Nuclear power

[ReddyLeaf]

...The Japanese cleanup is going to go on for much longer than expected, we hear now....

On this 5 year anniversary of Fukushima, there are lots of news articles so feel free to search on your own.
Not to pick on you or your comment but I highly doubt that anyone in the nuclear field "expected" this to be completed in even a decade or two. Maybe some media outlets, but certainly not anyone with a modicum of understanding. This isn't computer code or even a complex construction project. This is more like a war zone with radioactivity everywhere. Years ago I remember reading that soon after the accident during some initial assessments, workers found a "hot spot" with radiation that could kill a person in just a few hours. All of this was spread through out a spaghetti mix of destroyed buildings, tossed vehicles, and whatever the sea decided to leave. Nope, slow and careful is the best way to deal with this problem.

I will go on to say that multiple decades will be required. It took workers six years reached the fuel from Three Mile Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident. It's been five years since 3/11, but it may be another five or ten before they can deal with all the fuel at Fukushima. There is currently more liquid waste at Fukushima than at our nearby Hanford (site of plutonium production starting in 1943). Fukushima continues to leak in ground water while Hanford "stopped" production in the 1980's, treated wastes and placed most in engineered containment (except evaporation and low-level effluent). The devastation and massive remediation required at Fukushima is orders of magnitude greater than TMI, Chernobyl and even Hanford. Unfortunately, nearly everyone reading TMC today will have died by the time Fukushima is fully "stabilized" (notice that I didn't say "cleaned up" since there will still be measurable radioactive material from the accident for hundreds, if not thousands of years).

Here is a simply mind-boggling picture of one of the "easy" jobs. Those are individual "super sacks" (about 1 cubic meter) of miscellaneous trash that contain low levels of radioactivity (the really high level stuff must be sequestered behind feet of concrete).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-years-later-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-site-continues-to-spill-waste/




I also did a google search to find a few other pictures to express the scale of things. Here are tanks of treated water, again, low level radioactivity, and notice the scale, >100 million gallons by now (I found one reference to 90 MGal in 2014).

Here is an early picture (Mar 2012) of the really "nasty" stuff. Notice the surrounding barrier and yellow crane. Those are shielded ion exchange modules for removing cesium, strontium, cobalt, etc. This is the output from the water treatment system that is responsible for removing >90% of the water-soluble radioactivity. Here are some early article on this system:
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/11/30/shaw-and-avantech-have-success-implementing-new-water-treatment-system-at-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station#.VuMlfnp8e0E
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/fukushima-water-treatment-system.html

Finally, I'm not sure what's the purpose of my post, other than to highlight the huge level of commitment that will be required for decades. These aren't mad scientists, engineers, managers or even politicians out to harm society. They're just trying to do the best they can, creating tools and methods as they go along, on a project of "a lifetime" that few can comprehend.

 

[Dutchie]

On this 5 year anniversary of Fukushima, there are lots of news articles so feel free to search on your own.
Not to pick on you or your comment but I highly doubt that anyone in the nuclear field "expected" this to be completed in even a decade or two. Maybe some media outlets, but certainly not anyone with a modicum of understanding. This isn't computer code or even a complex construction project. This is more like a war zone with radioactivity everywhere. Years ago I remember reading that soon after the accident during some initial assessments, workers found a "hot spot" with radiation that could kill a person in just a few hours. All of this was spread through out a spaghetti mix of destroyed buildings, tossed vehicles, and whatever the sea decided to leave. Nope, slow and careful is the best way to deal with this problem.

I will go on to say that multiple decades will be required. It took workers six years reached the fuel from Three Mile Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident. It's been five years since 3/11, but it may be another five or ten before they can deal with all the fuel at Fukushima. There is currently more liquid waste at Fukushima than at our nearby Hanford (site of plutonium production starting in 1943). Fukushima continues to leak in ground water while Hanford "stopped" production in the 1980's, treated wastes and placed most in engineered containment (except evaporation and low-level effluent). The devastation and massive remediation required at Fukushima is orders of magnitude greater than TMI, Chernobyl and even Hanford. Unfortunately, nearly everyone reading TMC today will have died by the time Fukushima is fully "stabilized" (notice that I didn't say "cleaned up" since there will still be measurable radioactive material from the accident for hundreds, if not thousands of years).

