SLOW REACTORS?: Plant Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 foundation excavation, with Units 1 and 2 in foreground as water vapor rises from cooling towers, in April 2010.
Image: copyright Southern Co.
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A new era for nuclear power is taking shape as third-generation reactors, designed to be simpler and safer, inch through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) design certification process. Much of nuclear's revival hinges on the ability of new reactors to outshine those of yore in terms of safety, economics, construction time and life span.
Of the 26 new reactor applications under current NRC scrutiny, 14 are for Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 pressurized water reactor. What sets the reactor apart is its modular design and passive safety system: Instead of relying on an operator or electronic feedback to shut down the reactor should it overheat, it employs the natural forces of gravity, convection and air circulation.
In the case of an emergency (a one-in-two-million chance according to a probabilistic risk assessment) the plant itself responds to changes in pressure, temperature and coolant level, says Westinghouse's Bruce Bevilacqua, vice president of new plants engineering.
If everything goes according to plan the first of two AP1000 reactors will go online in 2016 at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Ga., marking the first U.S. nuclear construction project to break ground since the 1970s; the second is set to go online in 2017. Yet it remains to be seen whether the AP1000 will herald nuclear's next generation, especially because the reactor is on its 18th design revision and a couple of key safety questions remain unresolved.
The first safety concern arose four years ago over the durability of the reactor's shield building. The structure is the outermost layer of defense in a nuclear reactor and provides protection against severe external events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornado-generated projectiles and airplane collisions. In the AP1000's case it also supports a very large water tank (one of the passive safety measures).
"Westinghouse first submitted the AP1000 design in the early 2002, which was approved and certified in 2006," explains Scott Burnell, spokesperson for the NRC, adding that one year later the company modified the shield building's design to meet aircraft-impact design standards.* "While the original design used the same reinforced concrete used for decades, the altered design used a more prefab approach, where concrete would be sandwiched between steel plates." After long talks, the NRC said the sandwich module approach would not stand up to severe external events.
Westinghouse returned to the drawing board. In May the company submitted a more robust shield building design that adds steel reinforcement between the walls, fortifies the connection joints between the steel composite wall and the reinforced concrete mat, and improves the venting.
The NRC anticipates completing the overall design certification review around September 2011.
A second safety issue recently came to fore. Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive and chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates, an energy consulting company, stepped forward to spotlight what he sees as a possible fatal flaw in the AP1000's design: the separation of the concrete shield building from the steel containment vessel.
Typically, pressurized water reactors' containment systems consist of a concrete dome reinforced with steel to prevent radioactive fumes from escaping during a nuclear accident. With the AP1000, there is a space between the steel containment vessel and the shield building, the latter of which has a hole in its roof. Because the AP1000 design uses a chimney effect to draw air outside of the containment vessel upward (a design Westinghouse envisioned for cooling the containment and preventing rust using natural circulation), if radioactive air were to seep from the steel vessel, it would be ushered up into the outside air through the hole in the shield building roof.
"Do I think this is a one-in-10 event? No," Gundersen says. "But I don't think it's a zero-probability event either. Perhaps it's one in a thousand, and that's significant when you're dealing with consequences this big."
Gundersen points to dozens of containment breaches as proof. One hole was discovered by visual inspection in 2009 at the Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania. It bore through the containment's metal lining. Another was an 18-meter-long delamination (fissure caused by layer separation), found at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in Florida the same year.
The solution, Gundersen says, is to install filters in the hole of the shield building's roof to capture any vapors that could leak out of the containment vessel, if breached. This modification would probably delay certification.
So why choose the AP1000 reactor when four other next-gen reactors—the economic simplified boiling water reactor, the EPR (for European pressurized reactor), the U.S. advanced pressurized water reactor, and the advanced boiling-water reactor—are going through the same design certification process? "There's a number of reasons," says Doug McComb, engineering manager of Southern Co., the utility that runs Plant Vogtle. "Probably the biggest is we were looking at the schedule for when we would need additional generating capacity and at the schedule for various designs, and the AP1000 was the only one that would meet our need." Meaning that the AP1000 was the only reactor scheduled to be certified in time.
On June 18, Southern Co. accepted a $3.4-billion conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy for the twin Plant Vogtle reactors and continues early site construction. The next probable step? AP1000 certification.
*Correction (7/30/10): This sentence was edited after posting. It originally stated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The NRC is an independent commission appointed by the president.
See what we're tweeting about
55 Comments
Add CommentThe article mentions "radioactive fumes" and "vapors", but other than radon gas, I thought radioactivity was basically either particulate or wave energy, not fumes. What would the filters be filtering?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm increasingly a convert to nuclear now that it seems clear that the technology is inevitably subject to the same improvement and refinement processes as other power generation methods.
The AP1000 certification process isn't the only hurdle to overcome for the proposed new reactors at Plant Vogtle. Construction stopped in early July due to apparent breaches in security protocol on screening workers and remains stopped today. See http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GQD0B01.htm and http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2010/20100706en.html.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdditionally, Southern Company has run into problems with the backfill needed for the excavation process and are having to use either backfill from another on-site location or from an off-site location -- both require further analysis and NRC approval which could impact both cost and the schedule as reported in testimony to the Georgia Public Service Commission.
More permitting approvals remain in the months and years ahead making it slow going and costly.
