24 replies to this topic

[Southron]

24 of 30 currently proposed new US reactors are in Southern states.  TVA is restarting a reactor at its Browns Ferry plant in Alabama next month, the first reactor to come online in the US in over ten years.  TVA may also add two new reactors at another Alabama plant that was mothballed before it ever opened, or possibly finish a second one at a Tennessee plant.

Nuclear power is supposed to be much safer now, so maybe these new reactors will help our growing and power-hungry states move away from coal-fired plants over the long term.  What do you all think about this nuclear power comeback?

Birmingham News blog report here.


---


From the News report:  According to the Energy Information Administration, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Florida are net electricity importers among the Southern states.

[monsoon]

ExpatBaman, on Apr 18 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Nuclear power is supposed to be much safer now, .......

Nuclear power has the same issues that it has always had.   That is, disastrous results due to bad management and human error.  Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by gross mis-management including cover ups and poorly trained operators and badly built operators due to inadequate inspections and time pressures.  Nuclear power can be made very safe as demonstrated by the Navy nuclear program which has been running a very reliable program since they build their first reactor in the 1950s.   The difference is they spend the money necessary to build safe reactors and have military discipline to enforce safe operation amongst the management and technical people.  I am not convinced the commercial power companies, whose primary concern is profits, would put the same focus on the operation of their reactors if there is a vast expansion.   These are, after all, the same companies that fight the government tooth and nail against regulations to put clean air technology on their coal burning plants.  

The other issue is what is to be done with the nuclear waste?  The by products of nuclear fission are some of the most poisonous materials known to man, and are highly radioactive for  100,000s of years.  Not to mention they can be used to make WMDs and even nuclear bombs.

[Spartan]

The French have come up with an interesting recycling system for nuclear waste. There are many pros and cons, but they reprocess it so that they can reuse the fuel rods. It works in such a way that in converts 1 ton of nuclear waste into about 26 gallons. This reprocessing reduces the volume of the deadliest material by a factor of 20. It cuts the amount of waste significantly. The major problem is that it is currently illegal to do this in the US.

http://seattlepi.nws...ternity/d3.html

[Alabadrock]

monsoon, on Apr 19 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

Nuclear power has the same issues that it has always had. That is, disastrous results due to bad management and human error. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by gross mis-management including cover ups and poorly trained operators and badly built operators due to inadequate inspections and time pressures. Nuclear power can be made very safe as demonstrated by the Navy nuclear program which has been running a very reliable program since they build their first reactor in the 1950s. The difference is they spend the money necessary to build safe reactors and have military discipline to enforce safe operation amongst the management and technical people. I am not convinced the commercial power companies, whose primary concern is profits, would put the same focus on the operation of their reactors if there is a vast expansion. These are, after all, the same companies that fight the government tooth and nail against regulations to put clean air technology on their coal burning plants.

The other issue is what is to be done with the nuclear waste? The by products of nuclear fission are some of the most poisonous materials known to man, and are highly radioactive for 100,000s of years. Not to mention they can be used to make WMDs and even nuclear bombs.

Yea, that's what I'm worried about with the company that wants to start Bellefonte back up in North Alabama.  Supposedly they're going to buy it from TVA and nearly rebuild everything.  The technology inside the plant is so old that no one knows how to use it anymore.  The building has been sitting there for decades.  

I had a relative, that works for TVA, explain to me what they do with the nuclear waste.  After the cores are done being used in the plants, a barge (HEAVILY ARMORED) picks the waste up and carries it down the Tennessee River.  Now this only happens every 20 years, I think, so, needless to say, the U.S. doesn't pruduce a lot of waste from these Nuclear Plants.  Anyways, the barge carries the waste as far west as possible, where it is then transported by land to a very remote mountain in Nevada.  The waste remains here for however long, and it is HEAVILY gaurded 24/7.

Of course there's always a dim chance of the nuclear waste being missused, but, I highly doubt that would every happen.  It would be very hard to get a hold of.  All through the journey to Nevada, the waste is contained in such tough and strong material, that virtually nothing can cause the radioactive material to leak out.  Of course, the barges are armored such as if anyone tried to hijack the boat, not only could the be unable to get the waste, but, if the barge sinks, there's no danger, cause the waste is completely contained.  But like I said, there's always a dim chance something could go wrong.

[monsoon]

^As far as I know, the Nevada site you mention is not opened because the residents of that state don't want to become the dumping ground for other state's nuclear wastes.   Subsequent lawsuits have stopped the transport of the material to that location and thus all of the plutonium is being stored locally, usually at the nuclear reactors themselves.  

Lets keep in mind that you don't have to have a lot of waste to kill millions of people.

[wrldcoupe4]

Dominion Virginia Power is requesting federal approval to be able to build 2 new reactors at their North Anna Nuclear Power Station.

