Blog
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 12, 2016
Ambient office = 73 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 80 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 87 nanosieverts per hourAvocado from Central Market = 93 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 99 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 79 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactrors 395 – Problems Facing Chinese Great Nuclear Ambitions
China has one of the most ambitious nuclear power programs in the world. They currently have twenty two reactors in operation which are only supplying about two percent of their electricity. They have at least twenty seven nuclear power reactors under construction with sixteen more approved for construction. They hope to increase the percentage of electricity generation to at least seven percent. But despite major investment and support of the Chinese government, there are some serious problems that will have to be overcome before their bright nuclear future dreams come true.
There is no comprehensive set of laws covering the nuclear power industry in China. This can become a serious problem if there are incidences of corruption and/or incompetence on nuclear power projects that lead to major accidents.
It is now estimated that at least thirty thousand new nuclear technicians will be required by 2025 in order to managed all the new reactors coming online. This would mean that at least three thousand new technicians will have to be graduated each year in China to meet the demand. Meanwhile, back in the real world, China is producing about three hundred nuclear technicians per year. They will have to increase their training program by ten times to produce enough technicians.
Current projects have problems with cost overruns, scheduling delays, technical issues, incompetence, corruption, quality control, etc. It is reasonable to assume that these problems will continue to plague the reactors that are under construction and those that have been approved for construction.
Nuclear reactors require enormous amounts of water to cool the reactors. Twenty six reactor projects that were planned for construction in inland provinces had to be cancelled because of a lack of water for cooling. Locating new reactors on the coast of China where there is major industrial activity makes sense from an economic point of view but those reactors will be vulnerable to typhoons and tsunamis.
All those reactors will need fuel. Currently, domestic uranium deposits provide less than a quarter of the fuel needs of China’s operating reactors. China is planning on producing a third of its fuel needs of their planned fleet of sixty five nuclear power reactors internally. That will require them to ramp up internal mining and refining by four times to supply the reactors operating, under construction and approved. This will potentially heavily impact the environment, especially considering the lax regulation of pollution in China. They expect to get a third of their fuel for their planned fleet through equity in foreign mines and joint ventures with foreign companies. The problem with these arrangements is that politics can intervene to hamper or even shut down such supplies. And finally, a third of their future fuel will be purchased on the open market. The price of uranium has been depressed on the world market, but as the demand rises the price will rise making the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants more expensive for China.
Part of China’s plan for domestic production of fuel relies on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium to be used to make new fuel. The citizens of China are not particularly excited by the location of such nuclear facilities in their towns and cities. A planned nuclear fuel reprocessing plant project is generating mass protests in a Chinese city. At first, the national government cracked down and threatened retaliation against protestors. More recently, the government has retreated and is trying to placate the protestors. A previous attempt to site a fuel reprocessing plant had to be cancelled because of public rejection.
All in all, it seems to me that China is going to be devoting a lot of money, time and effort to get five more percent of their electricity from nuclear power. Their ambitions may exceed their ability to deliver on all their great nuclear plans. I think that money, time and effort would be much better spent developing sustainable alternative energy such as wind, water, solar and geothermal sources.
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 11, 2016
Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 63 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 73 nanosieverts per hourCrimini mushroom from Central Market = 66 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 98 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 75 nanosieverts per hour -
Radioactive Waste 187 – Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Revisited – Part Two of Two Parts
Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)
During 2015, the Bipartisan Policy Center consulted nuclear experts and issued a report that called for restarting the Yucca Mountain Geological Repository project. The report listed fourteen steps that would have to be taken in order to restart the repository project and move forward with the NRC licensing process. The report pointed out that Yucca Mountain was the only legally sanctioned plan for a repository and that billions of dollars had already been invested in studying Yucca Mountain. Taking any other approach would take decades and require the expenditure of billions of more dollars. On the other hand, billions of dollars might be wasted as the state of Nevada is staunchly opposed to the Yucca Mountain repository and would fight it in court every step of the way.
An Environmental Impact Statement supplement for the Yucca Mountain Repository was issued in May of 2016. This report said that the Repository would not endanger the environmental around Yucca Mountain. In order for the licensing of Yucca Mountain to be finalized for such a repository, an adjudicatory hearing must be held. Such a hearing remains suspended.