Here is a simply mind-boggling picture of one of the "easy" jobs. Those are individual "super sacks" (about 1 cubic meter) of miscellaneous trash that contain low levels of radioactivity (the really high level stuff must be sequestered behind feet of concrete).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-years-later-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-site-continues-to-spill-waste/




I also did a google search to find a few other pictures to express the scale of things. Here are tanks of treated water, again, low level radioactivity, and notice the scale, >100 million gallons by now (I found one reference to 90 MGal in 2014).

Here is an early picture (Mar 2012) of the really "nasty" stuff. Notice the surrounding barrier and yellow crane. Those are shielded ion exchange modules for removing cesium, strontium, cobalt, etc. This is the output from the water treatment system that is responsible for removing >90% of the water-soluble radioactivity. Here are some early article on this system:
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/11/30/shaw-and-avantech-have-success-implementing-new-water-treatment-system-at-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station#.VuMlfnp8e0E
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/fukushima-water-treatment-system.html

Finally, I'm not sure what's the purpose of my post, other than to highlight the huge level of commitment that will be required for decades. These aren't mad scientists, engineers, managers or even politicians out to harm society. They're just trying to do the best they can, creating tools and methods as they go along, on a project of "a lifetime" that few can comprehend.

And, how many people died due to this "disaster" and how many people have died the last five years in the oil industry?

 

[nwdiver]

And, how many people died due to this "disaster" and how many people have died the last five years in the oil industry?

That's a bit of a false dichotomy... I agree 100% that if the options were nuclear or oil I choose nuclear everytime with no hesitation. WWSS (Wind, Water, Sun and Storage) is my choice.

I do agree that Japan is being a bit overcautious. There's a safety principle in the nuclear industry called ALARA. IMO they really stretch the meaning of the word 'reasonable'. Regardless... this argument is becoming more and more academic by the day... nuclear is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

 

[S'toon]

Coal has had its day. Nuclear is next to go.

I agree with nwdiver - the costs don't make sense. As storage technology advances (many kinds!), the environmental factors ohmman refers to will be less of an issue.

Nuclear is about being exceedingly careful to prevent disaster. Have we managed it? To some extent, but clearly there have been accidents the industry would prefer to forget. The Japanese cleanup is going to go on for much longer than expected, we hear now.

If we can harness the *free* fusion reactor in the sky, with negligible environmental impacts on our planet (mining the materials being the biggest issue) and little O&M costs through time, why would we chase the expensive, difficult and dangerous? We might crack the fusion nut ourselves, but we can't rely on that happening in a timely fashion.

Fukushima's ground zero: No place for man or robot

The robots sent in to find highly radioactive fuel at Fukushima's nuclear reactors have "died." A subterranean "ice wall" around the crippled plant meant to stop groundwater from becoming contaminated has yet to be finished. And authorities still don't know how to dispose of highly radioactive water stored in an ever-mounting number of tanks around the site.

Five years ago, one of the worst earthquakes in history triggered a 10-metre high tsunami that crashed into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station causing multiple meltdowns. Nearly 19,000 people were killed or left missing and 160,000 lost their homes and livelihoods.

Today, the radiation at the Fukushima plant is still so powerful it has proven impossible to get into its bowels to find and remove the extremely dangerous blobs of melted fuel rods.

The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), has made some progress, such as removing hundreds of spent fuel rods in one damaged building. But the technology needed to establish the location of the melted fuel rods in the other three reactors at the plant has not been developed.

"It is extremely difficult to access the inside of the nuclear plant," Naohiro Masuda, Tepco's head of decommissioning said in an interview. "The biggest obstacle is the radiation."

The fuel rods melted through their containment vessels in the reactors, and no one knows exactly where they are now. This part of the plant is so dangerous to humans, Tepco has been developing robots, which can swim under water and negotiate obstacles in damaged tunnels and piping to search for the melted fuel rods.

But as soon as they get close to the reactors, the radiation destroys their wiring and renders them useless, causing long delays, Masuda said.

Each robot has to be custom-built for each building."It takes two years to develop a single-function robot," Masuda said.

