AP: Few differences for new nuclear plants

Monterey Herald ^ | 6/11/05 | H. Josef Hebert - AP

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - The new-generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past, though the designs should make them safer, more efficient and easier to build.

Two designs likely to be pursued adopt a passive safety system requiring less involvement by operators to shut the system down and ensure that the reactor core doesn't overheat. A third design would have more redundant and isolated safety systems than current reactors plus a double-walled concrete containment dome better able to withstand an airplane crash.

Still awaiting Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval, all three designs are "evolutionary" advancements from the "light-water" reactors in use in the United States and Europe today. These reactors use ordinary water to slow, or moderate, the fission process as well as for emergency cooling if needed. A Generation IV gas-cooled reactor would be the next step in design advancements, probably after 2030, in the United States.

The three reactor designs attracting the most interest are being developed by Westinghouse, a subsidiary of the British company BNFL; General Electric; and the French conglomerate AREVA, whose Framatome subsidiary designed France's reactors. All three manufacturers say their new designs have been simplified to increase safety and have fewer moving parts, valves and pumps.

Here are some characteristics of each of the top three light-water reactor designs and a next-generation gas-cooled reactor:

_The Westinghouse AP1000:

This would have one-third fewer pumps, half as many valves, and more than 80 percent fewer pipes than current reactors. It can be built using modular units manufactured in a factory and transported to the reactor site, cutting construction time to three years.

It relies on a largely passive safety system. The cooling water for use in event of a buildup of excess heat is above the reactor core and uses gravity and natural circulation for emergency cooling if needed. In current reactors, cooling water must be pumped into the core.

_General Electric's ESBWR:

This has a 1,500 megawatt boiling water design, meaning the cooling water is not under pressure and is allowed to boil with steam passing over the top of the reactor into the turbines.

ESBWR stands for "Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor," reflecting that its design removes many complexities of current reactors. It has 25 percent fewer pumps, valves, motors, piping and cabling and is designed to respond more quickly to a loss of coolant situation. Modular construction and a smaller plant size allow for faster construction.

_AREVA's EPR:

A 1,500 megawatt pressurized water reactor that's an evolutionary design based on the French and German reactors designed by Framatome and Siemans. It is a simplified design using existing technologies, with fewer parts.

While it maintains an active rather than passive safety system, the EPR has a number of design improvements, including a double-wall concrete containment dome for greater protection against an aircraft crash. The design also extends the dome over the spent fuel pool and two of the four safety buildings.

If there is a severe accident and meltdown, the reactor vessel is designed to capture the core melt in a cavity below the containment building.

_Generation IV reactors:

These reactor technologies reflect a "revolutionary" step from the "Generation III" and earlier design light-water reactors. Development for commercial use won't occur until 2030.

They produce more heat and less waste with different cooling mechanisms than the light water reactors, and would be able to produce hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels to power everything from cars to electric lamps. An international effort has been under way since 2000 to examine various technologies, using a gas such as carbon dioxide, water, liquid metal or even molten salt for cooling.

A gas-cooled reactor known as the pebble bed is being developed in South Africa and was touted for the U.S. market until Exelon, the Chicago-based utility, pulled out of the project. Instead of fuel rods, the pebble bed uses coated graphite pebbles filled with uranium fuel. The decay heat is transferred to helium, an inert gas, that eventually moves to a gas turbine to produce electricity.

The Energy Department is planning a $1.25 billion program to build a gas-cooled Generation IV experimental reactor in Idaho. It would produce both hydrogen and electricity and could become a prototype for future commercial reactors.

[kidd]

The new-generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past...

Right. The Model-T wasn't much different from a Hummer. They both use gas and have 4 wheels. Not different at all.

< heavy sarcasm = off>

I work for Westinghouse. The new plant designs are so superior to whats in service now in terms of initial cost, licensing, safety, efficiency, reliability, materials...everything.

Since no one can be so stupid as to begin an article in this manner, I would suggest to you that this is the first salvo in a new line of liberal attacks. Liberals must see that more nuclear plants will come up for construction. By making the ridiculous claim that, "Oh, they're no different than before" that they hope to slow down the rapidly increasing support for nuclear power.

