Batteries Produce More CO2 Than Coal and Gasoline.

[jflorey2]

You are probably correct. It seems most of the SMR projects I have read about are all off shore from the US except for a system that TVA is looking to build. Based on some designs the SMR do not need forced water cooling so if there is a loss of pumping or power they will not go critical like the larger systems.

Yep. (Note that even the larger conventional systems won't go critical if they lose power - but the decay heat alone, even with the reactor in as shut down a state as it can get, causes damage and meltdowns.)

Another and IMO a bigger problem is getting past the fear of using Nuclear power. That seems to be the biggest road block for the industry.

Definitely agreed there. Tell people that pollution from coal power plants kills thousands of people a year and they say "OK, maybe the plants should be cleaner." Tell people that gas main explosions kill a handful of people every year and they think "that's too bad." But tell people that TMI had a meltdown - but no one was harmed and no significant radiation was released - and they panic and get all "no nukes" on the industry.

(Bruce sez) Its my opinion that the nuke idea needs to be redone from the ground up, so that no abuse or mistake can result in released radiation, ESPECIALLY from loss of cooling.

The newer Gen III reactors (none installed yet in the US, although they are working on a few) don't require active cooling to go into a safe shutdown state, although they do require at least battery power to shut down safely. In other words, you need enough battery power to drive the valves to the right position, and then you can walk away. And that's a MUCH easier thing to guarantee than pump power for a month.

However I would note that even Gen III reactors can't survive a complete LOCA (loss of coolant accident.) They have to remain intact with coolant circulating.

[SunEagle]

Every existing reactor we have here in the US will melt down if you pull power from it. Every single one. That's why they have batteries, and banks of diesels, and reliable grid connections - because those things are required to prevent meltdowns. It is extremely rare to lose all three at the same time. In fact, Fukushima ran on batteries for almost 8 hours before they gave out and the cores melted down.

Newer reactors (often called Gen III or "passive nuclear safety") do not need power to shut down. They are designed so that convection is sufficient to keep their cores from being destroyed by the radioactive decay heat. They may be damaged and become unusable, but they will not lose containment. There are a few of these in India, Japan and China; none in the US.


All those are good things to research. No one has developed one that people want yet. If and when they do (and I hope they do, because we need them) there will be a lot of red tape - because there has to be, because nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Hopefully intrinsically safe reactors (like Gen III reactors) will have _less_ red tape than older reactors, but I have a feeling the approach to them will be "once they prove they are safe we will cut some of the red tape."

Actually the problem with most Nuclear reactors is the storage of old fuel rods on the premises. They need to be cooled and if they aren't they release hydrogen gas which explodes.

Solve the issue with old fuel rods (process them like the French do) and don't just store them on the property of the power station.

[jflorey2]

Actually the problem with most Nuclear reactors is the storage of old fuel rods on the premises. They need to be cooled and if they aren't they release hydrogen gas which explodes.
Solve the issue with old fuel rods (process them like the French do) and don't just store them on the property of the power station.

I've heard that listed as a problem - but I think that on the scale of problems with nuclear power it's pretty far down the list. You need active cooling for a few months, but after the short lived isotopes decay you can move the spent fuel to a pool that's just (effectively) a tank of water, with no pumping or cooling required. And there's never been a serious accident in the US with on-site spent fuel storage.

If we ever do get reprocessing off the ground (right now we don't need it, but we might in the future) then it would start making sense to take on the expense/risk of transporting all that spent fuel to a central location for reprocessing.

[SunEagle]

I've heard that listed as a problem - but I think that on the scale of problems with nuclear power it's pretty far down the list. You need active cooling for a few months, but after the short lived isotopes decay you can move the spent fuel to a pool that's just (effectively) a tank of water, with no pumping or cooling required. And there's never been a serious accident in the US with on-site spent fuel storage.

If we ever do get reprocessing off the ground (right now we don't need it, but we might in the future) then it would start making sense to take on the expense/risk of transporting all that spent fuel to a central location for reprocessing.

Check on the plant in Japan. It was the spent rods that cause the bigger problem without having water to cool them. They were stored in water pools beneath teh reactors but in the same building.

There hasn't been any issue in the US except for the lack of storage space at each plant which is shrinking. All of those spend rods were supposed to go to Utah but have now been turned away.

The reason the US is not reprocessing the old rods was due to a senior government official who thought those rods could be stolen and used against the US. That fear put a hold on all reprocessing in the US and the drive to bury them in Utah which has now come to a halt.

[jflorey2]

Check on the plant in Japan. It was the spent rods that cause the bigger problem without having water to cool them. They were stored in water pools beneath teh reactors but in the same building.

Right, and seeing what happened there is pretty instructive.

In reactors 1, 2 and 3 the spent fuel had been there for a while. As a result the water got pretty hot but didn't come close to boiling. Simply keeping the pools filled was sufficient to protect the spent fuel. The reactors themselves, of course, experienced meltdowns due to the lack of time to get them to cold shutdown.

Reactor 4 had its fuel off-loaded into the pool for maintenance - so it was very recent (lots of decay heat.) The water started boiling, and it was very fortunate that a transfer gate leaked enough water in to prevent the water from boiling off and exposing the fuel. (There was an explosion there, but that was due to hydrogen leaking from reactor 3.)

