There are conflicting forces at work in the global nuclear industry. On the one hand, the disaster at Fukushima has caused some countries to end their use nuclear energy for power generation. On the other hand, other countries have announced bold new initiatives to expand the use of nuclear power generation. Citizens protest against nuclear power while nuclear companies promote its use.  There have been many improvements in conventional power reactor designs with the current reactors being built designated as Generation IV. In addition to these conventional reactors, there are groups working on the creation of small, modular, inexpensive and safe reactors generally known as “small modular reactors”. The major question with respect to this new type of power reactor concerns the ability of such reactors to compete in the open energy market. And, even if they may be able to compete in the cost of electricity, will they be enough of a stimulus to reenergize the faltering U.S. nuclear industry?

             Last year, the United States Department of Energy announced that they would provide up to four hundred and fifty million dollars of funding for designing the new type of small modular reactors if the companies who received the grants would match the DOE funding dollar for dollar. Last November, Babcock & Wilcox became the first recipient in the new grant program. B&W designs small reactors for nuclear ships and submarines and is working on a one hundred eighty megawatt SMR. The grant program should have enough funds to support certification of several designs for the new reactors.  B&W as well as Holtec, Westinghouse Electric and NuScale have already invested hundreds of dollars in design work and testing facilities to perfect the new style reactors.

            New tougher regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are causing some utilities that rely heavily on coal for electrical generation to seek another source of power that does not have the carbon footprint of coal. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent and would require additional fossil fuel backup systems which would still emit carbon dioxide. The new modular designs are attractive because in addition to sharply reducing carbon dioxide emissions, they should be cheaper to build, easier to license, require less construction time and be less expensive to operate than the old style reactors which are complex and expensive to build. The old style reactors can cost up to ten billion dollars to build a reactor that will generate one thousand megawatts.  In contrast, one of the new style reactors should cost around two billion to generate two hundred megawatts.  Power demand is growing slowly in the United States and utilities would rather add a few hundred megawatts at a time than one thousand megawatts.

           Existing nuclear reactors have a mandated emergency zone ten miles in diameter. The new type of reactors might be able to get by with as little as a half a mile diameter emergency zone. This would make it possible to site them at locations now occupied by fossil fuel plants. The old style plants are able to keep fuel rods cool for three days without power while the new designs would be able to keep fuel rods cool without external power for weeks, making them much safer.

           On the other side of the cost equation, is the fact that there are economies of scale for the old style reactors. They can often be upscaled to generate substantially more electricity without a parallel large increase in capital expense. It is hoped that the new style reactors could be produced in a factory to reduce construction costs.  The problem with this approach is that there would have to be a large number of orders for the new reactors in order for the cost savings of factory production to attractive and, giving the soft energy market in the U.S., there is no guarantee that there would be enough orders. Ultimately, the new reactors will have to be able to compete with cheap natural gas for U.S. power generation and they may not be able to.

Small Modular Reactor design from Oak Ridge Laboratory:

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 28, 2013

Ambient office = .113 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .117 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .093 microsieverts per hour

Mango from grocery store  = .088 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .102 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .083 microsieverts per hour

A type of mollusk has disappeared from an area that stretches 30 kilometers along Fukushima Prefecture and includes the site of the crippled nuclear power plant.  ajw.asahi.com

TWO years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster local children are showing signs of cancer, prompting cries of a cover-up. express.co.uk

Nuclear lobby will exploit climate change to promote nuclear power. japantimes.co.jp

Russia is offering to help South Africa to develop its own nuclear industry from resource production to power plant design and manufacture. world-nuclear-news.org

           The Diablo Canyon Power Plant is located near San Luis Obispo in southern California on the Pacific Coast. The plant has two one thousand one hundred Westinghouse pressurized water nuclear reactors.  Unit One was commissioned in 1985 and Unit Two was commissioned in 1986. The plant is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. In 2009, PG&E applied for a twenty year extension of the licenses for the reactors.