[Tribune7]

The new-generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past, though the designs should make them safer, more efficient and easier to build.

And AP pays this guy to report.

[_Jim]

It can be built using modular units manufactured in a factory and transported to the reactor site,

The 'modular home' approach; welds could be much more uniform, assemblies could be much more uniform and no more design-on site, revise on site and fix on site ...

[null and void]

Yeah. Much mo bedda!

[CarrotAndStick]

Apparantly, even the nuclear waste can be but to better use:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420933/posts

India develops nuclear reprocessing technology with spent carbide-fuel
PTI ^ | June 11, 2005 | The Press Trust of India


Posted on 06/11/2005 12:50:07 PM EDT


Kalpakkam, June. 11 (PTI): The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) here has successfully reprocessed the spent Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) plutonium-rich carbide fuel for nuclear power generation.

The plutonium-rich carbide fuel, after high burn-ups of one hundred thousand megawatt-days per tonne (MWd/t), has been reprocessed for the first time in the world, Dr Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission & Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy told reporters at the IGCAR campus here.

The development is significant, as it would help India in conserving the scarce energy resources such as uranium and plutonium for the future generations, he said.

The reprocessing of 25,000, 50,000 and 100,000 MWd/t burn up FBTR fuel have been successfully carried out at the FBTR facility with stage-wise clearances from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. "The results of all the campaigns, the recovery and product purity are very good," Kakkodkar said.

"The successful reprocessing of FBTR spent fuel after only two years of discharge from the reactor with a high burn-up of 100,000 MWd/t is a challenge to the designers and operators. The achievement demonstrates the maturity of reprocessing technology in India," Kakkodkar said.

Kakkodkar, who addressed the media along with Baldev Raj, Director, IGCAR, also announced that the indigenously developed unique high plutonium mono-carbide driver fuel at FBTR has reached a peak burn-up of 147,800 MWd/t, close to the target value of 150,000 MWd/t today.

"A driver fuel reaching such high burn-up levels is truly an international landmark, especially considering the unique nature of the fuel (burn-up carbide-fuel)," he said.

The higher the burn-up, better would be the output, officials explained.

"The performance of FBTR is significantly good, with the plant availability during the recent campaigns exceeding 75 per cent. The turbine generator remained synchronised to the grid and the FBTR has so far generated more than five million units of electricity.

He said it would be possible to enhance the fuel material utilisation in fast breeder reactors (FBR) by the reprocessing technology. The Department of Atomic Energy is constructing a 500 MWe FBR here, which is expected to be commissioned in 2010.

[wildcatf4f3]

heat - steam - turbine---nothing new---

[Issaquahking]

Speaking from the field, the fastest way to get these units built correctly is to back the government BS out. Stupid BS like drilling holes to within a 1/16 of an inch (in concrete, for equipment supports and such where it doesn't matter) and such, is regulation out of control. It doesn't sound significant till one examines where the money goes, and for what.

[bagman]

So the coolant in a Boiling Water Reactor is not under pressure? Hmmm, steam at 1 atmosphere will yield a really high efficiency plant.

The AP needs to find someone with a physical science background to write such articles.

(The existing BWRs are pressurized to about 1000 psi - roughly 70 atmospheres, and I would expect that the proposed BWR will be operate at the same pressure.)

[Larry Lucido]

I think the Fissionator 1952 Slow-Fission Reactor is just fine.

[nathanbedford]

I have an armchair interest in these matters. To a layman like me it seems that the way around the global warmers and the terrorists is to construct nuclear plants for electricity and perhaps hydrogen production.

I think, without really knowing, that disposal of nuclear waste is more of a political than an engineering problem. I think, without knowing what I am talking about, that nuclear produced hydrogen might be an answer for cars and I further think that coal and petroleum produced hydrogen only moves pollution problems upstream. I do not really know what fusion is, but it sounds promising.

I believe that the problem with nuclear is political which really means ignorant folks like me who form their opinions from Jane Fonda movies are easily misled by the Greens. I suspect that the Greens really do not want nuclear because it takes away their excuse for socialism. But I am too ignorant to make the case.

