International - Nuclear is Our Future

Bellona Waste Report

Bellona has issued a report stating that there are 21,000 spent fuel assemblies in a storage system that will explode if water leaks in, and that water is leaking in.

It’s kinda flawed.

1. All uncontrolled reactions are not explosions. A reaction can be uncontrolled merely because a person or mechanism is not in charge of it–there were 16 natural nuclear reactors in an African uranium deposit, and they formed in a very similar configuration to this postulated accident. How did they stop? The energy released heated the water and eventually boiled it–and without the water, there’s no reaction. After it shut down, it cooled off, letting the water back in; this process was repeated for millions of years until it simply ran out of fuel. No explosions were involved–it didn’t even disrupt the ore.
2. There will never be a homogeneous mixture. Ceramic does not dissolve in water, there’s no way to get enough water into the fuel assemblies even if it did, and expecting every single one of those 21,000 tubes to open up, let the water in, and not let any of it out afterward is ridiculous.
3. This isn’t gasoline. A critical configuration in one area does not create a critical configuration in another nearby area.

Sounds a bit like the Brookhaven Report, which was written in 1957 with no access to computers, and said that if the core of a nuclear reactor were pulverized and deposited equally into the lungs of 10,000 people, they would die. Well, yes–but what’s your point? The amount of water in a filled bathtub could drown 40,000 people. Blaming nuclear power for things it didn’t, doesn’t, and can’t do doesn’t save lives. It cynically manipulates tragedy for political purposes.

Filed under International, Nuclear Exceptionalism, Physics, Safety

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

Sizewell B Goes to Russian Fuel

You can understand it, with the expense of keeping all that manufacturing equipment for one plant’s fuel, but still–the Russians? Couldn’t they get it from us?

One thing is certain: if the American nuclear industry doesn’t immediately forget any illusions that it is special and start acting like an industry, they’ll stagnate just like they have over the past 35 years.
The nuclear industry outside of Russia is the only industry in the world to respond to a great opportunity for growth by screaming “SLOW DOWN!” Well, guess what. You’re never going to have everything you need to be perfect, and your suppliers that you so often complain about move at the normal speed for private industry–meaning a complete turnaround in two years is not unheard of–instead of yours. Don’t worry about them. Get the orders, start innovating, and the workers will come as soon as there are jobs for them.

Remember: if not for Chernobyl–meaning, if they had banned the RBMK in 1950 like we did, and if the Soviet military hadn’t tried to build power plants out of their bomb factories–the Russian nuclear industry would have a perfect safety record. They do have much better financial and management performance. There are lessons to be learned from the Russians; they’re getting these orders for a reason.
And if you don’t get going, the Russians are going to come over here, get the VVER-1000 certified by the NRC, and build a fleet. Do you really want that?

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

On the New Global Warming Proposals

George Bush has proposed a series of international meetings on how to replace the Kyoto Protocol with something that works. At this point, I think it’s fairly evident that:
1. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t go far enough and has set up a system which has been manipulated to obstruct real progress.
2. Global warming as a result of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beyond the capability of natural systems to absorb it is a fact of physics.
3. We need a concrete procedure in place for an orderly, face-saving transition from the combustion era instead of more meetings and non-binding agreements.

Count me skeptical. I don’t see anything here that satisfies the third point, but perhaps George Bush knows by now that any proposal of his will be rejected simply because it came from him (which is wrong, even though I don’t agree with him on much), and is trying to set up an international conference where Obama or Hillary will present something nearly identical to what he would have.
Let’s just hope that successor doesn’t drop the ball.

Link.

Filed under Environment, International, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

Ontario Update

They’ve hired some consultants to do a comparison of the major available reactor designs.

I disagree with the Society of Energy Professionals, however, and fully expect that McKinsey will rate AECL’s Canadian nuclear technology near the bottom. The current designs remove the CANDU’s traditional commercial advantages and are competitive only if there is a requirement to consume American-style reactors’ waste–which Canada doesn’t have. They could build a fleet down here, but in places without a lot of LWR waste, they might as well just build fast breeders.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Olkiluoto Unit 4 Proposed

They’re planning to cut through the red tape by summer 2008, with construction starting around 2013 and operation in 2018. That leaves five years for the Finnish government to make a decision.

I again state my firm belief that there is nothing about a nuclear power plant that merits all this bureaucratic baloney. If the thing burned oil it’d be up and running in two years, but a nuclear power plant with less environmental impact by far must jump through hoops that include a full vote of the Finnish Parliament.

Link.

Filed under International, New Build, Nuclear Exceptionalism, Politics and Regulation