Should the US Start Building More Nuclear Power Plants?

[lawrocket 3]

I see that GWB is proposing building more nuclear power plants in the US. I personally like the idea, although my knowledge is limited. It will help us start gaining more independence on fossil fuels, but what do we do with the waste and where do we park them?

What do others think? And please explain your answers. I don't know enough about htis topic, and I may change my mind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

>Should the US Start Building More Nuclear Power Plants?

Yes. They emit a lot less toxic waste than coal power plants, and their fuel is reusable almost forever. They are a lot safer than any other form of power - there has never been a civilian fatality (or even injury!) related to a US nuclear power plant accident.

In terms of which type of reactor to build, I'd go with an AP600 in the short term (proven GE design for a 600MW PWR reactor) or a PBMR in the mid term. PBMR's are inherently a bit safer, and can be used to make hydrogen via thermal dissociation of water.

You might also consider a CANDU reactor, since it uses natural uranium - no enrichment required. That's a big plus if you're worried about nuclear proliferation.

>but what do we do with the waste and where do we park them?

1. Dry cask storage in a desert
2. Reprocess it into new fuel, via MOX or re-enrichment
3. Vitrification and burial

Where do we park them? Anywhere we can. NIMBYism will determine which sites are viable and which aren't, beyond the usual (i.e. don't site it near a fault line, or in a tornado prone area, or on a river that floods regularly.)

[BaconStrip 0]

Sounds like you are educated on Nukes. Just curious, roughly how many pounds of waste would a typical plant produce per/month, year, whatever?

[billvon 2,476]

>Just curious, roughly how many pounds of waste would a typical plant
>produce per/month, year, whatever?

About 20 tons a year from a 1 gigawatt power plant (1000 megawatts.) If reprocessing is done, 97% of that is reused, so total waste would be 1200 pounds a year.

[ahegeman 0]

Whatever happened with the whole pebble bed concept? I heard a lot about it for a while, and it seems to have faded away. Seemed like a great idea overall.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[billvon 2,476]

>Whatever happened with the whole pebble bed concept?

PBMR = pebble bed modular reactor. Pretty safe overall, but there is a fire risk that I don't think has been adequately addressed yet.

[Salsa_John 0]

Lets make sure we have thoroughly safe and redundant system first

Break the economic backs of the oil countries who hold us hostage.

97% reuseable fuel? Great.

"You did what?!?!"

MUFF #3722, TDSM #72, Orfun #26, Nachos Rodriguez

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

so total waste would be 1200 pounds a year.

What happens to that waste and how expensive is the disposal of it.

[StreetScooby 5]

How much volume does that amount too?

We are all engines of karma

[PhreeZone 15]

Beauty of Nuke's is you know exactly where and what the waste is. Coal plants put it out in smoke that is unable to be readibly seen and weighed by the average person so they are less concerned about it. Put a container of spent fuel in front of someone and they will protest about a 55 gallon drum full of it with in 100 miles of their home, but put a coal burning plant at the same location and there is not near the fight since they can't see the 2-3 times amount of radiation that is coming from the smoke vs the sealed cask.

I'm all for puting in a few more nuke reactors. Much safer in the short and long run to the envronment and to people then gas/coal plants.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Given how long it takes to bring a plant online, need to start now. Yes, there are potential pitfalls on the waste management, but in contrast the coal plants constantly release a known level of pollution.

Nuclear power built now will buy us a lot of time to explore alternative sources, like the wave powered demo going into operation in Portugal.

[billvon 2,476]

>>total waste would be 1200 pounds a year.

>What happens to that waste and how expensive is the disposal of it.

It is high level nuclear waste and must be handled like any spent nuclear fuel i.e. very carefully.

>How much volume does that amount too?

About a cubic foot. It's dense stuff.

[Ron 7]

Build new plants.

A SGM told me once the solution to our problems with terrorists is to stop buying oil and it will take away their money...Leave them with oil and sand and tell them to eat the mix.

As for more plants. I like the idea. The fact that there has not been a problem in the US is nice, but we can't forget Chornobal (an RBMK type reactor...One of the most common in the world, but one that is unstable at low power) where the fallout fell as far away as Great Britain, Norway, and France. Ukrainian health officials say 170,000 died as a result of the accident...About the same as BOTH nukes dropped on Japan. The land around the plant is not able to support life and will not be able for another 100 years.

Three Mile Island had a 50% melt down...And while it was contained, if it had been much worse it would have been very bad.

Also plants are very expensive. Seabrook reactor in New Hampshire was 11 years behind schedule, and 12 times more expensive than the original estimates.

Some claim that nuclear energy will reduce our dependance on oil....Nice idea, but right now only 3-4% of our electricity is being generated by oil burning plants.-- Dr. Linda Berg, Professor St. Pete College, St Petersburg, FL.

