Category Archives: South Korea

ANS’s Mark Peters testifies to Congress on recycling used nuclear fuel

Posted on June 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 4 Comments

On Wednesday, June 6, Dr. Mark T. Peters appeared on behalf of the American Nuclear Society before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Peters is the Deputy Laboratory Director for Programs at Argonne National Laboratory and testified at the invitation of the subcommittee.

The hearing is titled “What’s Next for the U.S. – Korea Alliance.” Additional information, including all prepared testimony, is available via the Committee website. Peters’ prepared testimony is below and can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking HERE.

Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel: Balancing Energy and Waste Management Policies

Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

Mark T. Peters, American Nuclear Society
June 6, 2012

My name is Mark Peters, and I am the Deputy Laboratory Director for Programs at Argonne National Laboratory. However, today I am speaking on behalf of the American Nuclear Society; my remarks should not be considered as an official statement from Argonne or the Department of Energy.

: Peters

I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) on used nuclear fuel recycling as a means to achieve an integrated solution to energy and waste management policy. The ANS is a not-for-profit, international, scientific, and educational organization with nearly 12,000 members worldwide. The core purpose of ANS is to promote awareness and understanding of the application of nuclear science and technology. The ANS also wishes to acknowledge its longstanding professional collaboration with the Korean Nuclear Society (KNS). For more than 40 years, our two organizations have worked together to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear technology and materials.

For decades, the United States has grappled with the multiple challenges of crafting a long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel. These persistent challenges have taken on new urgency in the wake of the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has focused international attention on used nuclear fuel storage. Although the challenges of waste management require close scrutiny, these issues are most effectively considered within the context of an integrated policy for nuclear energy and nuclear waste management. Unfortunately, the United States is unique in its lack of such an integrated policy. Most other nations that rely on nuclear energy, including France, Russia, China, Japan, and Republic of Korea, have policies in place that promote development of used fuel recycling and advanced fast reactors, in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of their nuclear investments. We must consider our nuclear energy technology collaborations and partnerships within this global context.

At present, the United States’ strategic investments in advanced nuclear energy technologies are lagging; as a result, we rely increasingly on collaborative arrangements with foreign research institutions to conduct research in these areas. These collaborations provide advantages to both parties, and the United States has benefited from them. However, close alignment between government and nuclear industries in these nations speeds the international deployment of these cooperatively developed technologies, such as used fuel recycling and fast reactor technologies, while the United States has moved much more slowly in its adoption of them.

The Republic of Korea has publicly expressed its interest in incorporating electro-metallurgical reprocessing technology, commonly known as “pyroprocessing,” into its long-term nuclear fuel cycle plans. Pyroprocessing offers several potential benefits over current aqueous recycling techniques, such as the PUREX process being used in France and Japan today. These include the ability to recover minor actinides, which otherwise contribute significantly to the long-term radiotoxicity of used nuclear fuel; fewer releases of fission gases and tritium; and, the lack of production of pure plutonium, which helps to address proliferation concerns. Clearly, there will be engineering challenges inherent in the development of pyroprocessing technology, as there are with any other advanced manufacturing processes. However, these challenges can be addressed through joint research and development activities, and solving these challenges will have important implications for the United States as well as the Republic of Korea.

The American Nuclear Society believes that nuclear fuel recycling has the potential to reclaim much of the residual energy in used fuel currently in storage as well as used fuel that will be produced in the future, and that recycling offers a proven alternative to direct disposal of used fuel in a geological repository. In other nations, recycling of nuclear fuel with proper safeguards and material controls, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has demonstrated that high-level waste volumes can be reduced safely and securely while improving the sustainability of energy resources.

It is the opinion of the ANS that the United States should begin planning a thoughtful and orderly transition to nuclear fuel recycling in parallel with the development of a geologic repository. Recycling would enhance the repository’s efficiency, eliminating the need for most complex and expensive engineered barriers and reducing the timeframe of concern from more than 100,000 years to a few hundred years.

The ANS also believes that the United States should accelerate development of fast spectrum reactors, which are uniquely capable of generating energy while consuming long-lived waste. Six decades ago, on December 20, 1951, scientists and engineers from Argonne National Laboratory started a small electrical power generator attached to an experimental fast reactor, creating enough energy to power four 200-watt electrical bulbs. That historic achievement demonstrated the peaceful use of nuclear energy and launched today’s global commercial nuclear energy industry. But it should not be overlooked that the first electricity generated through nuclear energy was produced using a fast reactor.