Safer and cleaner than a coal plant, and we build plenty of those...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither new coal or new nuclear are 'cleaner' and 'safer' than many energy alternatives that are out there -- energy efficiency and conservation and a host of renewable energy choices (solar, wind, bioenergy, etc.). With today's available energy technologies and the innovation that is underway, the choice thankfully is no longer between 'coal' or 'nuclear.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuilding a new nuclear plant is far different that building a coal plant, which is exacerbated by the fact that new reactors haven't been built in the U.S. in decades. The infrastructure is missing, the workforce is dwindling and the experience is limited.
In terms of the design being pursued at Vogtle for instance, Toshiba-Westinghouse's AP10oo -- the Chinese have broken ground but the design has never been fully built or operated anywhere in the world.
Plus, new reactors at exorbitantly expensive -- unlike many other renewables which have seen their prices decline over time, new reactor costs keep escalating. $22 billion now for 2 reactors proposed for Florida. You could get a lot of energy efficiency improvements for a fraction of the cost and negate the need to build several new power plants (coal or nuclear).
Oh, you mean there's not a perfect ready-made turnkey solution that's both cutting edge and time-tested?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch as several looks of shock and amazement fail to cross my face.
quincykim: As a pressurized water system I might expect that containment breaches would vent radioactive steam along with emitted radiation. The steam could be condensed and collected on site, and I have no idea how the emissions would be contained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA sustainably generated H2 fuel cell economy would be the best transition to a carbon free structure. Nuclear is necessary to achieve that. I would rather see the next nuclear plant be GenIV of some sort, but getting a GenIII or two safely online only cuts the CO2 that much more. >1K/1 safety risk is small compared to the the older units operating now, with no deaths or mass environmental contamination due to containment breach in the US of A. I hope there are no more Chernobl type reactors in operation. Additionally, the existing reactors are generating 25% more power than original design from tuning the operation without compromising the safety.
Kick the tires and light the fires, let the DoE do it's thing.
I have spoken with some of the NRC reviewers who are assigned the task of reviewing the Westinghouse shield building and the modifications. They have assured me that there are no show stopping issues; they are simply doing their job and asking questions because the design makes use of modern construction techniques that are not familiar to them. That is not surprising; construction technology has come a long way since the last time the NRC issued a construction permit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also spoke an NRC staff member specifically assigned to the shield building evaluation about Arnie Gundersen's objections regarding containment liner corrosion. He said that the NRC staff had reviewed the design carefully and disagreed with Mr. Gundersen's engineering and math.
I know from my own research that Gundersen is a disgruntled nuke who has both personal and financial motives for fighting the industry. He was fired from his job as a corporate VP at a nuclear services company. He was sued for $1.5 million for defamation after he wrongly accused his employer of improperly storing radioactive sources used to calibrate detectors. The NRC validated the fact that the accusation was without basis.
From speaking with people who worked with him in the late 1980s, before he lost his job in the early 1990s, I learned that he had a reputation for incomplete work associated with used fuel pool re-racking contracts.
The final thing that is worth knowing about Mr. Gundersen is that he is now making $300 per hour as a consultant working for the state of Vermont. He was chosen by people who want to force Vermont Yankee to shut down. Though he earned an MS in Nuclear Engineering, he never earned a Professional Engineer (PE) designation. Most states require that any engineering services be performed by people with a PE designation. His contract was awarded without any competition.
There are plenty of people who do not like nuclear energy or the nuclear industry, but there are also thousands of smart, dedicated professionals who are working hard to bring the world a new source of clean, reliable, low cost energy.
Wind and solar cannot do the job. If you want reliable electricity, you have four choices - coal, nuclear, natural gas, and hydro. All other sources added together produce less than 6% of the electricity in the United States. (Of course, you can also use petroleum, but that high-priced fuel is best saved for transportation uses.)
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Please read following two phrases copied from above article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGundersen points to dozens of containment breaches as proof. One hole was discovered by visual inspection in 2009 at the Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania. It bore through the containment's metal lining. Another was an 18-meter-long delamination (fissure caused by layer separation), found at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in Florida the same year..........................
In the case of an emergency (a one-in-two-million chance according to a probabilistic risk assessment)...........................
I know that there are about 100 nuclear power plants in USA. So can somebody tell me which ignorant person has calculated 1/2.000.000 figure?????
We should all wake up and start asking "Why do we need so much energy to make our livings?", before it is too late for coming generations to be able to live on this lovely earth.
With fossil fuel depleting fast; hydro stuck with environmental issues; coal contributing to global warming and renewable good for remote locations and not as bulk supplier of electricity, Nuclear Power- the clean- known source of electricity that is viable and environmentally benign is inevitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really don't think it's going to be as black and white as some people claim here - more of a greyish mixture I'd say. There isn't going to be one single answer to our energy needs that one source alone will ever supply. Distrubted generation provided by rooftop solar and wind, matched with a baseload driven by nuclear and offshore hydro will be a likely mix. And hell, if we can get our consumption down to that of the rest of the world through massive efficiency retrofits we'll be laughing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no need to say who is right or wrong, well unless of course you're one of those oil, coal, NG, hydrogen type.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is NOT a sub-organization of the Department of Energy (DOE). The NRC was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to enable the nation to safely use radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while ensuring that people and the environment are protected. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirements. In fact, the NRC even has regulatory authority over DOE in some instances, which it could not do if it was a part of the DOE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe common assumptions about effects of a power reactor meltdown are based on very simplistic calculations done in the 1960s. We now know these are not true. DOE built and melted down several reactor cores. These and the TMI event demonstrated that the majority of the radioisotopes of concern remain in the vessel, even when it and the containment are breached. There has never been a legal requirement for NRC to evaluate this information, so their requirements remain stuck in the 1960s. Congress needs to fix this so we quit wasting money worrying about impossible events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Adams's ad hominem attack on Mr. Gundersen must be in the industry play book. Westinghouse's initial response to Mr. Gundersen's report was "we are not surprised that an antinuclear group with an antinuclear agenda made antinuclear comments." Does anyone who questions specific safety concerns about a design of a nuclear plant automatically get put into that box?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AP1000 design is on Revision 18 of its design control documents (DCD) and many of the fundamental equipment designs and operational procedures have not been reviewed by the NRC staff or approved. The timetable for review has been pushed several more months, with several steps in the timetable depending on Westinghouse's ability to respond to the NRC staff in a timely manner. The AP1000 design still has not been finalized and now is the time in the review process for anyone has serious concerns to come forward. That is what Mr. Gundersen did on our behalf.