The US has 104 plants in operation....France is next with 59.

France has the right idea, most plants are of the same design and that makes them cheaper and faster than plants in the US to build and run. Also training is much easier since they are all the same.

I like the idea...But there are tons of questions left unanswered.

Still I think it is the future and we might as well encourage it now so it gets here faster and before we need it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,476]

>but we can't forget Chornobal (an RBMK type reactor...One of the
>most common in the world, but one that is unstable at low power)

I agree, but we don't have any RBMK's and we're not going to build any, so it's not much of an issue for us.

>The land around the plant is not able to support life and will not
>be able for another 100 years.

Actually, in terms of wildlife, the area is doing fantastic. Removing the people from the area did far more good to the local wildlife than the nuclear contamination did harm.

See here.

[Ron 7]

Thanks for the link...Interesting.

But it did say "In reality, radioactivity at the level associated with the Chornobyl meltdown does have discernible, negative impacts on plant and animal life "

While removing the effects of humans was good, I doubt you think the same kind of thing over here would be good for the environment....Still thanks, it was a good read and shows how humans really do not take care of our environment.

Quote

>but we can't forget Chornobal (an RBMK type reactor...One of the
>most common in the world, but one that is unstable at low power)

I agree, but we don't have any RBMK's and we're not going to build any, so it's not much of an issue for us.

Yes, but 3 mile Island was almost a disaster due to lackluster performance, not design. And that can happen anywhere. The Nuclear plant had gotten lazy and it almost cost us dearly.

Like I said the idea is great, but care must be taken otherwise all hell could break loose...

Can you imagine if 3 mile had been a total meltdown?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>Should the US Start Building More Nuclear Power Plants?

Yes. They emit a lot less toxic waste than coal power plants, and their fuel is reusable almost forever. They are a lot safer than any other form of power - there has never been a civilian fatality (or even injury!) related to a US nuclear power plant accident.

In terms of which type of reactor to build, I'd go with an AP600 in the short term (proven GE design for a 600MW PWR reactor) or a PBMR in the mid term. PBMR's are inherently a bit safer, and can be used to make hydrogen via thermal dissociation of water.

You might also consider a CANDU reactor, since it uses natural uranium - no enrichment required. That's a big plus if you're worried about nuclear proliferation.

>but what do we do with the waste and where do we park them?

1. Dry cask storage in a desert
2. Reprocess it into new fuel, via MOX or re-enrichment
3. Vitrification and burial

Where do we park them? Anywhere we can. NIMBYism will determine which sites are viable and which aren't, beyond the usual (i.e. don't site it near a fault line, or in a tornado prone area, or on a river that floods regularly.)

PBMR is an inherently safer design since it is thermally stable and can't runaway. It is also far simpler than conventional US designs since it doesn't need layer upon layer of safety systems. Consequently it's prolly less profitable for the builders, which could be its downfall.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>Yes, but 3 mile Island was almost a disaster due to lackluster
> performance, not design. And that can happen anywhere. The
> Nuclear plant had gotten lazy and it almost cost us dearly.

Sort of, but I also think that TMI has some interesting lessons. To review what happened at TMI -

1. A failure in a polisher caused a 'trip' which caused the generators, and primary heat exchanger, to go off-line. The reactor automatically shut down to it's low power state. Which still generates some heat, but is pretty easy to cool with even minimal cooling.

2. A PORV (relief valve) opened during the shutdown and then stuck in that position. No one noticed so no one closed the backup valve. This caused coolant to drain from the reactor to a storage pool.

3. Cooling feedwater automatically started flowing to the heat exhanger to cool the reactor - but someone shut off the valves at the heat exchanger so it couldn't get there.

4. Temperature in the core started rising. The HPI's (high pressure injector pumps) automatically started adding cooling water directly to the reactor - and someone shut _those_ off.

5. The core got hot enough to dissociate water, and hydrogen collected in the containment building. Then it exploded. The containment building held.

So two mechanical failures, followed by three incredibly dumb mistakes caused the worst possible nuclear accident, a LOCA (loss-of-coolant accident.) And the result was a damaged core; no deaths or injuries, no breach in the containment building. If that's the worst case, then we're in pretty good shape. And to prevent it, all the operators would have had to do is not mess with the systems that were shutting down the reactor.

Could it have been worse? Yeah, they could have continued to do stupid stuff; we could have seen a bigger explosion in the containment building. But a system that can survive two failures at once - and can also survive plant operators who seemed to _want_ to destroy the plant - isn't such a bad system. And partly as a result of TMI, we have even safer systems today, with better operator interfaces and more automated systems.