           The population in the NRC plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of ten miles around the plant contains about twenty six thousand people. The NRC ingestion pathway zone with a radius of fifty miles around the plant contains about four hundred and sixty five thousand people. The NRC estimates that there is a high risk of an earthquake that could damage the plant. The plant was originally designed to withstand a six point seven five earthquake but was upgraded to withstand a seven point five earthquake.

          Construction of the plant began in 1968. By the time the plant was completed in 1973, a new fault had been discovered several miles offshore in the area of the plant. The fault was capable of generating earthquakes beyond the level of quake that the plant had been designed to withstand. New plans were drawn up to upgrade earthquake resistance and the work was carried out. After the changes were made, it was discovered that the plans for hardening in reactors were supposed to be reversed for the second reactor but the second reactor was reinforced exactly as the first had been. This meant that some parts of the second reactor were unnecessarily reinforced but other parts that needed to be reinforced were not reinforced. After consideration, the NRC did not require that the work on the second reactor be redone.

        In 2000, a failed electrical conductor caused a fire that cut off the power to the coolant and water circulating water pumps that are necessary to keep the core from overheating. A safety review by the NRC in 2010 found that the Diablo Canyon plant operated for a year and a half with some important emergency systems disabled because of repairs of valves that “would open fast enough.” The improper repairs led to an even worse situation which was not detected by tests that should have identified the new problems.

       Following the Fukushima disaster, PG&E requested that the NRC suspend the extension of the licenses applied for in 2009 until the company had had the opportunity to conduct more studies on the subject of earthquake and flooding threats.

       At Diablo Canyon, there were design problems, oversight problems, bad repairs, non-functional emergency systems and all these happening in a plant on an ocean coast in an earthquake zone similar to the situation at Fukushima before disaster struck.

Picture from Doc Searls of Santa Barbara, California.

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 27, 2013

Ambient office = .069 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .087 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .077 microsieverts per hour

Hass Avacado from grocery store  = .075 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .124 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .104 microsieverts per hour

Japanese prime minister wants safety first before restarting reactors. ajw.asahi.com

IAEA says that Fukushima Reactors 5 and 6 are operational though they still need coolant systems. ajw.asahi.com

Renewable energy providers will have to help bear the cost of new UK nuclear reactors. guardian.co.uk

Dutch Borssele nuclear plant has been approved for an extended license until 2033. cnbc.com

              I have written more than twenty blog posts about radioactive waste. It is one of the most serious problems with uranium mining, processing and power generation. I have covered a lot of different schemes to deal with radioactive waste in other blogs posts. Today, I am going to focus on something called bioremediation.

             “Bioremediation” is a process where micro-organisms or plants remove pollutants through their metabolic processes. Such micro-organisms or plants are called “bioremediators.” Naturally occurring bioremediators may be utilized or either natural or tailored micro-organisms or plants may be added to the polluted area.  In addition, various types of fertilizers can be added to speed up the growth of the bioremediators. “In situ” bioremediation refers to the use of bioremediators where the pollution is located. “Ex situ” bioremediation refers to a process where the polluted material is removed from the original site and the bioremediation takes place somewhere else.

              Heavy metal pollutants can be difficult to remove with micro-organisms but there are some plants that are able to absorb heavy metals and removed them from polluted soil or water. This process is called “phytoremediation”. The plants can be harvested and then burned to further concentrate the heavy metals. The resultant concentrated pollutants can then be disposed of or recycled for industrial use. Phytoremediation is inexpensive, easy to monitor, recovers potential valuable metals and is one of the least harmful methods of bioremediation. On the other hand, phytoremediation is limited to the surface and roots zone of the plants, some metals may leach into the ground water, plant growth may be slow and limited by the toxicity of the metals. Phytomining is the use of phytoremediation for the express purpose of extracting valuable minerals from soil and/or water.

             Uranium contamination of soil and water can be treated with bioremediation. A first step is the use of an anaerobic bacterium, Clostridium, to stabilize uranium in nuclear wastes. Radionuclides are dissolved into solution by the action of enzymes or the production of organic acids by the bacteria. Then the radionuclides in the solution are precipitated by enzymes into stable solid mineral phases. Next the precipitate is treated to extract the radionuclides which can then be recycled or disposed of.