John Runkle
AP1000 Oversight Group
The renewables versus nuclear debate is not valid. You are comparing apples and oranges. Nuclear provides large amounts of reliable, constant 24/7 baseload power. Renewables provide small ammounts of intermittent, variable power which are weather dependent (ie. when the sun shines and the wind blows).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cannot argue use one instead of the other. They are different things. Its like comparing a motorcycle to a semi. They are both motorized vehicles but that is where the similarity ends. A motorcycle cannot replace the semi.
I am personnally very disapointed in Scientific American for publishing and giveng credibility to the rantings of Arnie Gundersen without checking the facts and the source. Rod Adams has done an excellent job of putting this in a proper perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@JRunkle - sometimes, messengers need to be attacked. Gundersen is attacking the credibility of an entire industry and its designated, independent regulator; his motives for doing so deserve to be exposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestinghouse is breaking new ground with their design and having to teach NRC reviewers a bit about modern construction techniques. It is a necessarily slow process since the NRC reviewers have been - quite correctly - trained to act like they are from Missouri. They demand to be shown satisfactory proof of safety. Again, that is quite legitimate, so delaying the approval does not put the overall process into question.
What makes Gundersen think he is more qualified than anyone else to review the documents and the design? As I mentioned before, where did he earn a PE designation?
One thing that I did not mention is that Gundersen claims on page 1 of his expert witness CV that he was a licensed reactor operator. What he buries on page 7 of 8 is the fact that the ONLY reactor he was ever licensed to operate was the research reactor at RPI when he was a graduate student in nuclear engineering. After graduation, he took a different career path.
Considering the rigorous qualification process and experience requirements needed to become an NRC qualified reactor at a POWER reactor, Gundersen's claim of that status is deceptive. He also does not mention why he left the nuclear industry, or what he did during the period from 1990-1996.
Perhaps your organization should try to find a more qualified reviewer if you want to halt the development of the ONLY power source that can displace coal and natural gas. Of course, someone with more qualifications, less of an axe to grind and a bit more integrity might tell you that there is no legitimate basis for a challenge.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
I'm all for nuclear, to a degree, but to stress that it is the only power source able to displace coal and natural gas is pretty naiive at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have identified design flaws in the electrical systems of both the AP1000 and ESBWR new plants to the NRC, see NRC ADAMS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisML091340469, ML091050381, ML100320482 for a gist of the flawed design. The NRC Project Manager for the AP1000 has indicated that they do not have time to address the concerns of every individual!! I am still hopeful that these concerns will be addressed at some time before NRC certifications of AP1000 and ESBWR are completed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm fir good nukes but fail to see using old designs that are far from safe. We need ti skip past G3 and go on to more economic, inherently safe and smaller designs that don't rely on pressurized water.
There have been many almost broke through the containment vessels over the yrs. It's pure greed that the nuke industry still going to these old designs instead of doing far better units like the Hyperion style in up to 500mw sizes, best probably `100- 250mw units. They have a big problem when a 1GW unit goes down for quite a while like Chrystal River is now with it's delaminating safety dome.
Now they want Progress customers to pay 29% higher electric rates for 10 yrs to give Progress a free nuke and the customer don't get squat.
How much better to put $2B instead of the $18B before cost over runs which normally double the cost and start a revolving fund for PV which only costs $2k/kw for panels, $4k/kw for installed now retail for homeowner which with the loans being paid back used to finance more. These can start producing in 1 month instead of waiting 10+ yrs and power is made when needed, not wasted off peak like much nuke would be.
Many other tech like river/tidal kinetic hydro which is baseline, biomass CHP/solar CSP both of which are callable when needed and in many place like SE Fla the sea breezes are directly as strong as peak power needs.
Another is just putting solar collectors on NG, coal plants to cut fuel use when there is sun at around $1/kwhr. Facts are most all RE power is far less to install, under $4k/kw than nuke at $10k/kw.
Here in Fla homeowners pay $.14kwhr for electricity for both coal and paid for nuke. New nuke will cost Progress customers $.19kwhr for 10 yrs with no benefits. Homeowners in most place with well shopped RE can easily pay them of in 2-5 yrs and have free power for another 20-50 yrs at little cost. Now how does nuke, coal or any other power compete with that.
namikozcan...the crystal river power plant issue which i've been concern about in fl(where i live)...was not a fault of the dome...it was caused when they cut a hole to put new generators in place(in the news the last few days)...i do not see a problem with nuke energy...it just needs to be made very..very..very safe....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe will need all resources to meet the current/future demand...switching to renewables(solar/wind/geo) will take a very long time...no time like the present....(read jobs)...