In closing, let me reiterate that the ANS believes that nuclear energy has a significant role to play in meeting the global energy demands of the 21st century, and that a global expansion of nuclear energy can be achieved safely and securely. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

BACKGROUND

Current Recycling Technologies

PUREX: Current commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies are based on the PUREX process, a solvent extraction process that separates uranium and plutonium and directs the remaining minor actinides (neptunium, americium, and curium) along with all of the fission products to vitrified waste. The PUREX process has more than 50 years of operational experience. For example, the La Hague reprocessing facility in France treats used fuel from domestic and foreign power reactors. The plutonium recovered is recycled as a mixed-oxide fuel to generate additional electricity. This technology also is used for commercial applications in the United Kingdom and Japan.

There are a number of drawbacks to the PUREX process. PUREX does not recover the minor actinides (neptunium, americium, curium, and heavier actinide elements), which compose a significant fraction of the long-term radiotoxicity of used fuel. Advanced fast reactors can transmute and consume minor actinides if they are separated from other fission product elements, but incorporation of minor actinide separations into existing PUREX facilities adds complexity and is outside commercial operating experience. Moreover, existing international facilities do not capture fission gases and tritium; these are discharged to the environment within regulatory limits. Although plutonium is recycled as mixed oxide fuel, this practice actually increases the net discharge of minor actinides. Finally, the production of pure plutonium through PUREX raises concerns about materials security and proliferation of nuclear weapons-usable materials.

Pyroprocessing: Pyroprocessing is currently being used at the Idaho National Laboratory to treat and stabilize used fuel from the decommissioned EBR-II reactor. The key separation step, electrorefining, recovers uranium (the bulk of the used fuel) in a single compact process operation. Ceramic and metallic waste forms, for active metal and noble metal fission products respectively, are being produced and qualified for disposal in a geologic repository. However, the demonstration equipment used for this treatment campaign has limited scalability. Argonne National Laboratory has developed conceptual designs of scalable, high-throughput equipment as well as an integrated facility for commercial used fuel treatment, but to date only a prototype advanced scalable electrorefiner has been fabricated and successfully tested. Additionally, work is underway at Argonne to refine the fundamental understanding of pyrochemical processes to achieve greater control of the composition of the recovered materials, which will facilitate developing safeguards consistent with U.S. non-proliferation goals.

Fuel Cycle Research in the United States

In the United States, the primary organization with responsibility for the research and development of used fuel recycling technologies is the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), through its Fuel Cycle Research and Development program. This program supports research to develop and evaluate separations and treatment processes for used nuclear fuel that will enable the transition from the current open fuel cycle practiced in the United States to a sustainable, environmentally acceptable, and economic closed fuel cycle. Ongoing projects related to reprocessing and waste management include:

• Using advanced modeling and simulation coupled with experiments to optimize the design and operation of separations equipment.
• Exploring an innovative one-step extraction process for americium and curium, radionuclides that are major contributors to nuclear waste toxicity, to reduce the cost of aqueous-based used-fuel treatment.
• Further developing pyrochemical processes for used fuel treatment. These processes enable the use of compact equipment and facilities, treatment of used fuel shortly after discharge from a reactor, and reduction of secondary waste generation.
• Developing highly durable and leach-resistant waste forms of metal, glass, and ceramic composition for safe, long-term disposal.

However, it must be noted that the United States increasingly relies on collaborative arrangements with foreign research institutions and universities to conduct research in these areas. For example, Argonne, Idaho, and other U.S. national laboratories are working with the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, in a series of joint studies sponsored by the United States and Republic of Korea, to study disposition options for used nuclear fuel, including pyroprocessing, in order to develop economic, sustainable long-term solutions, consistent with non-proliferation objectives, for nuclear energy production and waste management. The state of U.S nuclear research facilities is declining compared to steady investments being made in countries such as France, Russia, Japan, and Republic of Korea. More importantly, those governments, as part of their national energy policies, have committed to the development and deployment of advanced fast reactor technologies, which are an important element of an integrated energy and waste management policy.