              The State of Colorado has been pressuring Cotter Corporation over pollution at the site of Schwartzwalder uranium mine near Canon City, Colorado. Uranium from the operation has been leaking out of the mine and tainting ground water and nearby creeks which flow into a reservoir that serves the Denver area.  Cotter has decided not to reopen its uranium milling operation at the mine and is going to move forward with a final clean up.

              Cotter is going to mix molasses and alcohol with filtered water pumped from the mine and discharged into Ralston Creek. The water will then be drawn from the creek and injected into the two thousand foot deep mine. Bacteria inside the mine will thrive in the molasses and alcohol mix, consuming the uranium and producing solid particles which will drop to the bottom of the mine. If things go as planned, this water cleaning method will be much cheaper than other possible approaches. And, if it works, the method can be applied to tens of thousands of abandoned polluted mines in the United States.

 

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 26, 2013

Ambient office = .112 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .072 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .072 microsieverts per hour

Organic quinoa from grocery store  = .122 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .093 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .077 microsieverts per hour

Britain sets out its plans for a nuclear future. uk.reuters.com

Nuclear waste is a growing headache for South Korea. abcnews.go.com

International sanctions may be speeding Iran’s nuclear advancement. csmonitor.com

Duke Energy tells the NRC that the risk of a Jocassee Dam failure isn’t credible. greenvilleonline.com

              I have written two posts about decommissioning of nuclear reactors. The focus was primarily on the problems in the United States. There are serious concerns that some companies running nuclear reactors do not have enough money set aside for decommissioning. And also that it may be difficult to estimate what such decommissioning wil ultimately cost. These concerns are also being expressed in the European Union with respect to the decommissioning of reactors in member states.

            In 2011, a mandatory European Union Directive called on all member states to “provide a detailed cost estimate of all waste management steps up to disposal, including the associated activities, such as research and development.” In 2013, the European commission issued a report that member states had not provided sufficiently detailed information on their decommissioning plans to satisfy the requirements of the 2011 mandate.

          In addition, the report stated that the member nations were not in compliance with the Euratom Treaty requirements that they notify the Commission about decommissioning plans and efforts. Some of the notifications did not contain information about a fully developed decommissioning plan that was written into law. Such notifications were supposed to contain information about investment projects, amounts invested in funds, plans for dealing with the assets of such funds, how funds were to be managed, etc. The report did not name the countries that were not complying but did say that future notifications required detailed plans and at the very least, drafts of proposed legislation to provide the legal framework for the decommissioning funds.

         Another problem highlighted by the report had to do with oversight for the decommissioning fund. There were some open questions about exactly who would have authority to monitor the funds and their compliance with EU regulations. The importance of having an independent monitoring authority separate from the fund managers was stressed.  The report ended on a positive note saying that most of the member states had set aside adequate money for decommissioning.

          When Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia applied for membership in the European Union, one of the conditions of membership was that old Soviet era nuclear reactors in the three countries had to be shut down. In return for the cost and effort to comply with this condition, the European Union agreed to provide funds for the decommissioning effort. Almost four billion dollars was set aside in the 2007 to 2013 EU budget for this project. Much of the money has been spent but there have been serious cost overruns, and charges of lack of coordination, serious delays, diffused responsibilities, poor priority setting and too much money going to other energy projects unrelated to decommissioning. One big problem is that some of the plants have not been “irreversibly shut down”.

          The European Union has serious financial problems with some of the member states on the verge of bankruptcy and costly bailout plans being discussed. It is no stretch of the imagination to foresee a situation where an EU member state is unable to maintain the decommissioning funds required due to financial crashes. In that case, the EU would have to find the money somewhere else to deal with decommissioning. With the EU itself in danger of financial collapse if member states continue to have serious problems, it is not improbable that the EU would turn to the United States for help. So we may find ourselves in a situation where not only do our own nuclear operators default on decommissioning funds but members of the EU also default and turn to us for help. If the United States is also in serious financial trouble, we may wind up with shuttered and fenced shut down reactors that have not been decommissioned properly and constitute a serious public health problem.