I think everyone over reacts to nuclear power which has been around for the past 50 plus years. I worked in Hanford Wash. back in 1951-1955. . Yes I know it is now shut down due to contamination but we have never experienced a major dissaster in the US other then some minor leaks. Also I was a nuclear officer in the navy handling nuclear components without incident. On the other hand there have been major dissasters from oil spills, leaks etc. I'm always reminded of the Texas City dissaster back in the 1970's. In addition there have been many lives lost due to coal mine explosions, collapses and other energy accidents. I feel the problem is that many people do not understand the technology and are afraid due to their lack of understanding. Bottom line I support nuclear power and hope we do more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see Scientific American do something scientific. Like having guest engineers and scientists deconstructing what appear to be bogus concerns of a state of the art design such as the AP1000 - any credible university professor of structures, or nuclear engineering professor should be able to offer a better perspective than the prejudiced and bitter opinions of the anti nuclear lobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt present there is no way to tell whether the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) remains just another Big Oil/NG lackey agency. It is fair to call the NRC - The MOTHER OF ALL BUREAUCRACIES.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new head, Jackzo has Zero qualifications for the job and was put there by Senator Harry "Boondoggle" Reid. Jackzo is way too young for that job, and has a history of anti-nuclear bias, working for the anti-nuclear fanatic rep. Ed Markey. Markey has been gung-ho attacking BP for the Gulf Oil Spill but he also is indirectly responsible for that same Spill, by actively blocking any realistic alternatives to Oil.
You have to consider, how is that Nuclear Safety when you put an unqualified individual in charge, just because he was Harry Reid's lapdog. No difference from putting a Horse Lawyer in charge of FEMA during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. We all know how well that worked out. And the Chernobyl Explosion was directly caused by a politically appointed, unqualified flunky, put in charge of a NPP which he didn't have a clue how to manage.
The simple truth is Jackzo could be a Big Oil/NG stooge whose #1 agenda is to block Nuclear Energy - the only Real alternative to Oil/NG/Coal. The logical strategy for an Oil Industry Stooge is to bleed Nuclear Energy, just like they did in the 80's. Nothing obvious or overt. Pretend they are just promoting safety while adding one obstacle after another to Nuclear Power Plant construction & licensing. So far the NRC hasn’t licensed one new NPP in over 20 yrs, and that “impressive” record still stands.
Compare with Big Oil's Regulatory Body, the MMS. A virtual Rubber Stamp to anything Oil wants to do. Maximum by Federal Law 30 days for environmental review & approval of a Toxic, Mega-Oil Spill Rig. No public input allowed. Saving the Walruses in the Gulf of Mexico and contacting long dead scientists is fully approved for an emergency plan by Federal Regulators. No Failsafes needed on Toxic Oil Spill Drilling Rigs. Emergency alarms disconnected – no problem.
Learn about the NRC here:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/#comments
http://depletedcranium.com/the-nrc-a-den-of-anti-nukes-theives-and-scoundrels/
Before the NRC, NPP's were coming in at an average of $1100 per KWe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per KWe, that's in 2007 dollars!! With Wind @ $12k per kw and Solar at $30-$80k per kw. And shadowing fossil fuels will still supply 70-90% of the system energy.
Wayne Williamson..thanks for feedback for the nature of the incident. It is obviously an accident and adds on the statistical counts. It also proves once again that very-very- safe nuke energy is just a wishfull thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is:
Current/future energy demands are all relative concepts imposed by our current lifestyles. Being able to afford more energy is not sustainable since it conflicts with "Rights of Nature".
@jerryd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder where you are getting your numbers. Even in the extremely pro-solar paper titled "Solar and Nuclear Costs The Historic Crossover" recently commissioned by NC Warn and written by Blackburn (a retired economics professor) and Cunningham (a student working on a Masters in Environmental Management), the computations for a 3 kwe home solar energy system assumed that the system would cost approximately $18,000 installed. If financed over a 25 year period at a reasonable 6% interest rate, the cost per kilowatt-hour would be 35 cents - WAY above the market price of 10.5 cents in North Carolina.
Of course, the paper also described how the federal government would, under current law, pick up 30% of the installed cost of the system while the state of North Carolina would pay another 35% of the cost. Those two direct payments from other taxpayers would reduce the homeowner's installed cost to $8,190.
If financed over the same 25 year period with the same 6% interest, that system would produce power at 15.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. That is still above the residential price for electricity, but it is BELOW the mandated rate of 19 cents per kilowatt hour that the utility is required to PAY residential customers for the power that they generate. (page 18, paper linked below)
As honestly described in the paper, the homeowner gets a good deal. However think about where the money comes from and who is benefiting before you think this is a model that has the ability to scale to any real energy production.
Where would the subsidies come from if they had to support several gigawatts per year worth of new capacity? How should apartment dwellers, home renters, and commercial enterprises feel about paying more than half of the cost of installations for their fellow citizens that happen to own a home with a roof suitable for solar panels?
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Jerry says: "...using old designs that are far from safe..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere hasn't been a single fatality with the Old Designs, and they have avoided about 300,000 deaths due to Coal Pollution in the USA alone.
Ted Rockwell, explains how the WORST CASE SENARIO for a modern NPP, would result in few, if any off-site deaths. Read pgs. 37-40 of:
http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/factsreport2010apr.pdf
"...The American Nuclear Society White Paper on Realism, a follow-on document to the September 20, 2002 and January 10, 2003 summaries in the Policy Forum43 presented by 19 nuclear-expert members of the National Academy of Engineering in the mainstream, peer-reviewed journal Science, discusses and documents this question, answering that the worst that can be expected is few if any deaths off-site..."
The Conclusion, compared to casualties from other energy sources, due to explosions & fires:
similar to an NG powerplant,
much less than for an LNG tanker or storage facility,
much less than for an NG pipeline,
similar to a Coal Mine and
similar to or less than for an Oil Refinery.
But at a probability that is a minute fraction of any of the above occurring.
Solar PV waste is a Toxic Killer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
Jerry says: "...$4k/kw for installed now retail for homeowner..."
Show us some links for installers who will do a complete installation for $4k per kwpk, which equals about $25k per kwavg. Without necessary storage/backup.
As a matter of fact the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory lists the costs of Solar Installations in the USA:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf
"...The capacity-weighted average installed cost of systems completed in 2008 - in terms of real 2008 dollars per installed watt (DC-STC)4 and prior to receipt of any direct financial incentives or tax credits - was $7.5/Watt, a decline from $7.8/W in 2007 following several years (2005-2007) during which installed costs remained relatively flat. From 1998 to 2008, installed costs declined by about 3.6% (or $0.3/W) per year, on average, starting from $10.8/W in 1998.
Preliminary cost data indicates that the average cost of projects installed through the California Solar Initiative program during the first 8½ months of 2009 rose by $0.4/W relative to 2008..."
Our old friend Jerry being the typical American who thinks the world begins and ends at the US border, would not know that currently there are 57 nuclear reactors being built around the world, another 140 have been ordered and a further 150 had been proposed for 2020. Mass production or factory production of reactor modules is already under way in China
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Japanese with a much better regulatory system than our own and higher wages build American designed reactors for $1.4B/Gw.
Budget cost South carolina Summer 2 3 $4.5/Gw 4.7 cents a kwh if built by public power - bonneville or TVA
http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
The SCANA South Carolina project is presently under site preparation , licensing is months away and it is third in line under the current proposed loan guarantee program. Its budget cost - the same as the Vogtle reactors only - actually dropped a bit this year from last as the identical units being built in China approach completion.
Read about the NRC screwup of Yankee nuclear here
http://seekerblog.com/archives/20100722/tom-blees-why-us-reactors-cost-more/
See how the NRC puts the shaft to American nuclear without any real safety improvements here in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, DSc,Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
His CV: http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=007699
There is no doubt that the NRC is worst regulator on the planet inflating American nuclear costs enormously and making our plants much less safe they otherwise would be.
If Senator George Voinovich's nuclear renaissance act gets passed much of the foolish and onerous NRC regulation and uncertainties will be removed and American reactors price and build times will drop to the Japanese standard.
Until then Areva has plans to sell nuke power from New Brunswick into the Northeast under the more enlightened Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Current Canadian commercial nuclear power is available for 5 cents a kwh and according to the OECD costs 2.6 cents to produce. Clean and green nuclear power at a fraction of the price the New England ISO is paying for filthy GHG and radioactive gas spewing NG power
Here is what prominent nuclear denier, David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, had to say about the NRC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNTH: The rest of the world is going ahead with nuclear. The Koreans, Japanese and Chinese are all building reactors. Is it that Korean, Japanese and Chinese engineers are more capable of reducing the inherent risks in nuclear technology?
LOCHBAUM: They’re not afflicted by the NRC. They don’t have to worry about the incompetence of the NRC at their plants.
NTH: Are you saying that the NRC has a NEGATIVE effect on safety?
LOCHBAUM: I think if the NRC were accused of being an effective regulator, it could not be convicted. When I see these recent reports saying the offshore oil industry ought to be following the NRC’s template, well I don’t think I’m in that camp. The NRC is broken, not bent but badly broken.
NTH: So you’re saying the Koreans and Japanese and Chinese are able to proceed better BECAUSE they don’t have the NRC making things worse for them?
LOCHBAUM: I’d say that’s true.
Radon the only radioactive gas? So what was the nasty stuff that spread across Europe in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster? Oh, that's right, a radioactive isotope of Iodine gas, which unlike Radon, is a nutrient that entered the food chain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear reactors create their own Pandora's box of new short lived (and hence intensely radioactive) by-products to leak out of the holes and gaps in this 18 times repaired design. Some people sure take a lot of convincing.
Why not use the only safe form of nuclear power we've yet discovered - solar fusion power - 150 million km of vacuum containment vessel combined with a well proven Earth wide radiation shield. Hard to imagine a significant terrorist attack on a wind farm or a solar array.
watson you need to learn about the Chernobyl Explosion, before you make nonsensical comments. And Chernobyl hasn't anything to do with modern Western Designed Reactors. According to your belief, the Chinese Hydro Dam failure that killed 171,000 people means that all Hydro should be abandoned. Or the LNG explosion in Cleveland that killed 180 people and leveled one sq. mile of the city means all NG production should be shutdown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts about Chernobyl, from a Preeminent Radiation Scientist:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/spring%202006/Chernobyl_Folly.pdf
"... Chernobyl of about 0.14 mSv, or 0.08 percent of the natural lifetime dose of 170 mSv. People living in the most contaminated areas of the former Soviet Union are now exposed to an average Chernobyl dose of about 1 mSv per year. But all these doses are dwarfed in comparison with natural radiation doses in some parts of the world. For example, in Brazil and southwestern France, natural
radiation reaches up to more than 700 mSv per year (UNSCEAR 2000). No harmful health effects have ever been
detected in areas with such high natural background radiation..."
Nuclear deaths per TWh are the lowest of all types of Energy Production (10% of Solar PV, 1% of NG, 0.1% of Oil):
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/summarizing-deaths-per-twh.html
As for your Solar Power fantasy, you will KILL at least ONE BILLION people, from a combo of the following:
1) Runaway Global Warming
2) post Peak Oil -> worldwide economic collapse
3) Oil & Water Wars (cheap energy -> plentiful potable water)
4) Starvation due to high Energy Costs making food too costly for many to afford & desertification from Climate Change
An excellent analysis that shows why Solar Energy will fail miserably, even in the best location on Earth - Australia:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020/
And Watson if you can find rational argument as to why their analysis is flawed, they will be welcome to hear it.
quincykim - I'm no expert and dislike anything radioactive. However, if I recall correctly how it was explained to me, radioactive materials emit energetic radical particles as their nuclei decay. Materials such as coolant water exposed to nuclear radiation increasingly becomes contaminated by radiation: it emits some diluted portion of absorbed radiation for some limited period of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the filters are used to reduce lower levels of radioactive contaminates from steam, etc. The actual radioactive materials continue to emit radiation for generally very long periods of time and cannot be 'cleaned' or filtered.
I hope this helps.
What the main differences between 2nd and 3rd generation. How many 3rd generation are operable worldwide as we speak. We all know about the 1st generation reactor the one at Chernoble(msp'd?), Russia ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnti-nukes told us that a reactor meltdown would kill millions and leave an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable. Chernobyl was dozens of times worse than a simple meltdown, yet killed tens of thousands times less people than predicted, and people went back to work *at the reactor site* two weeks after the accident. Meanwhile, the UN estimates that smoke from 'renewable' biomass energy and fossil fuels kills 2.5 million people per year (almost 7,000 a day). Nuclear reactors could stop those deaths, at the risk of a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) deaths if there's a Chernobyl scale accident every decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnti-nukes told us that a reactor meltdown would kill millions and leave an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable. Chernobyl was dozens of times worse than a simple meltdown, yet killed tens of thousands times less people than predicted, and people went back to work *at the reactor site* two weeks after the accident. Meanwhile, the UN estimates that smoke from 'renewable' biomass energy and fossil fuels kills 2.5 million people per year (almost 7,000 a day). Nuclear reactors could stop those deaths, at the risk of a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) deaths if there's a Chernobyl scale accident every decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnti-nukes told us that a reactor meltdown would kill millions and leave an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable. Chernobyl was dozens of times worse than a simple meltdown, yet killed tens of thousands times less people than predicted, and people went back to work *at the reactor site* two weeks after the accident. Meanwhile, the UN estimates that smoke from 'renewable' biomass energy and fossil fuels kills 2.5 million people per year (almost 7,000 a day). Nuclear reactors could stop those deaths, at the risk of a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) deaths if there's a Chernobyl scale accident every decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarl Johanson... You can never see it media but today in Chernobyl, about 60 km(38 miles) diameter land is NO-ENTRY ZONE(protected by Ukranian army) and this expected to last for minimum 300 years. The official death toll report for Chernobyl incident varies between 1000 to 400000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm with you James!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe, the American people, don't care how long it takes; you get that damn reactor right or you don't build it. One accident and you can wipe out a whole city or state and it will take 250,000 years before that area is livable again...so don't go giving us any of you pathetic excuses or rush tactics or "It is going to cost 50 billion more if we delay one year." You get that damn thin right the first time or you cancel its production and stick that money in you pocket, you greedy bastards. You are dealing with human lives and the lives of thousands of animals. And if the EPA allows you to build that killing machine with all those flaws then they are as sick, perverted, and pathetic as you are. Remember this, you idiot: you have to live here too, so you make sure it is safe for at least 50 years or more. We have had enough of us killed from coal, oil, and natural gas. We don't need those nuclear reactors killing us too.
namikozcan, can't you read? I already posted data from a preminent radiation specialist that the Chernobyl region is mildly contaminated. And is now a wildlife paradise:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm
Sovietologist actually visited Chernobyl area:
"...The radiation levels in the vast majority of the exclusion zone are now quite low--so much so, that our guide, Maxim, told us that he expects that the 30km zone will be opened up within another few years and that only the 10km zone will remain..."
http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2010/06/chernobyl-exclusion-zone.html
And Felipe3035, also can't read. The modern NPP's can't explode like your fantasy. Do you have any understanding of physics whatsoever? On the other hand, because of the irrational attitude of people like yourself - YOU ARE KILLING 30,000 Americans every year from Coal Power Plant pollution, and 3 million worldwide every year. And YOU are putting a couple BILLION LIVES at risk due to the potential effects of runaway Global Warming and post-Peak Oil economic catastrophe. Never mind the big Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico you helped to create.
@ namikozcan The evacuation of the zone around Chernobyl was a political decision. The used coffee grounds (~ 1,000 Bq per kilogram) and fertilizer I added to my front garden makes it more radioactive than much of the evacuated area. Much of the world is more radioactive naturally than the Chernobyl evacuated zones, and they don't have lower life expectancies or higher cancer rates. The evacuation has been great for wildlife though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a death toll estimate of 400,000 among the clean up workers though. If you read the actual data though, the clean up workers have a lower than average death rate, not higher. Even with outrageously exaggerated figures like 400,000, one of those a decade would be far better than the approximately 25 million per decade from fossil fuel and 'renewable' biomass energy.
@ namikozcan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>You can never see it media but today in Chernobyl, about 60 km(38 miles) diameter land is NO-ENTRY ZONE(protected by Ukranian army)
I've seen that in 'the media' lots of times.
dwbd- thanks for the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou have provided to me. I have read it througly with all its side links. I felt myself like watching a horror movie.