Advanced Fast Reactor Technology

The American Nuclear Society believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability, and security of the world’s long-term energy supply. Nearly all current nuclear reactors are of the “thermal neutron” design, and their capability to extract the energy potential in the uranium fuel is limited to less than 1% of that available. The remainder of the energy potential is left unused in the discharged fuel and in the uranium, depleted in U-235, that remains from the process of enriching the natural uranium in the isotope U-235 for use in thermal reactors. With known fast reactor technology, this unutilized energy can be harvested, thereby extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium.

It is the opinion of the ANS that fast reactors in conjunction with nuclear fuel recycling can diminish the cost and duration of storing and disposing of waste. These cost savings may offset cost increases in the fuel cycle due to reprocessing and fuel re-fabrication. Virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste that requires assured isolation from the environment for only hundreds of years. The design and construction of a geologic repository would be substantially less complex and costly. Just as importantly, a repository of this type could be located in a very broad range of areas, increasing the likelihood of multiple host locations.

Summary

The American Nuclear Society endorses development of used nuclear fuel recycling in fast neutron spectrum reactors in parallel with a geologic repository to secure an integrated, sustainable nuclear energy system for the United States. This initiative should balance the needs of the nuclear energy production sector with those of the waste management sector to achieve an integrated system that increases resource utilization for energy production, disposes waste in an environmentally acceptable manner, and is economic. The global nature of nuclear energy production and waste management encourages the continuation of U.S.-foreign collaborations to develop and demonstrate recycling and fast reactor technologies. In this regard, the relationship between the United States and Republic of Korea is of mutual benefit and of strategic importance to our nuclear energy and waste management policies.

_______________________

→ 4 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, MOX Fuel, National Laboratories, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, plutonium, South Korea, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing

Global nuclear markets regaining momentum

Posted on April 19, 2012 by dyurman| 1 Comment

More starts than stops

By Dan Yurman

Futuristic nuclear plant Image World Nuclear news

The global nuclear energy market is not a monolith. The truth of this assertion is seen in several recent developments taking place during March. While there were some setbacks, including two German utilities pulling out of the U.K. new build, there are more new starts and even a faster pace at one high profile project.

U.K. takes a step back

Two of Germany’s biggest nuclear utilities slated to build Westinghouse 1100-MW AP1000 nuclear reactors at several sites in the United Kingdom have packed up and gone home. E.ON and RWE announced on March 29 that they will not be carrying out business plans worth an estimated $24 billion to build nuclear power stations in the U.K.

The companies said in a joint statement that the “accelerated nuclear phase-out” in Germany has led to a decision to pull back from a number of international investments.

Last year Germany closed eight of its oldest nuclear reactors and scheduled to close the remaining nine by 2022. The two utilities are hard hit by these moves as the reactors were essentially depreciated cash cows that would have provided money for international expansion projects. E.On said in its financial statements that it suffered a 50-percent decrease in profits due to the closure of the older reactors.

UAE nuclear project speeds up

The South Korean consortium building the first of four new nuclear reactors in the United Arab Emirates has trimmed four months off the construction schedule. Assuming all goes well with the regulatory agencies, it plans to pour its first concrete in July 2012 and complete the unit in January 2017.

The speed up in schedule is being facilitated by the pre-positioning of equipment, supplies, and people at the site, which is a remote desert location some 186 miles west of Abu Dhabi. Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO) is leading the $30 billion effort. The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp. (ENEC) manages it for the UAE government.

Of interest is that the original contract was for $20 billion, but the price has shot up by a third. Financing will involve a mix of cash, and bonds sold to investors, from the UAE, and export credits from South Korea.

In a domestic development in South Korea, Kim Joong-Kyum, chief executive officer of KEPCO, was quoted in late March by wire services as saying that his firm was in talks with ENEC for a new deal to build four additional reactors. ENEC said on April 5, however, in response to these press reports that it is ruling out any new contracts beyond what it already has in place, which are four 1400-MW units.

Saudi Arabia plans electricity exports

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, spending an estimated $7 billion on each plant. The $112-billion investment, which includes capacity to become a regional exporter of electricity, will provide one-fifth of the Kingdom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.

In February, top energy officials in KSA told the Bloomberg wire service that domestic needs for electricity are growing at the rate of 2 Gwe/year. State-owned Saudi Electricity Co. sees seven percent growth, but with the construction of new nuclear reactors, it will be able to export electricity to its neighbors as part of the multi-year development cycle.

The plan is to bring the first two reactors by 2020 and then two more a year until the plan is complete. KSA has nuclear cooperation agreements with a number of countries, but has not yet signed a 1-2-3 agreement with the United States.

