Slashdot Mirror
US To Build Nuclear Power Plants
An anonymous reader writes "President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn in federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years. Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company."
2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.
Well, a report from CNN covers something Bill Gates promoted at TED about a new technology that essentially 'recycles' used uranium. The new strategy basically creates 'hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste.'
If what they say is true, it looks promising:
The Uranium isotope that's food for the new nuclear reactors doesn't have to be enriched, which means it's less likely to be used in atomic weapons.
The fission reaction in the new process burns through the nuclear waste slowly, which makes the process safer. One supply of spent uranium could burn for 60 years.
The process creates a large amount of energy from relatively small amounts of uranium, which is important as global supplies run short.
The process generates uranium that can be burned again to create "effectively an infinite fuel supply."
Sounds promising, let's see what preliminary trials bring. I'm excited to have a local 'energy portfolio' of many options such as hydro electric, wind, solar and even advanced nuclear energy.
My work here is dung.
Where is all the waste going? The political horse trading by the Obama administration promised to shut down Yucca Mountain, toileting over $9 billion.
Is anyone doing the math??
Kriston
... that we aren't pumping money into thorium reactors. Their advantages are enormous. Waste storage time is reduced and you can use one to "burn" old nuclear waste. They cannot suffer from China Syndrome, since they need a sustained beam of neutrons to keep the reaction at critical. And in terms of proliferation, they don't lend themselves easily to building nuclear weapons, whereas conventional uranium reactor technology isn't too hard to adapt to building of simple atomic weapons ("enrich more and build a donut and plug bomb.")
>> 1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308sp?idnews=50308 [ipsnews.net] (translation: it is expensive)
It makes PERFECT economic sense when you consider that we will be transferring our transportation grid to electricity. It is a more difficult sell when you are simply replace coal power with nuclear power. We have plenty of coal, but dolling out billions of dollars a month in foreign oil doesn't make economic sense.
>> 2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.
We have no idea how long we will need to store the spent fuel. With 2010 technology (ie: put it in a box and wait), it is ~100000 years. But what new technologies will we have in the year 2050, 2100 or 2200.
>> 3/limited liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act [wikipedia.org]
Without limited liability, insurance companies could not offer insurance to the companies building/maintaining the systems.
>> 4/fuel-dependency
Fuel dependency? Errr, I don't follow you. We, as a country, should try to be as fuel independent as possible. This isn't a macho "GO USA!!!" kind of rant. Being fuel independent is key to the national security of any country. We are currently over extended in the worst possible way. Nuclear is ONE way to get us where we need to go. Ideally, we would use wind, solar, etc. etc. but as others have said, until that day, nuclear is a great option. I like the idea of (literally) sitting on our coal reserves... "just in case."
is it breeder reactor? liquid thorium blanket? what generation reactor? the article say nothing on that. i'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US.
There's a critical shortage of nuclear engineers. Very few engineers have joined the industry in recent decades, and those who joined during the industry's heyday are retiring.
Schools including MIT are spinning up their programs, but however talented the students, they'll be inexperienced. These fine young men and women may know how to optimize a reaction, but will they know that valve X in location Y needs to be easily replaceable because it tends to corrode after 5 years? Do you want the plant in your town to be designed by a recent grad? Likewise, even the experienced engineers have been maintaining old plants, not designing new ones using the latest technology.
Add in time for siting battles and regulatory approvals, and I wouldn't expect to see too many new plants open until 10-20 years from now.
While I agree with most of your points:
Where is the harm in covering area with windmills?
Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates? Isn't it likely that in 20-50 years we'll have tech that can just deal with the waste?
We already have the tech to deal with this issue. It can be handled in two ways. One is to reprocess it into new fuel rods which can then be used in the reactor from which it came. Two, it can be used as is in fast breeder-type reactor where it becomes enriched and then consumed as fuel. The combination means, rather than attempting to dispose of rods which contain 90%-97% usable fuel (aka, huge waste), something like 3% winds up needing disposal and much of that has a very short half life compared to what would have otherwise been thrown out.
Sadly, US law forbids reprocessing of fuel on US soil. So option one is out. Option two is not possible as I'm not aware of any certified fast breeder reactors. Certification alone, thanks to the massive red tape forced on us all by loony environmentalist, costs billions of dollars. As a result, perfectly safe designs are simply not certifiable because no one has the years to spend billions of dollars with yet another decade of more red tape and construction before they can even hope to reclaim their investment.
Its a really great example of why laws need to be changed and environmentalist need to be shot. Buses and cliffs are also an acceptable substitute; though it may be difficult to find room because of the large number of lawyers already in line.
Yes, indeed, and by the time the waste makes it into the glass form, it contains isotopes with very long half lives and well known decay chains.
The most potent of the high energy stuff, by nature of it being highly radioactive is very useful to us as fuel, but it it really must be disposed of, the bulk of it decays over a relatively short timespan. It's not like it just comes out of the reactor and goes right into the ground.
Radon, which is in the decay chain of uranium, has several isotopes, most of which are very short lived (hours to days), one of which is extremely long lived (half life of 4 billion-ish years, so less radioactive than the carbon in your own body), Radium is another of the highly radioactive gasses (there are not many) that have relatively short half lives (although the longest lived isotope is about 1500 years, with 5 years being the next longest) A ton of natural uranium ore gives off approximately 0.15 grams of Rn. The natural release of Radon and Radium from the ground is a far greater concern than anything from a storage facility, especially in the low amounts.
And what is going to melt the glass exactly? Natural decay? While spontaneous fission and radioactive decay do create heat, the cans and the environment have been designed with this in mind. Not to mention that the really heavy heat and decay occurs in the cooling ponds before the stuff is shipped off for processing.
These issues have all been in careful consideration for a long time. It's not like they just came up with something on the back of an envelope.
Either way, I'll take the extensive study I have done on this topic from numerous sources over some AC on /. saying "wrong", if you don't mind.
I think a lot of the time people are talking more about the bureaucracy rather than safe reactor designs.
I've heard some lovely stories about leaking taps in the canteens at nuclear facilities that never get fixed because of how much paperwork has to be done to do a trivial piece of work.
It can also be about standardising the design of plants so that rather than building every plant as a one off and spending billions checking and rechecking the design every time you come up with 1 design which you check really well and then rubber stamp any plans that match that design perfectly.
There was another interesting case I read about where there was a worldwide shortage of medical radioisotopes a few years back because a reactor which was designed to produce them. one which literally could not melt down because it didn't have the required material was shut down because some regulations designed for large power generating reactors were pushed through that required safety systems for dealing with failures in things the medical isotope reactor didn't even have and so they had to add all these pointless and expensive backups for backups for backup systems for things the reactor didn't need to do. because it came under the heading of a "reactor".
I'll try to find the details.
I'm all for sensible regulations but any old system builds up regulations which serve no purpose.
You can be sure there's things like regulations requiring that reports be submitted typed in black ink on such and such quality paper which made sense back in the day but don't any more.