[Spartan]

monsoon, on Apr 25 2007, 07:32 AM, said:

^As far as I know, the Nevada site you mention is not opened because the residents of that state don't want to become the dumping ground for other state's nuclear wastes.   Subsequent lawsuits have stopped the transport of the material to that location and thus all of the plutonium is being stored locally, usually at the nuclear reactors themselves.  

Lets keep in mind that you don't have to have a lot of waste to kill millions of people.

Yeah, so they are storing it in South Carolina instead    ....."temporarily," of course.

The French process that I mentioned would cut down on nuclear waste dramatically and recycle the spent fuel rods.

[Alabadrock]

Spartan, on Apr 25 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

Yeah, so they are storing it in South Carolina instead ....."temporarily," of course.

The French process that I mentioned would cut down on nuclear waste dramatically and recycle the spent fuel rods.

How much exposure would one person have to endure to do all this recycling.  Cause, it seems that somewhere during the process, someone has to get closer than usual to it.  Or, is it all mechanized?

[satalac]

monsoon, on Apr 19 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

I am not convinced the commercial power companies, whose primary concern is profits, would put the same focus on the operation of their reactors if there is a vast expansion.   These are, after all, the same companies that fight the government tooth and nail against regulations to put clean air technology on their coal burning plants.

the tva is hardly a "commercial power company". i supply welding and safety supplies to several of the plants, and safety is a big deal over there. if i trusted anyone to run nuclear power plants, it would be the tva.

[Alabadrock]

satalac, on Apr 26 2007, 06:05 PM, said:

the tva is hardly a "commercial power company". i supply welding and safety supplies to several of the plants, and safety is a big deal over there. if i trusted anyone to run nuclear power plants, it would be the tva.

I think he was talking about the commercial company that wants to buy the Bellefonte site and start it up.  Not sure though.

[Spatula]

monsoon, on Apr 19 2007, 07:08 AM, said:

Nuclear power has the same issues that it has always had.   That is, disastrous results due to bad management and human error.  Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by gross mis-management including cover ups and poorly trained operators and badly built operators due to inadequate inspections and time pressures.  Nuclear power can be made very safe as demonstrated by the Navy nuclear program which has been running a very reliable program since they build their first reactor in the 1950s.   The difference is they spend the money necessary to build safe reactors and have military discipline to enforce safe operation amongst the management and technical people.  I am not convinced the commercial power companies, whose primary concern is profits, would put the same focus on the operation of their reactors if there is a vast expansion.   These are, after all, the same companies that fight the government tooth and nail against regulations to put clean air technology on their coal burning plants.  

The other issue is what is to be done with the nuclear waste?  The by products of nuclear fission are some of the most poisonous materials known to man, and are highly radioactive for  100,000s of years.  Not to mention they can be used to make WMDs and even nuclear bombs.

Chernobyl wasn't really mismanagement though. It was a flawed reactor design. Scary thing is, Russia still has a lot of those operating like nothing's ever happened. I would call that poverty instead of mismanagement, but whatever. The US has old reactor woes as well, though they aren't as serious as Russia's. The moratorium helped to create this. If we were smart, we'd upgrade all our facilities to breeder reactors, which produce a lot more power, and a whole lot less waste.

I'm in total agreement about the deregulation movement though. Power production is not the type of industry that would benefit from cutting corners on safety or environmental protection.

[Spartan]

Alabadrock, on Apr 25 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

How much exposure would one person have to endure to do all this recycling.  Cause, it seems that somewhere during the process, someone has to get closer than usual to it.  Or, is it all mechanized?

Im guessing if the French do it, then there is none. They have much stiffer labor laws than we do.

Spatula, on May 16 2007, 12:39 AM, said:

Chernobyl wasn't really mismanagement though. It was a flawed reactor design. Scary thing is, Russia still has a lot of those operating like nothing's ever happened. I would call that poverty instead of mismanagement, but whatever.

Crappy Russian engineering. The best that communism has to offer.

[monsoon]

Spatula, on May 15 2007, 11:39 PM, said:

Chernobyl wasn't really mismanagement though. It was a flawed reactor design. Scary thing is, Russia still has a lot of those operating like nothing's ever happened. ...

Spartan, on May 22 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

.....
Crappy Russian engineering. The best that communism has to offer.

Crappy Russian engineering is no different from crappy American engineering.  Both countries are fully capable of producing excellent examples of it.    

Cherynobyl was not an optimum design, but it could be operated safely if they followed the established procedures for it and the fact there are Chernobyl style reactors still in operation with no incidents.    The problem is, they were running an overdue safety test on the reactor and dropped power output too low which triggered the eventual steam explosion which blew the safety top off the reactor.   The Soviets sentenced several people to years of hard labor for their mismanagement of the project and that particular test.  (the ones that survived that is).  