Despite the pending nature of the significant and sensitive diplomatic relationship, The Shaw Group and Exelon have signed on to a joint initiative through Japan’s Toshiba to build two nuclear power plants. It is likely that KSA will select several types of reactors and designs to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket.

India fast tracks next round of reactors

With the Kudankulam twin VVERs back on track, India’s NPCIL is clearing the decks to begin development of what eventually will be a 10-GWe power station at Kovvada Matsyalesam. The first stage is to develop a baseline of environmental data for the site. Land acquisition will begin later this year and earth will be moved by the end of 2012.

NPCIL says that each of the reactors planned for the site will be in the range of 1300-1500 MW. The first plant will be completed within 54 months of breaking ground or by mid-2017.

Also, NPCIL is working on a joint venture with the state-owned aluminum company Nalco to set up a second nuclear reactor at one of three potential sites. Nalco would have a 49-percent equity stake in the 1500-MW project, which would supply electricity for its metal smelters and also make it an independent power producer in the region.

South Africa gets ready for nuclear

The South African government is conducting an “Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review” as a parallel process to its announcement of an upcoming tender for 9.6 Gwe of new reactors. It is assessing the government’s capacity to conduct oversight of construction and regulatory control of safe operations of the new plants.

Energy minister Dipuo Peters said that the exercise has the objective, among other things, to communicate clear signals about the government’s intent to proceed with the new build.

At the same time, the government is considering rebuilding its uranium enrichment and conversion facilities that were dismantled 40 years ago. According to a Reuters report for March 2, the country wants to use its domestic uranium deposits to supply an estimated 465 metric tonnes of enriched uranium a year to fuel the new reactors.

————

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Germany, India, News, South Africa, South Korea, United Kingdom

Good and bad news stories for nuclear 2011/2012

Posted on March 22, 2012 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

By Jim Hopf

After giving a brief update on recent Fukushima-related events in the United States, I’d like to talk about some good (but relatively unpublicized) things that have happened during what has otherwise been a very challenging year for the nuclear industry. Then I’ll discuss what, to me, was the most disconcerting story in the past year.

NRC response to Fukushima

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a series of new requirements for U.S. nuclear plants, as a result of its evaluation of the Fukushima event. Requirements include seismic evaluations and upgrades (if necessary), the addition of portable pumps and generators (sited at multiple, protected locations), and enhanced monitoring capability for spent fuel pools. For many older boiling water reactors, hardened vents may be required (if not already in place). Another requirement being discussed is the ability to maintain operations (and cooling) without off-site power indefinitely (as opposed to the current requirement of 4–8 hours).

During Senate testimony, NRC Chairman Jaczko and other commissioners appeared to disagree over the amount of time that will be required for plants to make the proposed changes. Jaczko stated that some of the changes are likely to take until 2017–2019 (something that he said he was “concerned” about), whereas other commissioners thought that the changes will be in place by 2016.

Good news in 2011/2012

We’re all aware of the fact that the final NRC licenses were finally granted for construction of the new Vogtle reactors. It is also true that the project is within budget and schedule so far. Some lesser-known bits of good news are discussed below.

NRC Accident Consequence Statement

This is one potentially very positive thing that happened for the industry recently, without much publicity or fanfare. In part as a result of its evaluation of Fukushima, the NRC released a position statement concerning the potential consequences of (even worst case) nuclear plant accidents. The NRC (finally) acknowledged what many of us have known for a long time. It stated that the risk to public health, even from a severe accident, is “very small”. It also stated that the risk of short-term fatalities from acute exposure was “essentially zero,” and that the scenario of a large amount of radiation being released very quickly
(thus requiring a rapid evacuation) was unrealistic.

This is probably as close as we’re going to get to a formal retraction of the earlier analyses/assumptions that formed the basis of emergency response planning over previous decades. These grossly unrealistic analyses predicted thousands of immediate deaths from acute exposure, followed by tens of thousands of long-term cancers. Chernobyl had already shown those analyses to be completely unrealistic, and (I suppose) Fukushima, with its complete lack of health impacts, was the final nail in the coffin.

But, alas, I suppose I’m being unrealistic in hoping that this could lead to some relief with respect to emergency planning requirements. Indeed, many seem to be drawing precisely the reverse conclusion, asking whether evacuation zones should be increased (never mind that many other facilities that are actually more dangerous, such as chemical plants, oil refineries, etc., do not have similar evacuation zones).