The U.S. is committed to creating a geological repository at a site other than Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel but the best estimate places the completion of any such repository at 2050. The DoE has been working on finding a location that is suitable from a geological perspective and also acceptable to the local population of the area. This is referred to as consent based siting. Some communities has expressed interest.
In the past few years, there has been research that has indicated that some of the assumptions that have be standard in evaluating the migration of ground water in and around salt formation may have not taken some factors into account. Some studies have shown that ground water at lower depths may move through salt deposits more quickly than previously thought because of the alteration of the crystal matrix by the pressure. Other studies have suggested that more ground water may migrate through shallow salt deposits that older studies indicated. If ground water penetrated a nuclear waste repository, there is a possibility that nuclear materials could be leached out, moved and concentrated to the point where a critical reaction could occur. Such an event could result in geysers of superheated radioactive steam reaching the surface and threatening the ecosystem.
It does not appear that we really know enough about geology and nuclear waste repositories to be confident that estimations of safe storage of spent fuel and other high-level radioactive waste for a millions years are correct. Considering all the legal, technical, economic, and political issues that surround the safe permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear reactors, perhaps the best solution is to transition away from nuclear power as quickly as possible to sustainable alternative energy like wind, solar, water and geothermal sources.
With respect to the existing waste, drilling deep holes in bedrock and dropping the spent fuel assemblies down the holes seems like the best alternative.
Yucca Mountain cutaway diagram:
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 10, 2016
Ambient office = 86 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 136 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 143 nanosieverts per hourVine ripened tomato from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 100 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 80 nanosieverts per hour -
Radioactive Waste 186 – Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Revisited – Part One of Two Parts
Part One of Two Parts:
One of the biggest problems with nuclear power is what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel that has been piling up for decades. When spent fuel is removed from a reactor, it is put in the cooling pool for a few years to allow the most intense radiation to dissipate. The pools are filling up at the hundred nuclear reactors in the U.S. and, if the spent fuel cannot be removed from the pools, some reactors may have to close. There is a temporary storage system called dry cask storage in which spent fuel assemblies are placed in concrete and steel containers at the reactor site or other sites. Current dry casks are not adequate because they do not monitor the buildup of gases that might explode.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) stated that a geological repository was the best solution for disposing of spent nuclear fuel in a permanent underground geological repository where they will be no threat for thousands of years. The NWPA established guidelines for the selection of a site for a repository and procedures for licensing and construction. The Department of Energy began collecting fees from the nuclear power industry for the storage of spent nuclear fuel that was supposed to begin in 1998.
In 1987, a salt mine under Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected as a possible site and detailed studies through the 1990s were conducted. In 2002, the DoE confirmed that Yucca Mountain was an acceptable site for a repository. Over the objections of officials and citizens of Nevada, the Bush administration moved forward with the preparation of a license application for the site with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. After six years of dealing with many technical, regulatory and legal problems, the license application was submitted in mid 2008.
When Barack Obama was elected President in late 2008, he worked with Arizona Senator Harry Reid during 2009 to cancel the Yucca Mountain project. Part of the reason was political but part of the reason was that analyses raised the question of the possibility of ground water penetrating the repository. The project was official cancelled in 2010 and the DoE official withdrew its application from the NRC.
In August of 2013, the Federal Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the NRC was legally bound to continue its review of the license for Yucca Mountain unless Congress intervened or allocated funds for the review ran out. Work that remained to be done included that completion of a final report on environmental and technical issues at Yucca Mountain. The last Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which was the final of five volumes of the NRC license review was completed and issued in January of 2015. The conclusion of the NRC review was that Yucca Mountain did satisfy all requirements for a geologically safe spent nuclear fuel repository. The report said that the repository should be able to safely isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for up to one million years.
In March of 2015, the NRC Chairman told the U.S. Senate that an addition three hundred and thirty million dollars would be required in order to complete the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository construction licensing process. Work that remained included settling issues of the ownership and control of land around Yucca Mountain, the water rights in the area and a required environmental impact statement. The last SER also added fourteen conditions to the construction authorization. These conditions would require alterations in the design of the repository.
Please read Part Two
Yucca Mountain cutaway diagram:
