"At the end of 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that eight power plants had been completely decommissioned and dismantled, with the sites released for unconditional use. A further 17 had been partly dismantled and safely enclosed, 31 were being dismantled prior to eventual site release, and 30 were undergoing minimum dismantling prior to long-term enclosure. "
"In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from any surface contamination of the plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" such as steel components that have long been exposed to neutron irradiation. Their atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63, and carbon-14. The first two are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such that after 50 years after closedown, their radioactivity is significantly diminished and the risk to workers largely gone. "
Does that satisfy your concerns? And why don't you google a bit and find this readily available information yourself instead of generating FUD? BTW, your global catastrophe scenarios would seem to be a moot point, as much of the rest of the world is going to continue to use more nukes, exposing us to that ridk anyway, whether the USA does or not.
hey if a chernobyl scale accident occured here in the US, and say new york CT and RI became permanetely uninhabitible who would pay thje property owners? My state farm homeowners has zero coverage for nuke accidents.
does the industry have enough insurance? For not just loss of property, businesses disrupted, moving expenses, but to cover every single effected persons m,edical expenses? depression, cancer etc etc?
the costs would be staggering and likely bring on a depression:(
lastly if terrorists attacked a nuke plants storage pool by say flying a small plane laden with bombs into a nice non hardened no containment building who would pay then?
incidently the waste pools have perhaps a thousand times the amount of core material and its not well protected. depends on a constant flow of refrigerated cooling water.
Not impossible, im trying to learn also at altautos toyota prius, it is done and one guy there even has a hard wired inverter and 120v socket. If the traction battery keeps the 12v charged then why not, What I read of the article by his usage and what I have in apliances tested by a Kill-a -watt, 1000 watts may never been needed, my 19.5 cu ft frige pulls about 110 w, 450 surge.
On Dec 31, 8:37 am, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
For the umpteenth time, a Chernobyl-scale/type accident _CANNOT_ happen w/o Chernobyl-like initial conditions _WHICH_DO_NOT_AND_WILL_NOT_EXIST_ in the US. Stop w/ the absolute and utter bull-puckey already.
If you really don't understand this then go visit a local engineering prof and ask for some basic education. At this point, you're essentially trolling.
No a LOC can occur to any reactor design, and since humans make mistakes accidents can occur:( no system is 100% safe:(
Take anything! A nice new airliner, a car, a truck, a nuclear plant. ALL can have accidents.
But what other device used daily can make a large part of our country or earth uninhabitible?
Nuke plant is top of my list and you have totally ignored the terrorist issue of used core storage pools. not a single response to that issue........
or who pays if a accidental release makes a few states dead zones for humans... no response to that either
you sir are a insider, most likely lots of $$$ at stake at a industry you worked in.
Just curious and I live in pennsylvania but far from TMI if cooling water hadnt been restored just exactly what would of happened with a full melt down?
I am not trooling, I am very concerned that Americans were always reassured everything is safe. Years ago Westinghose Waltz Mill site? near west newton pa had a problem they were still cleaning it up as late as 5 years ago. Babcock wilcox had troubles near vandergrift pa.
On Dec 31, 12:56 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
... Of course.
The point is that the _consequences_ of any accident are limited by the conditions.
The Chernobyl accident was as bad as it was owing to the design of the reactor and the lack of containment. Without those particular design features and lacking any mitigating system of course it was a disaster.
But to postulate the same effects from even a severe LOCA as being the same is simply not being reasonable--you might as well claim a Beech Bonanza would have the same consequences as a fully fueled C-130.
Again, if you truly don't understand this, find a (patient and kindly ) knowledgeable professor at the local uni or community college or similar and get some tutoring on basic nuclear technology and some explanation of what actually did happen and why. Then at least you can move on to worrying over something far more meaningful.
As for the spent fuel, again you're making up scenarios out of the air that simply are not supported by the situation. Yet, you claim that's such a worry to you but you don't want it transported to Yucca Mountain, either.