This is a shame, given that these evacuation zones/plans have always been an albatross around the industry’s neck that has been used relentlessly by nuclear opponents (e.g., the Shoreham plant). They always argue about how rapid evacuation may not be practical. Well, we’ve just (finally) realized that it’s not necessary!

Fukushima also showed that, even with respect to longer-term impacts, significant effects of even a worst-case meltdown do not extend beyond ~20–25 miles of the plant (in any direction). And yet we still hear people talking about populations as far as 50 miles from plants (e.g., New York City from the Indian Point plant).

Clean Energy Standard Legislation

The Senate Energy Committee finally released a detailed legislative proposal for a Clean Energy Standard. The final proposal is the result of many years of analysis and negotiation. While it is unlikely to pass (or be considered) this year, it is considered more likely to pass than other options such as comprehensive global warming legislation. It has the potential support of several moderate Republicans.

The good news is that the final details of the legislation appear to be rational and even-handed, and fairly good for the nuclear industry. The Standard requires that 85 percent of U.S. electricity generation be from “clean” sources by 2035. While the final version does allow partial credit for fossil sources like gas, the amount of partial credit scales (inversely) with the level of CO₂emissions (relative to a coal plant). Thus, non-emitting sources like nuclear would retain a significant advantage over gas, particularly in the later phases of the program (when an all-gas generation profile would no longer be able to meet the requirements).

SMRs Move Forward

The U.S. Department of Energy recently decided to provide $452 million in funding for licensing of small modular reactors (SMRs), over the next five years. The DOE is also making plans to host three SMR demonstration projects on the Savannah River Site. The three selected reactors are the 45-megawatt (MW) NuScale Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the 25-MW Gen4 Energy fast reactor, and a 140-MW PWR reactor from Holtec.

Hopefully, construction of the prototypes will speed the technological development of these reactors, although NRC licensing should occur in parallel. Use of the Savannah River complex may make siting these prototype reactors easier, which could speed licensing and deployment.

A New Low Level Waste Site (at last)

The Waste Control Specialists’ low level waste (LLW) site in Texas (near the New Mexico border) will soon begin operation. The site will take waste from 38 states. It will handle all types of LLW, including Class A, B, and C. Given the closure of the Barnwell site to out-of-compact waste, the Texas site is now the only site that accepts all classes of LLW from most states.

This represents a significant victory, given the level of difficulty the nation has had in siting new LLW disposal facilities, anywhere, for many decades. This is the first site to open in 30 years. For some time, the political task of opening new LLW sites was thought to be intractable.

It should also be noted that within the same general area (in southeast New Mexico), the local communities around the DOE’s WIPP repository are actively seeking to host the nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste as well. There is some indication that the state government is willing to consider the option.

Sanity Prevails in France

The French government recently released a new long-term energy options evaluation that concludes that the most economical and practical option is to extend the operating life of its existing reactor fleet from 40 years to 60 years.

In the past, French policy had always appeared to be to replace its reactors with new ones after ~40 years of life. Given the long-standing position in the United States that light water reactors (LWRs) could be run safely for 60 or more years, I’ve always found the (old) French position to be puzzling. I wondered if it was, in part, just a means of creating extra work to keep its domestic industry employed and on top of its game, similar to U.S. Depression-era make-work programs.

In any event, it seems like they’ve finally come to their senses. Any new nukes should be used to increase, not maintain, capacity (i.e., be used to replace fossil fuels). The cost savings will be enormous. Perhaps this new position is partly a result of Fukushima. With political support for new reactor construction much lower, perhaps the French government concluded that the only way their nuclear capacity would be maintained would be through extended operation.

The biggest bad news story of 2011/2012

Despite the positive news stories discussed above, my level of optimism for nuclear’s future was deeply shaken last year, not by the Fukushima event itself, but by the public/media/political reaction to it, particularly in Japan.

Here in the United States, Fukushima is somewhat less significant. Polls show only small reductions in public support. New nukes remain highly popular in most regions/locations where new reactors are being considered. Also, in the United States, several other factors, including the lack of any global warming policies on the horizon, the fact that the economic downturn suppressed future power demand growth, and low natural gas costs due to the shale gas “miracle,” loom larger over nuclear’s future.

