Slashdot Mirror
NRC Relicensing Old "Zombie" Nuclear Plants
mdsolar writes "In the Dec. 7 edition of The Nation, Christian Parenti details what he considers to be the real problem with nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions in the US: Not the high cost of new nuclear power, but rather the irresponsible relicensing of existing nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The claim is that the relicensed plants — amounting to more than half ot the 104 original 1970s-era nukes in the US — operate like zombies beyond their design lifetimes only because of lax regulation spurred by concern over carbon dioxide emissions. But these plants are actually failing, as demonstrated by a rash of accidents. And some of the ancient plants are now being allowed to operate at 120% of their designed capacity. There is a video interview with Parenti up at Democracy Now."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No. See, there's something important you need to understand about engineering, which apparently the submitter doesn't understand either:
The plants were designed back in the days of tables and slide rules. They were designed with large safety margins, because the understanding of the science and the engineering was imperfect. Today our understanding is much greater, and we have very advanced computer models to help the design process. Ever wondered why modern bridges and buildings are much more 'delicate' than older behemoths? Because we can compute the actual behavior of the structures to much higher precision and accuracy, so the needed safety margin is less. It's the same with nuclear plants.
The plants were built to a certain design that had large safety margins... not because they were needed per se, but because the designers couldn't prove they weren't. Today, we can model all the behavior of the plants to a high degree, so we don't need the same safety margins to keep these plants safe. You don't need a cooling system with 50% excess design capacity, since we can prove that 25% is sufficient. We know now that the containment wall is twice as big as it needs to be, for the original design load. So, we can use the safety margins to run the plants longer and to higher capacity than the original design.
In the engineering world, this is done all the time. The only 'news' here is that it's being done with nuclear power plants. But still, that's no big deal. This is just the new anti-nuclear luddite rallying cry.
"pretend fossil fuels are harmless, and plan on increasing the population exponentially forever."
And yet you seem to be the one with the buried head.
Nuclear fuel ain't fossil fuels.
Many people wanted more nuclear plants, more people stopped them. If would hose the nuclear plants, there would be more coal and gas burning plants.
The US does not have an exponentially growing population. We have been around 2.1 to 2.2 children per household for decades. (In fact, the last government report I read on population growth showed that illegal immigration accounted for a huge population increase; I point this out because the pro-immigration crowd is usually seen as leftist, as is the NIMBY, anti-nuclear energy, and anti-fossil fuel crowd; I'm rather more better immigration policy than anti.)
People screwed around against all the solutions, then they are surprised that the current infrastructure is screwed up. Go ahead, raise energy prices, it's been shown again and again these past few years that the hardest hit are the blue collar workers and poor. Carbon tax, etc., and it still trickles down or, worse, exports jobs (as if we haven't been doing that fast enough already for other reasons).
You want a solution? Shift the defense budget to an energy one. If the advertising in many general science magazines is true, most defense contractors hold massive intellectual property and manufacturing potential in the energy sector. They can compete with our new focus on solving our energy issues on a level playing field along with smaller, innovative companies too.
I think it is odd in this, our age of progress and technological prowess that we can no longer afford the infrastructure of the past.
New nuke plants are now somehow out of reach, as are new oil refining facilities, rail, bridges, sewers. Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier.
I wonder if this is political or simply part of a new phase. It just seems to me that everything was constructed in the 60's and 70's and now everything is crumbling and falling apart around us, and we lack the ability or will replace it.
More specifically, modern safe reactors have a negative void coefficient. As water vaporizes in an critically hot reactor, it reduces the rate of reaction. The hotter the reactor gets, the larger the void(s) in the coolant, the less reaction occurs.
Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient.
There was a perfect storm of design flaw and poor decision making that lead to the Chernobyl disaster.
The experiment the reactor was running was designed to test whether the pumps could circulate current through the reactor after a power loss on inertia alone (without using the backup diesel generators.)
It was surprising to find out that the direct death toll (discounting the increased cancer rates following the release of radiation) was 56 people, including the responders to the event, and workers on-site when the accident occurred.
Although the nearby town of Pripyat was abandoned after the disaster, Reactors 1-3 continued operation. Reactor number 2 was damage in a fire, and shut down in 1991. Reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996, and reactor number 3 was shutdown in 2000.
Personally, reading heavily into the Chernobyl accident has gone a long way towards improving my opinion on nuclear power. To see what it took to cause the most recognizable and most cited disaster, really puts things into perspective.