Relax, recall that in the US there has been something upwards of 2000 reactor-years(1) of commercial operation with no recorded serious injury directly attributable to the nuclear plant itself(2). There's certainly no other industrial or commercial (or even personal) activity with such a safety record. From that it would appear you're worrying most over the least likely of problems.
(1) I didn't do a weighted, updated average, simply approximated by
50+ reactors at 40 years. There weren't so many for a while, but there have been roughly 100 for a while now, too, to make up the difference.
(2) There have been industrial accidents and a few (I don't have exact numbers otomh) fatalities from causes typical to such activities such as falls, construction/maintenance activities, one high-pressure steam leak from boiler-side that I know of, etc., etc. While unfortunate, these are nothing related to the plants having been nuclear boilers and certainly more have occurred in conventional generation facilities over the same time (owing if nothing else to there being more of them, of course).
On Dec 31, 12:56 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
... There's absolutely no call for such aspersions to motives.
I think you're terribly misinformed and somewhat paranoid and that you apparently get most of your input from sources which aren't at all balanced, but I'll grant you do probably actually believe such (given your generally extreme positions on everything from wiring to treated lumber I suppose on writing of this I should simply killfile you and be done now that I think of it as a whole).
But I digress from my intended so I'll make only the response I intended and retire...
I, indeed, am proud to have had a long career in and supporting commercial generation (both nuclear and fossil) and my education and training is foremost in nuclear engineering and nuclear (reactor) physics. That does provide, certainly, a much more intimate vantage point than most in the general public have the opportunity for.
I do not, however, have any financial stake in the nuclear industry other than as a general investor as outlined previously.
I do, otoh, have a great concern over the future of the energy policy in the US as being guided by wishful thinking and unrealistic idealism in the long run evidenced by short term (last 20 years short term) dash to gas turbines as one particular stupidity.
If there is any credence in the concerns over greenhouse gases (and I'm not convinced either way there, at least yet), the only current technology available with which to make any truly significant difference in a cost-effective manner is nuclear for central-station baseload generation.
My only motivation in these dialogs is to counteract the misinformation and hopefully educate at least some (although I have to admit talking to you is like a brick wall--you are a pretty effective reflector of input, never, apparently allowing a fact or bit of technical information to influence an opinion. :( ).
There is, as I've said before, "no free lunch". There are certainly some risks associated w/ nuclear power but with good design and operation it appears the risks for current and future generation LWRs of any design that are or will be licensable in the US or Canada are well under any risks one takes on a daily basis simply commuting to work or such other generally accepted risks.
Oh, one last thought on my previous suggestion -- I've not been on site in Middleton for quite a number of years so I don't know what they've done about the visitors' center but I would highly recommend a visit to it or any other nuclear plant for an actual onsite tour. If you could do it in conjunction w/ a group to get a detailed tour, it would undoubtedly be quite informative. If you're ever out this way, let me know and I can arrange a personal tour through Wolf Creek (our local REC is partial (very, very, teensy-weensy partial :) ) owner but that's enough to get privileges general public doesn't).
On Dec 31, 4:08 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
I only wish you would seem to actually understand some of the technical issues raised.
I've _never_ said _anything_ has zero risk.
Saying something is "99.99998 % or so safe" is meaningless.
One simply must have at least a rational definition to have any basis at all just as the consequences of any postulated accident must be based on actual design and actually physically realizable processes. That's why the continual harping over Chernobyl is meaningless--there are (and have never been) commercial reactors of the same design in the US and certainly none built without the safety systems and containment lacking there.
Risks are quantified in a form of a likelihood per unit time form, not as a percentage.
From what you've said, it would probably "get my attention" only from the standpoint of making my head explode from partial truths and gross assumptions on results. I say that based on what I've seen from other so-called "analyses" that simply are just not realistic evaluations.
I found this response by chance as I had decided to come back one more time and make some comments and post some information on the spent fuel issue as I think you're grossly misinformed as to the level of threat these pools pose and the likelihood of any actual widespread contamination of high concentration. You have seemed terribly concerned that there's a real possibility that somehow these could overheat easily and quickly and also somehow be carried up in a plume a la Chernobyl. Both are simply farfetched.