What's funny about the nuclear debate is how differently it's perceived. People will talk endlessly about TMI and how it was almost a disaster. But in 2000, a gas line to a natural gas power plant exploded and killed 11 campers, including 5 children, who were out in the middle of nowhere minding their own business. And it barely makes the news. There are whole towns that have been evacuated because coal mines have led to fires that eat out the towns from beneath. And that's never made the national news to my knowledge. Coal dust explosions regularly kill miners and power plant workers, and something like 30,000 americans are killed every year from particulate pollution from coal fired power plants. It's odd that we hold nuclear power plants to the incredibly high standards we do, and odder still that so many people think they are unsafe when they meet those standards, given the alternative.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Some claim that nuclear energy will reduce our dependance on oil....Nice idea, but right now only 3-4% of our electricity is being generated by oil burning plants.-- Dr. Linda Berg, Professor St. Pete College, St Petersburg, FL.

But greater availability of electricity, which means cheaper electricity, will reduce the oil dependence. The electric car and/or hydrogen powered car need electricity to to operate - the electric car needs to be charged and the hydrogen needs electrolysis to be produced. This makes them less costly and more inefficient than the gasoline powered vehicles.

If the electricity capability was there to make such technologies cheaper, then more people would be driven to it, making it more common, and more improvements will come.

Fuel efficient economy cars were not too popular in the 70's until the gas lines started. Then those little Japanese vehicles became a hotter commodity. The same pattern should occcur with electric vehicles and/or hydrogen fuel cells.

Or, capacitors. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1591330#1591330

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

>PBMR is an inherently safer design since it is thermally stable
>and can't runaway.

Here's my question.

Let's say you have a LOCA. The reactor immediately goes to a low-power state due to loss of moderator. It's still very hot (a thousand C or so) but now produces only 5% of the heat it used to, so it begins to cool down via passive means.

The LOCA is so bad that air soon enters the reactor. What's to stop the graphite cladding of the fuel from burning?

[Ron 7]

Quote

What's funny about the nuclear debate is how differently it's perceived. People will talk endlessly about TMI and how it was almost a disaster

Well its the same thing about the two nukes dropped on Japan. We killed much more than that in one night with a conventional bomb raid...But it was not nuclear. Still people get all pissy about the two nukes and don't seem to mention the "normal" deaths.

Its fear.

Quote

There are whole towns that have been evacuated because coal mines have led to fires that eat out the towns from beneath. And that's never made the national news to my knowledge

I have seen it on nationals news...It was a city in PA.

Quote

It's odd that we hold nuclear power plants to the incredibly high standards we do, and odder still that so many people think they are unsafe when they meet those standards, given the alternative.

Its the potential they have. Chornobal killed 170,000 people...Last estimate I saw for the two nukes was 140,000.

Actually one of the cooler stats I saw for Chornobal was something about cows in Iowa feeling the effects....Can't find it now, but if true...WOW!

People fear nuclear power....I don't blame them...If people knew more about coal burning plants they would be afraid of those as well.

Ignorance in one case causes fear, in another it causes acceptance.

Go fiqure.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>PBMR is an inherently safer design since it is thermally stable
>and can't runaway.

Here's my question.

Let's say you have a LOCA. The reactor immediately goes to a low-power state due to loss of moderator. It's still very hot (a thousand C or so) but now produces only 5% of the heat it used to, so it begins to cool down via passive means.

The LOCA is so bad that air soon enters the reactor. What's to stop the graphite cladding of the fuel from burning?

Same as Windscale...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

But greater availability of electricity, which means cheaper electricity, will reduce the oil dependence

Maybe, but the majority of oil is used for cars and heating. It will take the continued focus on electric cars AND a viable electric heat pump to make the biggest improvement.

And as you said better storage will be needed.

I think it is the way we are going an NEED to go. But that does not mean it is the easy road.

I have really been thinking of a hybrid for my next car...Hows that strike ya? Most on here would never think I would drive my Hybrid to the gun range

I would also like to see a focus on solar. There was a house on that make over show that had an electric bill about 13 bucks a mth.

BillV has a nice set up I hear.

I think the cost is better spent on technology than on oil.

I am waiting to see if the hybrids have any unusual mechanical issues...I drive 30,000+ miles a year, I need a car that will last 160-170 thousand miles without giving me too much trouble.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[StreetScooby 5]

With Bush pushing hydrogen, I find myself wondering - doesn't hydrogen blow up easily? I don't think I'd want a tank of hydrogen (even dissolved into something) sitting next to my house.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

What's the order-of-magnitude cost to put a solar installation on a 2500 square foot house? How many hours a day of sun do you need for it to be cost effective?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

BTW - I've heard hybrids have a nasty habit of cutting out (i.e., dying) at certain speeds (< 50mph). Leaves the driver struggling for control. Also, not sure if they come with 4-wheel drive, so could be a problem in snow bound areas.

We are all engines of karma