMP

Allow me to add my thanks

For your service and a very well thought out responce.

Your post on reactors was vewry informative and interesting. I agree with ME. I know more now than I ever did.

Scott

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Ken_8

Good p[oint Mark

I too believe we should stop poisoning the planet with fossil fuel byproducts and re-consider nuclear. Is it not the stepping stone to the real fuel of the future, fusion?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Ken_8

Good point Mark

I too believe we should stop poisoning the planet with fossil fuel byproducts and re-consider nuclear. Is it not the stepping stone to the real fuel of the future, fusion?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

1solarguy

almost accident?

TMI WAS AN "ACCIDENT". This occured on a nuke that is so stable it "can't melt down"??!! Are we seeing "revisionist history" or blind faith? There was a plume of radiation released that is causing a spike of cancers now in that area. W and his cohorts has passed laws that release nuke owners from responsibility in the event of an "accident"
Believe me, if nukes were such a good deal they would be all over the place. Besdides being a money pit they are NOT that safe.
My favorite nuke is warming me right now as its energy streams in through my south facing windows.

Bob_41

TMI and hydrigen research

Back when I was in college I was working with a Professor that was very interested in the economics of alternative energy sources. Hydrogen was his "pet" project and we jointly submitted a bid to the Oakridge National Labs for a research grant to develop models to determmine the invest$/ROI for the development of a National Hydrogen research program. (feasibility, investment, infrastructure etal) .... we made the short list but out of the 4 grants available that year they all went to Nuclear projects (like similar grants had for the previous 2-3 years).... that was summer/fall of 1978 .... needless to say that the following spring when the accident at TMI basically negated all that work ...politically the nuclear power industry in the US became a white elephant. In the Wash DC area we can't even get a road built that's been on the drawing board since the 1970's due to "environmental" impact its been tied up in endless studies and millions spent OVER the cost of what the road would have cost to BUILD .... I could only imagine the cost of the studies required to build a Nuclear power plant today ... even if the process was "started" TODAY the units wouldn't be on-line until 2050+ ... I "like" nuclear power, the economics work. Its the beauracracy cost that drives it beyond feasibility in the US today. Given those circmstances looking at other alternatives is the most prudet course. I wish I could put my hands on my old research from back then ...I seem to recall that the break-even point for where crude-oil costs would make hydrogen viable was somewhere around $50-$70/barrel in 1970's $$$ (assuming you "had" a hydrogen infrastructure .. a very costly assumption since the infrastructure usually lags behind the adoption) ... or somewhere north of $125/barrel in today's $$.

Bob

hr

Would you care to live downwind of Yucca mountain?

it's the waste disposal that, to me, is the biggest issue.

I could be convinced that an actual reactor could be made safe enough, but the transport and storage of the waste we currently have "temporaily" stored has not been addressed or how to handle future waste if nuclear is geared up

The Yucca plant is over budget, opening date is still uncertain, areas may not even be useable. and it doesn't address all the radioactive waters stored in various locations.

THIS is the issue that needs to be sold to the public, I feel.

The news this morning said 40 some pounds of uranium is "unaccounted" for in Britain. Seems we have a hard time keeping track of current supplies, how would we deal with 5 or 10 times the amount?

In the meantime why not clean up the coal fired plants. We have the coal, and we have the techonology to scrub the emissions down.

We would need these coal fired plants to refine the uranium anyways. Start there while researching all the other options, including safer nukes.

The powers that be have done very little to convince the public that they can safely handle ALL the aspects of a nuclear power gear up. That's the rub

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

1solarguy

not cost effective?

does that mean the market won't bear it? doh

imatellerslie

you're welcome, and thank you

for the kind words sir.

GMcD

Risks from energy sources

With all the talk about the potential risks from nuclear plants, and the pollution caused by coal fired thermal generation plants, let me remind the group about the biggest cause of death from fossil fuel use: Death by automobile:

Deaths from Automobile accidents injury: 42,443 deaths in USA 2001 (CDC); 42,401 deaths reported in USA 1999 for "motor vehicle accidents" (NVSR Sep 2001); 41,804 deaths in 2000 (CDC);

Now, that doesn't include the survivors with injuries which is a number about 4 times that. So that means at least a quarter of a million people a year are killed or injured by a fuel using device. The spread of suburbia and the "need" for everyone to have an automobile and the society built on the open road results in far more death and mayhem than any other fossil fuel use or energy source. Now, factor in the ancillary death and injury caused by auto smog and air pollution (approximately 40% of all the greenhouse gas and air pollution results from motor vehicle exhaust) and we can see that the "auto society" is killing itself off in a far more efficient way than any other source of risk. The problem is that this is deemed an acceptable loss to allow the auto-society to flourish.

Funny how priorities can be rationalized based on perceptions rather than facts.

PJO_5

Cars...

Will always be a curse for us I suppose...even when they are hybrid and/or hydrogen powered we will still have too many, and will be dying in them.

I agree with HR about coal; why not use that better and cleaner?

As I have said before; the "oil is cheap" mentality just doesn't fly...factor in the military issue in the middle east and then you are seeing the "real" cost of oil IMHO.

As for me, I have had 100% renewable electricity powering my home for several months now...at about a 15% premium...and just got management approval to seek a 4.8 kW PV system that will be better than oil, coal, nuclear, etc. The investment will bring about 10% to 12% return after factoring in the financial incentives...better than the stocks have done in three years. :-)

Take Care, PJO