"The National Research Council in its 2002 report, Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism, found: =93The threat of terrorist attacks on spent fuel storage facilities, like reactors, is highly dependent on design characteristics. Moreover, spent fuel generates orders of magnitude less heat than an operating reactor, so that emergency cooling of the fuel in the case of an attack could probably be accomplished using =91low tech=92 measures that could be implemented without significant exposure of workers to radiation.=94 The Commission agrees with this statement, and through its February 25, 2002 Order directed licensees to develop guidance and strategies to maintain or restore spent fuel pool cooling capabilities using existing or available resources."
" ... the likely intervention by operators to prevent uncovering the fuel or to provide emergency cooling to the spent fuel although it acknowledges some of the very long times available for loss of cooling events. Our [NRC] ongoing analyses suggest that longer times than previously estimated are available for operators to intervene to restore water to ensure that the fuel remains cooled."
"...the safety and security of spent fuel pools is ensured by a series of physical structures, operational measures and security barriers that are unprecedented in U.S. civilian infrastructure.
Nuclear power reactor spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners located inside protected areas.
Many of spent fuel pools are designed with the pool and fuel located below grade, many are shielded by other structures, and many have intervening walls that would obstruct an aircraft=92s or other object=92s impact.
Spent fuel pools contain enormous quantities of water and the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool produces significantly less heat than in an operating reactor. As a result, for most events (i.e., loss of cooling or small leaks) plant operators would have significant amounts of time to correct the problem, or implement fixes needed to restore cooling.
In addition to the water in the spent fuel pool, nuclear power plants possess many other sources of water that are readily available that could be made available as a backup supply to the spent fuel pool.
Since September 11, 2001, additional measures have been taken to reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack and to further improve capabilities of nuclear plants to resist and withstand an attack. These measures include specific enhancements associated with the protective strategies for ground attacks on spent fuel pools. Additionally the NRC has ordered licensee to develop guidance and strategies to maintain and restore spent fuel pool cooling using existing or available resources if cooling is lost for any reason.
Access to spent fuel pools requires passage through multiple physical barriers which must be of sufficient strength to provide high assurance in the protection of public health and safety from radiological sabotage. An attempt to commit radiological sabotage at a spent fuel pool would result in a security response to neutralize the threat. Furthermore, the Federal government has taken numerous actions to prevent terrorist use of large aircraft over the past 18 months, thereby reducing the likelihood of an attack on all critical infrastructure from such threats.
Currently analyses are underway utilizing updated realistically conservative methods. Insights from these more realistic analyses indicate that o the spent fuel stored in spent fuel pools is more easily cooled than predicted in earlier NRC studies, o the consequences of such an accident would be much less severe than previously estimated, o the radioactive release would be much smaller (by at least a factor of 10 for the scenarios analyzed), and the radioactive release would begin later than previously estimated + providing more time for implementing effective protective measures, e.g., evacuation of the EPZ, + resulting in reduced health effects, and + resulting in reduced land contamination."
I reiterate that if you wish to be concerned over possible terrorist attack, commercial (and defense, too, for that matter) nuclear facilities are one place to be in my estimation as they will be far down on the list of likely targets as simply being nonproductive for their (the terrorists') purposes. They simply would get "no bang for the buck" as compared to far easier targets.
I would recommend got to the NRC site and reading some of the publicly available analyses and licensee submittals on fuel pool design to getter a better actual understanding. Much of the recent work and most specific actions targeted directly to terrorism mitigation are, of course, on the restricted access list simply to protect operational plans from the enemy, so to speak. But, the basic safety analyses and design reports are available which will give a far different picture as to the actual structural integrity of the pools than you seemingly have. They're far more than a stock tank w/ some support racks, just as containment is far more than just a concrete block building despite the buildings themselves not being fully hardened.