Reactors 5 and 6 were off-line and had been for a few months - so their cores were OK. (Decay heat had declined to a safe level.) Also no problems with their spent fuel pools - but they had a little power because a switchgear room that they both shared was not damaged in the flooding.

There hasn't been any issue in the US except for the lack of storage space at each plant which is shrinking.

Agreed there. One of the risks is that as you pack the spent fuel in more and more tightly, you need less average decay heat to cause a problem (i.e. cause the water to boil during a power failure.) You can mitigate this by ensuring the average power output is always below a threshold, but economic pressures often force engineers to exceed that threshold.

The reason the US is not reprocessing the old rods was due to a senior government official who thought those rods could be stolen and used against the US. That fear put a hold on all reprocessing in the US and the drive to bury them in Utah which has now come to a halt.

I thought it was straightforward NIMBYism. The "official" stance from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality lists 24 reasons they didn't want it, most of which could be summarized as "store it somewhere else." The only one that came close to terrorism was "risk of sabotage." But I might have missed that politician's statement.

[SunEagle]

Right, and seeing what happened there is pretty instructive.

In reactors 1, 2 and 3 the spent fuel had been there for a while. As a result the water got pretty hot but didn't come close to boiling. Simply keeping the pools filled was sufficient to protect the spent fuel. The reactors themselves, of course, experienced meltdowns due to the lack of time to get them to cold shutdown.

Reactor 4 had its fuel off-loaded into the pool for maintenance - so it was very recent (lots of decay heat.) The water started boiling, and it was very fortunate that a transfer gate leaked enough water in to prevent the water from boiling off and exposing the fuel. (There was an explosion there, but that was due to hydrogen leaking from reactor 3.)

Reactors 5 and 6 were off-line and had been for a few months - so their cores were OK. (Decay heat had declined to a safe level.) Also no problems with their spent fuel pools - but they had a little power because a switchgear room that they both shared was not damaged in the flooding.


Agreed there. One of the risks is that as you pack the spent fuel in more and more tightly, you need less average decay heat to cause a problem (i.e. cause the water to boil during a power failure.) You can mitigate this by ensuring the average power output is always below a threshold, but economic pressures often force engineers to exceed that threshold.


I thought it was straightforward NIMBYism. The "official" stance from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality lists 24 reasons they didn't want it, most of which could be summarized as "store it somewhere else." The only one that came close to terrorism was "risk of sabotage." But I might have missed that politician's statement.

The fear of terrorism was at the processing plant not the storage sites. Someone was convinced the refurbished rods could be stolen and used in dirty bombs against us. The never happened in France but I guess it came down to fear in our politicians.

[Mike90250]

Every existing reactor we have here in the US will melt down if you pull power from it. Every single one

And those are not modern, they are all tens of years old designs.

[SunEagle]

And those are not modern, they are all tens of years old designs.

And yet even using the old design those plants have produced Billions of GWH that has kept the lights on in most places without any major issue.

If I ran the odds I bet that the chances are better that CA will get hit with "the big one" before any of those nuclear generating plants has a meltdown. And yet people continue to choose to live on the shaky West Coast.

Now that is something I would fear.

[jflorey2]

And yet even using the old design those plants have produced Billions of GWH that has kept the lights on in most places without any major issue.

For the most part, yes. (A few exceptions like TMI and San Onofre.) The best way to argue that, I think, is not to say that nuclear power is safe or reliable - it's just safer and more reliable than our other baseload options. And unless you want to live without baseload power, that means you have to make a choice.

If I ran the odds I bet that the chances are better that CA will get hit with "the big one" before any of those nuclear generating plants has a meltdown. And yet people continue to choose to live on the shaky West Coast. Now that is something I would fear.

Well, for someone who lives on the West Coast, my biggest fear is wildfire, not earthquakes. But your overall point is valid - there's a lot of somewhat irrational fear surrounding nuclear power, even when people face far more risk from other things.

[Sunking]

Actually the problem with most Nuclear reactors is the storage of old fuel rods on the premises. They need to be cooled and if they aren't they release hydrogen gas which explodes.

Solve the issue with old fuel rods (process them like the French do) and don't just store them on the property of the power station.

The USA is the only country with that problem. Again made made stupidity and politics. Americans do not know all you have to do reprocess the fuel rods and use them again like the French, Japs, and Commies do. They are smarter than Americans. . No reason to store them unless you are an idiot.

FWIW SE that was not directed at you because you already know that.

[SWFLA]

Well FWIW

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy

[SunEagle]

Well FWIW
http://amp.nationalreview.com/articl...t-clean-energy

Well just about any type of "trash" can cause pollution if not properly disposed of. Although I would say that any battery chemistry is much more toxic then what can leach out of a solar panel.

The "toxins" that go into solar cells is pretty much "locked up" and unless it is ground up, heated and then exposed to fluids it will not really cause an issue.

I rate that article as less than "half truthful".

IMO all electronics are bad if just thrown into a dump and there is probably millions more tons of those then used solar panels.