<snip>

Full story at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fukushima-ground-zero-robots-1.3485227

 

[beeeerock]

On this 5 year anniversary of Fukushima, there are lots of news articles so feel free to search on your own.
Not to pick on you or your comment but I highly doubt that anyone in the nuclear field "expected" this to be completed in even a decade or two. Maybe some media outlets, but certainly not anyone with a modicum of understanding.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect it to be complete and I'm not in the industry. Much of the media, presumably fed by Tepco, thought the worst would be over by now and clearly it's not (when you aren't sure where the core is, I'd consider that to be a problem... :crying. Chernobyl is still unlivable apparently. I don't think the cleanup will ever really be over, it'll just slow down as the worst of the material is dealt with.

I sure hope the stored material is beyond the reach of another tsunami.

- - - Updated - - -

And, how many people died due to this "disaster" and how many people have died the last five years in the oil industry?

Given the close call Tokyo had (and there are some interesting articles chronicling how close they came to having a horrific problem), I don't think that's a fair comparison. 'Almost' may only count in horseshoes and hand grenades, but I'd suggest nuclear meltdown should also be included...

 

[nwdiver]

PBS Newshour had a special on the decommissioning of Fukushima today; It's absolutely insane how much time, effort and resources are being spent... for no gain. Even if the odds of this occurring are 0.1% it's not worth the risk... when weighed against renewables nuclear is beyond absurd.

 

[Rafael]

PBS Newshour had a special on the decommissioning of Fukushima today; It's absolutely insane how much time, effort and resources are being spent... for no gain. Even if the odds of this occurring are 0.1% it's not worth the risk... when weighed against renewables nuclear is beyond absurd.

0,1% is way too big. So much stuff has to go wrong at the same for something bad to happen.

 

[Zapped]

To bad we are talking about 45-year-old technology that must be reaching the end of it's life cycle.

Surely a ground up design could produce something safe and efficient today using modern materials and innovation.
(similar to the evolution of the vehicle, aircraft and other infrastructure and modern inventions )

I agree the old dangerous and archaic nuclear plants should be decommissioned.
If the Thorium MSR proponents claims are true, these power plants could re-burn spend nuclear fuel and remove at least some of the issues with nuclear waste.

 

[beeeerock]

If the Thorium MSR proponents claims are true, these power plants could re-burn spend nuclear fuel and remove at least some of the issues with nuclear waste.

Lightbridge has been working for a long time on thorium fuel rods that would also re-burn the nasty stuff, including plutonium... in current LWR's. I've been waiting for them to get to market and bump their stock, but at the rate they're going nuclear will be obsolete first and they'll fade into obscurity. I could see some reactors staying on line if only to burn some of the nastiest stuff into a slightly less ugly form.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear might find some niche market where it's worthwhile to burn used fuel (but it's still probably cheaper to bury it in a salt mine) OR above/below the 50th parallels in the far north/south where solar energy is lower in the winter/summer. But it's very unlikely at this point that new nuclear will ever be more than a niche. Solar is solid-state... it's been following a cost reduction curve close to Moores law. I fully expect module prices to hit $0.20/w by 2020 with full BOS costs <$0.80/w. First Solar is already projecting turn key costs for solar to drop below $1/w by 2017. The only way for nuclear to compete is to find some way to convert fission or fusion directly into electricity without using heat as an intermediate step... that's something that only exists on paper.

By 2020 solar PV will be cheaper than thermal power even if the heat source is free. Cost effective storage will be the coup de gras.

0,1% is way too big. So much stuff has to go wrong at the same for something bad to happen.

The running average is actually ~1%; Globally ~500 reactors have been built and we've seen ~5 of those suffer some kind of melt down to varying levels of severity. Then there are the dozens of close calls. If you read the NRC reports there have been several occasions where 4/5 safeguards failed... Frontline produced a really good documentary on Fukushima... as bad as things are they could have been MUCH worse. Fukushima's sister plant Fukushima Daini also came very close to a melt down.

If I recall correctly the threshold for the NRC is 1:10k /yr. So over the 60 year life of a reactor the acceptable odds of an accident would be 0.6%. If you have a fleet of 435 reactors like we do globally then the odds of one of them suffering an accident over a 60 year period is 93%. If something is possible... no matter how improbable... if you roll the dice enough... it will happen.

 

[Rafael]

Nuclear might find some niche market where it's worthwhile to burn used fuel (but it's still probably cheaper to bury it in a salt mine) OR above/below the 50th parallels in the far north/south where solar energy is lower in the winter/summer. But it's very unlikely at this point that new nuclear will ever be more than a niche. Solar is solid-state... it's been following a cost reduction curve close to Moores law. I fully expect module prices to hit $0.20/w by 2020 with full BOS costs <$0.80/w. First Solar is already projecting turn key costs for solar to drop below $1/w by 2017. The only way for nuclear to compete is to find some way to convert fission or fusion directly into electricity without using heat as an intermediate step... that's something that only exists on paper.