On Dec 31 2008, 8:37 am, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
Not much other than the building...see other. I presume it's this that the National Geographic show must use as their particular scare tactic since you've referred to it several times. I've seen a couple of "analyses" that were very selective in picking and choosing assumptions and data/numbers from various other NRC and laboratory analyses in order to make a case from this scenario.
Reasonable evaluation of these indicates they're simply unrealistic. One, specific example was the evaluation of how much water would be evaporated by a jet fuel fire -- the entire heat output of the entire volume of fuel was assumed to go into heating the water--an estimate of probably at least an order of magnitude too great.
The spent fuel pools do _not_ rely on refrigerated cooling water at all. Very minor circulation if any would be required to prevent fuel damage from overheating since spent fuel decay heat reduces quite rapidly with time once removed from the reactor.
You do realize there's something like 20 _feet_ of water(1) above the upper level of the fuel assemblies in these pools, I presume???? That means a _HUMONGOUS_ amount of water has to be lost before even get close to uncovering the upper limits of the fuel assemblies. As noted elsewhere, there are also copious other supplies of process water on site that could easily be configured for auxiliary cooling if it were required in sufficiently quickly to avoid any thermal problems.
(1) This is to provide shielding, not required for thermal cooling.
every show or discussion I have EVER seen says the water must be cooled. originally the pools were meant to hold very little used fuel, but over time the lack of long term storage has meant the fuel is packed much more dense.
plus reactors in japan now use the spent fuel for secondary generation.
I will google around but seriously doubt a expert will ever comment on how hot the pools are, given worldwide terrorism. just asking may get a visit from the feds:(
I will offer to send you a copy of that national geographic show, its interesting and shocking......
You are correct, in a news video, it shows his 1KW inverter with a kill a watt plugged into it. It's also amusing that if you watch the video, the woman is cooking a turkey in an electric range.
"Cooled" isn't the same as "refrigerated" by any stretch of the imagination (except the paranoid).
All it takes is a (relatively minor) amount of circulation to provide some cooling path rather than the indefinite stagnant pool.
That one can collect more recently discharged fuel and deliberately arrange it for essentially the opposite purpose (waste heat collection) instead of for long term storage again is making a connection from one situation to another and then leaping to a conclusion. (Actually, the use of the waste heat simply demonstrates that there is indeed value in these so-called "waste" products that should be recovered and much more use would/could be made of them than is currently done.)
There are many analyses and it doesn't take anything but a fairly simple back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate both the heat load and therefrom, the temperature rise for a given pool geometry and loading. These calculations are done routinely in the licensee safety analyses to support the pool designs. They're available from the NRC site under any particular reactor Docket Number you should care to look at; but at least didn't used to be web-searchable (filings are in the NRC ADAMS CITRIX system).
The Standard document _ANSI/ANS-5.1-2005: Decay Heat Power in Light Water Reactors_ (current revision) provides approved techniques for calculating the heat load. From the ANSI it's a copyright work but there are many online sources that have example curves and the fundamentals. Since the bulk of the initial fission products are of the relatively shorter half-life isotopes, the decay heat decreases exponentially with time, hence the required cooling requirements do as well, particularly in the first couple of years. Since the bulk of the fuel currently in storage is much older than that, it's heat load is significantly reduced over the level it was initially reducing the cooling requirements proportionally.
The cooling requirements are minimal enough that, (and you'll _LOVE_ this one :) ), the NRC will also license above-ground passively air- cooled storage as an alternative storage method for those locations which have filled their spent fuel pools.
On Jan 2, 9:52 am, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote: ...
Yes, initially they're a useful (and valuable energy source). That still means they're a relatively low-grade heat source that takes little actual effort to effectively cool sufficiently to prevent damage. And, as noted, the initial power drops quite rapidly after initial removal from the reactor. Go look at the decay heat curves referenced.
Because it's a legal mandate that the utilities operate under -- change the mandate, they'll change their operating practices.
Do you buy far beyond the state-mandated liability coverage for yourself? Same concept.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.