Please read following article I have obtained from the link you have sent to me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4942828.stm
The article tells about the huge dome they are planning to built over Chernobyl plant where European bank is crediting it with 1 Billion USD. After you read this article I am sure you will change your idea about "Chernobyl area is a wildlife paradise today" otherwise you should explain the reason for 1 billion USD expenditure.
Karl Johanson- Naturally, Chernobyl evacuation was a political decision, since people can't detect radiation. You can read following article from Mikhail Gorbachev:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4918940.stm
What he tells as a last word: "The victims of Chernobyl continue to suffer both physically and mentally. It is our moral duty to help them while continuing to limit the ecological consequences of this disaster."
I would expect you to confess that "evacuation was a correct political decision".
namikozcan says: "...about the huge dome they are planning to built over Chernobyl plant where European bank is crediting it with 1 Billion USD..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the Chernobyl reactor is a radioactive mess, and needs good containment. Like 10's of thousands of other industrial Waste sites in the World, need cleanup/containment. In this case it was a military designed reactor that exploded, not a commercial designed reactor. It was optimized for making weapons plutonium not for producing commercial power. One billion compared with the Chernobyl reactors which produced $17B worth of green electricity, is not bad. And yes it is still a low radiation wildlife paradise for the vast majority of the evacuated region, as the first hand report from the Sovietologist confirms - and I linked - which you apparently didn't read.
How about your $40 billion Gulf of Mexico mess which has effected an area of some 400X that of Chernobyl. Not counting all the CO2, Soot, NOx, SOx, Methane & Radon that the BP well has released to the environment - and would have even if it hadn't blown up.
namikozcan says: "...I felt myself like watching a horror movie..."
If you call that a horror movie, I would say you have never worked ONE DAY in industry in your entire life. That would be a picnic compared to a typical industrial environment. And radiation, yep it can't be seen, but it can EASILY be monitored and measured, unlike thousands of other industrial toxins, carcinogens, mutagens, endocrine disruptors, poisons, pathogens etc that are very difficult if not impossible to detect.
Here's a couple pictures of your Coal Ash Ponds that exist by the 10's of thousands (we won't get into your Coal mountain top removal pics):
http://www.filthycoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/3149024454_e588edd913_o.jpg
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/files/2009/11/p21700673.JPG
See any wildlife paradises in those pics of your mess, eh namikozcan?
dwbd- thanks for all your feedback. Let me do an overview and go back to my initial point where I have first involved in this discussion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are very unsuccesful in establishing a society that lives in harmony with nature. In 200 years we have:
- Increased the CO2 in atmosphere to unmanagable levels and produced immense lands full of coal ash,
- Blew up nuclear plants, had to evacuate thousands of people, raised thousands of tons of nuclear wastes and can't even find a location where to dump,
- Polluted all the seas and land and managed to decrease the algae population by %40 (side effect will be decreased rainfall and hunger soon)
-……you can count many more.
At the moment, the core of our discussions should be re-defining the human activities/existence in nature. It is obvious that romantic democracy system, which puts the humanity over everything has eventually failed. We need an amendmend in Constituton with following clauses:
1- Nature has absolute sovereignty and has the right to sustain.
2- Every person has the right to defend the “Rights of Nature” in Courts.
3- Waste producing human activities (including urbanization) can only be allowed if waste stabilization is provided in 20 years maximum.
With my above considerations I have initially involved in this discussion by telling:
We should all wake up and start asking "Why do we need so much energy to make our livings?", before it is too late for coming generations to be able to live on this lovely earth.
The headline is foolish enough; big oil wants you to believe this. The U.S. Navy has been safely operating nuclear power plants since the 1950’s. And, they are mobile and safe enough to port in any foreign or domestic harbor and at times provide power back to third world country ports. These same companies build civilian plants and can build ones just like on our aircraft carriers just as safely. And, approx. 95% of our domestic nuclear power plant operators are former U.S. Navy nuclear power plant veterans. And, fast reactor plants can be built here domestically. We’ve had that technology since the 1950’s. And, Chernobyl had an accident because scientists were experimenting with the plant out of range of the safety parameters, possibly exploring CNO fusion in the carbon core. But, fast reactors are not breeder plants for nuclear weapons grade material. Fast reactors destroy the nuclear weapons grade material as extra energy, providing *** 20 times*** the energy as a slow reactor and the spent fuel is only radioactive for 400 years not 10,000 years as with slow reactors. And, slow reactors are fueled with 20 years of equivalent conventional fuel. But, now we use twice as much energy as before. A fast reactor providing 20 times the energy from a slow reactor's 20 yrs. worth of fuel, gives you 400 years of energy and that would be the lifetime to store the spent fuel until the next refuel. By then we will not need fission reactors. Plus, we can use the spent fuel that has been piling up from our slow reactors, no reprocessing. The Navy uses slow reactors because they are smaller and more mobile than a carbon core fast reactor like Chernobyl and safer than materials that react violently with water. So, slow reactors and then fast reactors are the answer until we replace them with fusion. And, I can do that if the government funded me for a CNO-fusion reactor; and, that would be much smaller and far less costly than the p-p fusion reactor they are creating. I have a design for a CNO-fusion reactor that would be much smaller than a slow reactor and put out far more power with no waste products. Engineers would be able to make ones for cars that would never need more fuel than when you buy them and the same system could used for homes. Imagine, your new car and home with all the free electricity and energy included when you buy them, a house and car. And, I’m sure nanotechnology scientists and engineers would figure a way to create ones for cell phones and laptops. NASA uses fission powered batteries for deep space probes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis design sounds precisely like the one the Navy previously used since the 1950’s, simple design and operation, extremely reliable and safe. Just dock a stripped down aircraft carrier at all major U.S. ports, minus the military equipment, for the largest port cities you might want a few, such as Los Angeles, San Diego, oh the Navy has them there already, Seattle, New York, Houston, Corpus Christi, Miami, Tampa Bay, Northfolk, oh ya, the Navy has them there already, too, New Orleans, Chicago, Boston, etc., you get the idea. That will provide clean safe electrical energy from nuclear power and they would be portable to move for maintenance or possible natural disasters, emergencies, etc. And, the can be produced quickly out of a port factory and moved by sea to their place of operation. Oh ya, big oil won’t let this happen!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this proposed plant open-cycle or closed-cycle. It makes a huge difference in the amount of "waste" to be dealt with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe used to have the closed-cycle until by executive order, President Carter prohibited them. They are now being used in France, Japan, Great Britain, and many other countries. Our President could by the same method to allow them.