By 2020 solar PV will be cheaper than thermal power even if the heat source is free. Cost effective storage will be the coup de gras.



The running average is actually ~1%; Globally ~500 reactors have been built and we've seen ~5 of those suffer some kind of melt down to varying levels of severity. Then there are the dozens of close calls. If you read the NRC reports there have been several occasions where 4/5 safeguards failed... Frontline produced a really good documentary on Fukushima... as bad as things are they could have been MUCH worse. Fukushima's sister plant Fukushima Daini also came very close to a melt down.

If I recall correctly the threshold for the NRC is 1:10k /yr. So over the 60 year life of a reactor the acceptable odds of an accident would be 0.6%. If you have a fleet of 435 reactors like we do globally then the odds of one of them suffering an accident over a 60 year period is 93%. If something is possible... no matter how improbable... if you roll the dice enough... it will happen.

Interesting data. I wonder what kind of risk tolerances are estimated for newly built reactors today.
I agree that solar is the way to go in most places but near polar areas (for example in Finland) solar energy production is almost nonexistent in Nov-Jan which makes it difficult to rely on solar. Here is some data from Helsinki (the capital on the southern coast).

Hydro capability is already in use and wind is scarce. We do have forest so we use wood and import fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels is pretty much the only way to go if nuclear is out of the picture. I also think that the prices of fossil fuels may remain relatively low due to solar taking off globally.

 

[mspohr]

Interesting data. I wonder what kind of risk tolerances are estimated for newly built reactors today.
I agree that solar is the way to go in most places but near polar areas (for example in Finland) solar energy production is almost nonexistent in Nov-Jan which makes it difficult to rely on solar. Here is some data from Helsinki (the capital on the southern coast).
View attachment 167940
Hydro capability is already in use and wind is scarce. We do have forest so we use wood and import fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels is pretty much the only way to go if nuclear is out of the picture. I also think that the prices of fossil fuels may remain relatively low due to solar taking off globally.

You seem to have forgotten about wind.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

coup de gras..

Aside: coup de grâce. Mercy blow. De gras would be fat blow.

 

[Skotty]

I'm fine with giving up on nuclear fission for commercial electricity generation so long as Elon busts some ass and gets Tesla Energy rolling. I really think that solar is just unicorns riding rainbow fairytales without commercialized grid storage solutions. However, R&D and niche uses for fission and fusion can and should continue. Any truly advanced society should be able to manipulate the atom, and it will be necessary for things like deep space missions.

 

[nwdiver]

I really think that solar is just unicorns riding rainbow fairytales without commercialized grid storage solutions.

What's the benefit of storage if peak solar production is consistently < demand? We will need storage but not for a few more years. There's currently very little benefit and no need to store solar. CA is the national leader and they're ~20GW away from needing storage... even then the better answer would be to export to other states... not storage.

There is this weird obsession with storing solar during the day and using it at night even though it makes much more sense to use as much of solar as we can when it's produced. The only time solar should be stored is when it can't be exported for consumption... we're still years away from that.

 

[ohmman]

You seem to have forgotten about wind.

Hydro capability is already in use and wind is scarce. We do have forest so we use wood and import fossil fuels.

I think you probably missed the bolded part.

 

[mspohr]

I think you probably missed the bolded part.

Sorry. I was using a tablet where my replies are unnecessarily brief and I didn't phrase that properly.
I should have said that I was puzzled that you so dismissive of wind power in Norway. I did a bit of Googling and came up with lots of good references such as this:
"Norway has the best wind conditions in all of Europe and is therefore particularly well suited for wind power. For each turbine that is built in this country, we help the country achieve its goal of increasing the percentage of energy consumed from renewable sources from 60% to 67% by 2020" (Camilla Rasmusson of E.ON Norway)
Do we need wind power in Norway?
And this on new investment in wind in Norway:
"Norway has awarded concessions to build eight new onshore wind farms for about 20 billion kroner ($3.3 billion) in a bid to triple the country’s capacity to more than 2 gigawatts by 2020."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...for-wind-power-plants-to-triple-capacity.html
And this news article (primarily about Denmark) but also shows that Norway exported 390 MW
Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
This interesting real time map shows Norway exporting wind power to Denmark (itself a leader in wind production):
Power right now

So... I don't think wind power in Norway should be so easily dismissed... lots of power and potential there.