In the rest of the world, however, Fukushima has had a surprisingly large impact on public opinion in many, if not most nations. In addition to Japan and Germany, anti-nuclear opinion has surged in other nations with strong nuclear programs, such as France and South Korea. The reaction in Germany does not surprise or upset me much. They are merely returning to their usual long-standing anti-nuclear position (with the 2022 nuclear phase-out date actually being two years later than a long-standing 2020 phase-out date). I was (and am) utterly dismayed, however, by the public/political reaction in Japan.

Japanese Reaction

If one asks the question of how big a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake) a nuclear plant should be able to take, the rational answer is clearly not “infinite.” One quite reasonable answer given by many people is that the disaster should be sufficiently large that if it did occur, a meltdown would be the least of their problems. One would think that Fukushima would be a textbook case of this, with ~20,000 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami, no immediate deaths from the meltdown, and few if any projected future deaths. It is also true that the number of evacuees and lost homes due to the earthquake and tsunami is larger than that from the radiation release.

But then, we watched in horror as the world’s attention (media, etc.) focused mostly on the plant meltdown, as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami. Not only were the enormous impacts of the earthquake and tsunami (deaths, etc.) deemed less newsworthy than the plant meltdowns, but so were the vastly larger ongoing health and environmental impacts of fossil fuel generation. Apparently, such logical thinking on our part does not adequately consider various psychological and political factors.

According to the World Health Organization, fossil-fueled power generation causes hundreds of thousands of deaths, worldwide, every single year (i.e., on the order of 1000 deaths every single day). Even conservative estimates, based on the pessimistic linear-no-threshold assumption, predict less than ~1000 eventual deaths from Fukushima. Thus, in terms of health impacts, worldwide fossil fuel power generation is having an impact equal to (or worse than) having a Fukushima event occur every single day. And that’s before considering global warming.

Despite these facts, the people of Japan, and their political leaders, are apparently ready to shut down their nuclear plants and replace them with vastly more dangerous and harmful fossil fuel generation. They are willing to do this even through it will mean greatly increased air pollution and CO₂ emissions, and will have a devastating effect on their economy. Japan has always had an export-driven industrial economy with large trade surpluses. For the first time in memory, however, Japan will be running a trade deficit, primarily due to the increased fossil fuel imports that are necessary to replace their nuclear generation. In addition to horrendous health and environmental impacts, the fossil generation will result in markedly higher power costs. Many of Japan’s heavy industries have threatened to move off-shore.

Double standard forever?

These reactions, in Japan and elsewhere, are leading me to believe that there is a deeply-ingrained prejudice against nuclear power as a means of power production; one that may never disappear. Whether it is the legacy of the bomb, or is due to enormous media/political influence of the world fossil fuel industry (who knows?), the fact is that minor impacts from nuclear are given far more attention, and are far less tolerated, than far larger impacts from fossil fuels and other technologies.

The double standard is also alive and well in the United States. Not only has the U.S. nuclear industry accepted the NRC’s new requirements without significant resistance, but they’ve even proactively pursued improvements on their own, without being legally required to do so. And yet, in congressional hearings
and elsewhere, many are not satisfied with the rate or amount of improvement,
saying that having to wait over five years is an unacceptable risk. Meanwhile, old “grandfathered” coal plants in the United States are still not meeting the requirements of the 1970 Clean Air Act, the result being tens of thousands of annual deaths. Despite the fact that the public health risks in question are orders of magnitude larger in the coal plants’ case, apparently taking over 40 years is okay for them, whereas five years is too long for nuclear’s Fukushima upgrades.

Nuclear has always been held to standards thousands of times as strict (in terms of dollars spent per life saved, etc.) than fossil fuels. Before Fuksushima, with all the attention being paid to global warming, I had thought that the playing field might start to become somewhat more balanced. Now, after Fukushima, nuclear requirements are becoming even more strict (with any notions of regulatory relief being put to bed), whereas attempts are now being made (in the United States, anyway) to reduce regulations/requirements on fossil fuels even further. Humble requests to reduce air pollution and/or CO₂ emissions are met with calls to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

Thus, the spectacularly unlevel playing field will likely get even more unlevel. The Clean Energy Standard is the only hope left out there.