Are any of these proposed using the closed-cycle system?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why do we need so much energy to make our livings?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. I don't hear many people discussing conservation. Energy waste has been encouraged by the nuclear Industry as a justification for their product.
The core damage frequency of the Fukushima plants was calculated to be between 10−4 and 10−7. The AP1000, the new design proposed for US new-builds, has a maximum core damage frequency of 2.41 × 10−7 per plant per year. That doesn't sound safer to me.
Westinghouse is in its 18th revision of this design. The revisions were initiated only after intervention by NRC and the public. If the Industry is truly striving for safety, why weren't they included in the original design? The bottom line for the Industry is "the bottom line", not safety.
Very well stated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments about Gundersen are unfounded and coloured by the nuclear Industry's lack of regard for safety. I would refer the readers to the following articles regarding Gundersen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/nyregion/paying-the-price-for-blowing-the-whistle.html?src=pm
"Three weeks after he notified the company president of what he believed to be radiation safety violations, Mr. Gundersen said, he was fired."
"Instead of correcting the problems...industry management and government forces attack them as the cause of the problem."
"...Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which monitors the nuclear industry, fails to keep whistle-blowers' names confidential."
"Sixteen whistle-blowers interviewed during the investigation described experiences ranging from physical threats and attacks to psychological intimidation on and off the job, according to a report on the investigation published in 1993."
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2000/nn10410.htm
"...[Gundersen] blacklisted by the industry for discussing the alleged violations with state and federal regulators and was eventually sued by NES $1.5 million for defamation. The suit was settled out-of-court.
"A report prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission eventually concluded that there had been irregularities at NES, and second document, prepared by the Office of the Inspector General, noted that the NRC had violated its own regulations by improperly steering business to NES. But that vindication was small solace to the Gundersen family, who had by then lost their home."
["Gundersen is attacking the credibility of an entire industry and its designated, independent regulator; his motives for doing so deserve to be exposed."]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the Industry is responsible for undermining its own credibility by putting profits above safety, and NRC has further undermined the confidence of the public by its inspection protocols, and liberal enforcement policies. Pointing that out is a public service since neither the Industry nor the NRC has done the job. Ignoring the past and repeating it are recipes for disaster--as we have seen in Japan.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2000/nn10410.htm
"A report prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission eventually concluded that there had been irregularities at NES, and second document, prepared by the Office of the Inspector General, noted that the NRC had violated its own regulations by improperly steering business to NES."
["He also does not mention why he left the nuclear industry, or what he did during the period from 1990-1996."]
"...he uncovered what he felt were safety violations at NES and reported the problem to management. Soon after making this report he was dismissed from his job and began a five-year effort to prove his case. He asserts he was blacklisted by the industry for discussing the alleged violations with state and federal regulators and was eventually sued by NES $1.5 million for defamation. The suit was settled out-of-court."
It could only happen in Japan, I guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a species we cannot take more from the earth than we give back. At some point the taking will destroy the very ecosystem which has allowed our species to flourish.
This very simple concept is not clear to anyone who, say, watches too much television, or spends no time in or studying natural life-sustaining systems.
Obviously Japan's "much better regulatory system" is for crap since we've all now seen the results after 3/11/11.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfit=safety shortcuts.
Fact of life. Whether it's nukes, coal, oil, whatever. There are far too many examples of Profit motive =safety shortcuts------>disaster.
I'm no scientist, but that little thing called probability doesn't take a whole lot of brain power.
"And God Gave Man dominion over animals" is a phrase that has allowed and excused the selfish plunder that continues unabated and cannot be sustained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil people understand that our fate is bound inextricably with the ecosystem in which we evolved and which we must sustain to live, the world will be full of buzz lightyear-types who live in a comic-book world of dazzling possibilities for more and yet ever more plunder and extraction.
A friend of mine who is a professional driver took a former astronaut (named Buzz) to a convention two years or so ago in the Inland Empire (California). It was for "aerospace experts" and the panel discussions focused on the possibilities of creating cities in space.
Considering the Biosphere projects here in earth could not sustain life, there is no way space can be a place to escape if we foul this place up.
However, these folks were serious.
What's really spooky is, I'll bet there are people in this discussion right here, right now, who probably think that whole direction would be a cool one to shoot for.
But until we understand how to be good stewards of the only system that has allowed us to live, we don't have a hope in hell. And with the mad scientists running things, building technology that takes more than it gives, so we don't have to wash our clothes by hand---there are some basic equations not being attended to. I fear for the shorties who will be coming of age, and for all their future shorties.