(BTW, have you watched "Occupied" on Netflix? It's a production by Norwegian TV about a future where Norway decides to stop exporting oil and is in turn occupied by the Russians with EU support. Norway promotes Thorium reactors. Interesting series.)

 

[Rafael]

Sorry. I was using a tablet where my replies are unnecessarily brief and I didn't phrase that properly.
I should have said that I was puzzled that you so dismissive of wind power in Norway. I did a bit of Googling and came up with lots of good references such as this:
"Norway has the best wind conditions in all of Europe and is therefore particularly well suited for wind power. For each turbine that is built in this country, we help the country achieve its goal of increasing the percentage of energy consumed from renewable sources from 60% to 67% by 2020" (Camilla Rasmusson of E.ON Norway)
Do we need wind power in Norway?
And this on new investment in wind in Norway:
"Norway has awarded concessions to build eight new onshore wind farms for about 20 billion kroner ($3.3 billion) in a bid to triple the country’s capacity to more than 2 gigawatts by 2020."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...for-wind-power-plants-to-triple-capacity.html
And this news article (primarily about Denmark) but also shows that Norway exported 390 MW
Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
This interesting real time map shows Norway exporting wind power to Denmark (itself a leader in wind production):
Power right now

So... I don't think wind power in Norway should be so easily dismissed... lots of power and potential there.

(BTW, have you watched "Occupied" on Netflix? It's a production by Norwegian TV about a future where Norway decides to stop exporting oil and is in turn occupied by the Russians with EU support. Norway promotes Thorium reactors. Interesting series.)

I agree that Norway has great potential for wind and they also have loads of hydro (and as if that isn't enough there is also the oil). Maybe I should move to Norway. They have everything
(Well I do think that Finland has maybe a bit more beautiful women. That counts as something... I guess)

In Finland though the situation is very different. There isn't that many suitable places for wind because there is lots of forests and we don't have almost any mountains (highest point is about 1,1km and that's in the far north where the energy consumption is negligible). Even in the relatively windy places in the Finnish mainland the windpower is profitable only after over 10 years of use (and even then they are profitable only because of pretty massive subsidies).

 

[mspohr]

I don't know much about Finland... only what I read on the Internet.
It does look like you have some wind power (2.8% in 2015):
Wind energy statistics in Finland
And this page seems to think there is enough potential:
How much wind power to Finland?
"From the perspective of Finnish wind resources, the Finnish Wind Atlas shows that onshore and offshore wind resources are sufficient to meet the Ministry of Employment and the Economy wind power targets many times over.
From a land use perspective, current regional plans designate only a small proportion of the total potentially suitable areas for wind power construction, except in offshore areas, where there are reservations for wind power construction that greatly exceed 2020 targets. However, regional land use planners have been instructed to consider the needs of wind power in future regional plans and when making amendments to existing plans."
Looks like offshore has the most potential.

 

[Rafael]

I don't know much about Finland... only what I read on the Internet.
It does look like you have some wind power (2.8% in 2015):
Wind energy statistics in Finland
And this page seems to think there is enough potential:
How much wind power to Finland?
"From the perspective of Finnish wind resources, the Finnish Wind Atlas shows that onshore and offshore wind resources are sufficient to meet the Ministry of Employment and the Economy wind power targets many times over.
From a land use perspective, current regional plans designate only a small proportion of the total potentially suitable areas for wind power construction, except in offshore areas, where there are reservations for wind power construction that greatly exceed 2020 targets. However, regional land use planners have been instructed to consider the needs of wind power in future regional plans and when making amendments to existing plans."
Looks like offshore has the most potential.

We do have some wind power. Unfortunately it isn't cost competitive. I would really hope that it would be cheaper. For example in 2013 government paid guaranteed 83.5€/MWh (and 103.5€/MWh for the first 3 years of operation) price from wind whereas the average value of energy was 41.15€/MWh. The cost of producing wind power in Finland (if the place is favorable) is about 70€/MWh. (The values are from finnish wikipedia). Hopefully it will get more cost competitive in the future.