Where can an armchair general in the envirnmental/energy wars go to get educated without majoring in physics?

[_Jim]

Damn!

I think you've got a fine start as it is.

Just keep following your instincts and using your God-given common sense to winnow out the answers!

[_Jim]

So the coolant in a Boiling Water Reactor is not under pressure? Hmmm, steam at 1 atmosphere will yield a really high efficiency plant.

Perhaps the AP 'writer' assumed A LOT of steam would be produced - and that sets up a draft that is passed over a really wide set of turbine blades before the 'steam' is sent up 'the flue' (creating 'the draft); insert view of steam poring from 'smoke stacks' here ...

/sarcsam

[endthematrix]

I can hear it now..."the designs are still over thirty years old!"

[burzum]

Here is a resource to different DOE training manuals. You can learn alot about the physics of nuclear reactors without seeing actual designs. You can't see actual designs without a security clearance since they are "RESTRICTED DATA" in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act. This is probably the closest that you can come.

You can also spend alot of time reading documents at the nrc website (especially the nuclear reactors section). The event reports and the resident inspector reports will give you a better idea on how the plants are actually operated. You will be suprised by the amount of information on these websites.

[Reeses]

The real reason for the trend to manufacture offsite is to stay off the lawsuit radar as long as possible. The factory builds it with no official customer, then boom the reactor is installed before the judges can shut down construction.

[burzum]

In addition to what I said earlier, if you know a Navy Nuke, you can see if you can get a book titled "Applied Engineering Principles". It is unclassified but I can't find it on the Internet. It has alot of information about how a nuclear reactor works in a condensed form.

[Reeses]

I suspect that the Greens really do not want nuclear because it takes away their excuse for socialism.

Inexpensive energy is a way to make socialism financially viable, which is why France embraced it years ago. They thought this was the secret sauce to make socialism finally work this time.

The greens became against nuclear energy the minute they noticed it creates many high paying jobs for mostly conservative caucasian male engineers. No liberal arts majors need apply.

[burzum]

Nuclear power in the US has been more expensive than coal power until just recently. The reason nuclear power has not caught on in the US like it has in France is because the US has plentiful coal reserves. Nuclear power is being looked at again in the energy industry for one reason only: it is now cheaper.

One of the reasons that nuclear has cost more than coal for the last two decades is that the insurance costs of nuclear were astronomical. Irrational fears due to the TMI accident, extensive unfounded lawsuits, plant delays due to environmental lawsuits (Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, for example), NIMBY referendums to shut down plants (Rancho Seco nuclear plant), and the failure of the government to make good on its promise to create a nuclear waste repository are the main reason for the insane insurance costs. This is one of the main reasons that the Bush administration energy plan is willing to focus on these areas (compensation for plant delays and reduced costs of nuclear plant insurance). If the energy plan is approved, nuclear plants will become more popular.

[backhoe]

I think, without really knowing, that disposal of nuclear waste is more of a political than an engineering problem.

So it is...other countries have, for decades, recycled the stuff:

US Nuclear Power Debate
... The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear
fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. ...

Other info:

Numatec - the Tri-Cities' 'French connection'
... Numatec other parent is Cogema, the owner and operator of facilities used to produce
and recycle nuclear fuel, including many designed and built by SGN. ...

Nuclear Electricity
... gas equivalent). • Uranium offers a long-term source of energy. Unlike
fossil fuels, we can recycle nuclear fuel. We can recover ...

[MMA Alumni] Helping out MMA Nuclear Employed Alumni
... Many MMA Grads are employed in the Nuclear Power industry, ever since President Carter
killed the national plans to recycle nuclear fuel as was always intended ...

[PDF] U. S. Nuclear Waste Policy: Reaching Critical Mass
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... An Aside: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Overseas In addition to the United States,
only two other countries don't recycle nuclear fuel as a matter of national ...

Salon.com Technology | Nukes now!
... Other countries, such as Japan and France -- which gets about 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power -- recycle nuclear fuel, but President Ford ...