There have been reactors built in the USA that have had as many problems as Chernobyl though none with as dramatic results.  Chernobyl was worse than it could have been because of the initial silence on the true nature of the accident due to the failing communist state.     If you go to google and look up nuclear accidents you will find a number of them.    

The point that I was making and stand by is that nuclear power has just as many problems now, as it has ever had.

[Alabadrock]

Well, here's a short article about the first reactor to start up in the United States in over a decade.  It's a Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant just outside of Decatur, AL.

Browns Ferry reactor splits first atom in 22 years

The long-dormant Browns Ferry Unit 1 nuclear reactor was restarted Monday and achieved a nuclear reaction early today, some 22 years after it was shut down for safety reasons.

Federal regulators gave TVA, which operates Browns Ferry, permission to restart the reactor last week, culminating a five-year, $1.8 billion rebuilding effort.

TVA said its operators will increase power over the next several days and test related plant systems to ensure proper operation.

Testing on the reactor will continue for several weeks, TVA said, and will include "brief connections to the power grid, followed by deliberate 'automatic' trips, or shutdowns to ensure the plant safety systems operate correctly."

[kayman]

Last I heard from just a few days ago, that Browns Ferry had to be shut back down because something when wrong.

[Alabadrock]

They usually have problems with the fluid lines and hydraulics.  It's really nothing huge that would actually hurt people if they hadn't imediately stopped the reactors.

The hydraulics are there incase the coolant lines fail.  The hydraulic stuff (don't know the technical term) draws water from the Tennessee if the coolant system fails.  Backup stuff.  

Anyways, Browns Ferry Unit 1 remains at 9%.  

http://www.decaturda...530/fails.shtml

[monsoon]

Starting up a plant that has been closed for 22 years would worry me.   No doubt the people who are experience with the quirks of that place, as well as the original designers are probably retired and have long forgotten about it.

[Spatula]

Quote

The point that I was making and stand by is that nuclear power has just as many problems now, as it has ever had.

Which is not many, of course.

[monsoon]

Spatula, on Jun 6 2007, 12:34 AM, said:

Which is not many, of course.

You want to give us a better explanation?  Chernoybl has been responsible for the direct and premature deaths of thousands and required the evacuation of a city and a sizable portion of a very productive part of that country.   It will remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.   And as state above, the byproducts of this industry, even when operating in a safe manner, are some of the most dangerous materials known to science and can be used to make WmDS.    

Seems to me you might be understating the danger.

[Alabadrock]

monsoon, on May 30 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

Starting up a plant that has been closed for 22 years would worry me.   No doubt the people who are experience with the quirks of that place, as well as the original designers are probably retired and have long forgotten about it.

I know what you mean, and I'm a bit skeptical myself, cause, it's kinda hard to start something back that you haven't done in a really long time.  But, the plant itself was never shut down.  Unit 1, which is the unit that was recently start back, was shut down because of a fire in 85.  Units 2 and 3 have been online since the 91 and 95, respectively.  

About personnel, you don't have to worry too much about not having qualified people.  About 1,100 to 1,500 people currently work at the nuclear plant, and most of those from the early 90s are still there.  That's what the Alabama portion of TVA has always boasted about, having the older experienced workers.  So, employee experience isn't much of a problem, since most of the men and women have been out there since 2 and 3 were started up.

Funny thing is, some of the most experienced workers out there retire from working at the actual plant, but end up working as contractors for the plant.  So, the older employees are still out there in the plant running the test and maintenance checks.  

That's always eased my worries.  Just remember, the plant was never actually shut down.

Some other facts to let you know that these people can handle it.  

*BFNP holds the record for the longest unbroken operational run of a unit in a TVA Nuclear Plant.  It was 669 days, and the second longest in the  U.S.  At that time it generated a world record 18 Million Mwh.

*BFNP was TVA's first nuclear power plant.

*Units 2 and 3 produce enough power to support 1.3 Million homes each day.  That's roughly the population of the entire Alabama Tennessee Valley.  But, the plant also supplies Southern Middle Tennessee.

*General Manager R. G. Jones has had experience with BFNP for over 34 years, and was there when Unit 1 first came online.  


Here's an excerpt of the story from the Huntsville Times

<h1 class="red">Browns Ferry Unit 1 running at 45% power</h1>
The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor is connected to the power grid and generating electricity, though not yet at full power, a Tennessee Valley Authority spokesman said Monday.

The Unit 1 reactor was restarted May 22 after being dormant since 1985. It was briefly shut down following a hydraulic leak a few days later, and is now operating at about 45 percent power, said Browns Ferry spokesman Craig Beasley.

The reactor was restarted after a five-year, $1.8 billion program by TVA. It is currently going through a period of "ascension testing," where the reactor is raised to a certain power level and then undergoes extensive system testing for reliability.