Our industry seems all too eager to accept unprecedentedly stringent requirements, for love of the engineering challenge, apparently. The most pertinent example is the acceptance of radiation dose rate limits (e.g., 100 mrem/yr) that are orders of magnitude lower than the levels for which any significant health impacts are seen. The fact is, in my view, that NO technology can survive (over the long term) while being on the receiving end of an enormous double standard (i.e., under a tremendously non-level playing field). Better technology (e.g., SMRs, etc.) is not the answer. We must ask ourselves what we can do to get policies enacted that will level the regulatory playing field, and how we can reduce the tremendous prejudice that society has against our technology. I have several thoughts on those issues, but I’ve run out of space for this column…

____________________

: Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in DC Perspective, Department of Energy, Fukushima, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small modular reactors, South Korea, U.S. Congress

Transparent Radiation – A Film

Posted on December 7, 2011 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

The View from the Panel

By Howard Shaffer

The 30-minute film Transparent Radiation was produced by Hillary Archer, who serves as project manager of media communications at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. The film was made to “publicize a certain viewpoint,” according to the producer. The film premiered at the Burlington International Film Festival, but unfortunately when neither Meredith Angwin nor I could attend. (At the premiere, there was a panel to discuss the film and answer questions after the showing. At that time, a pro-nuclear organization was invited to participate in the panel, but that organization’s invitation was forwarded to another pro-nuclear organization, which turned it down because the latter suspected that the film would be anti-nuclear. It is.) Two trailers on YouTube: One & Two

I inquired as to when the film would be shown again, and was invited to a showing and to be on the panel for a November 30 program at the University of Vermont.

The venue

The November 30 showing took place in a lecture room with seating for 80, with about 90 persons attending. The audience consisted mostly of students, with a smattering of faculty, and three or four members of the public. About 25 percent of the students attended to receive class credit, per a show of hands requested by the moderator. The panel consisted of myself and Dr. Ed Maher, immediate past president of the Health Physics Society; Dr. John Todd of the Gund Institute; Nancy Jack Todd, who edits Annals of Earth; and Arnie Gundersen, of Burlington, Vt., who is a ubiquitous anti-nuclear engineer and a YouTube presence.

The format

The moderator, Dr. Jon Erickson of the Gund Institute, stated that the format would consist of screening the film, followed by 2- to 3-minute self-introductions and reaction to the film by each panel member, and questions from the audience.

The film

Dated March 2011, the film was apparently inspired by the Fukushima-Daiichi accident. The title had a scary sound track, and it began by showing the tsunami inundating the Fukushima-Daiichi site, and followed with scenes of suited workers carrying out a black plastic body-sized bag, and the hydrogen explosions of one of the units from two different angles. Next were shots of bomb explosions and missiles.

Most of the film consisted of interviews with staff at the Gund Institute, asking their opinions of nuclear power. Also interviewed was a well-known and wealthy anti-nuclear activist in Vermont, whose family’s foundation makes grants to many anti-nuclear organizations. The interviewees spoke of problems with nuclear power, and then moved on to the need for sustainability, conservation, efficiency, and alternative energies. Nuclear power was tied to a lifestyle of ever-growing consumption, and made the villain for our consumer society. Unfortunately, technical errors in the film included a misstatement about the number of years of nuclear fuel available, and an assertion that power reactors were developed to provide weapons material. A bright spot near the end of the film was a recognition that there is no risk-free energy source.

The panel

When my turn came, I mentioned my career, beginning at the nuclear submarine prototype USS Nautilus in 1963. My comment on the film was that it certainly did promote “a certain viewpoint,” but with errors. Citing no mention in the film of why nuclear power was originally developed, I quoted the recent Environmental Protection Agency press release on its proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (the release came to my attention through a forward by Mark Norsworthy in the American Nuclear Society Social Media list). I read, “The Rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 1.8 million sick days, and $280 billion in costs—per year.” I then said that it still looks like Congress made a good choice in the 1950s when it chose nuclear power to replace coal.

Dr. John Todd in his introduction told the story of being on Cape Cod during the Three Mile Island accident, and being terrified of the radioactive cloud approaching, and there being no place to go to escape. After that, he became permanently against nuclear power. He is not the first nuclear opponent I have met and talked with who was permanently traumatized by the TMI accident. It appears, likewise, that the film’s producer was traumatized by the Fukushima accident. My conclusion is that some traumatized people will remain opposed to nuclear power all their lives, and we will have to deal with this fact.

Nancy Jack Todd just said that she is against the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Later, she said (mistakenly) that the East Coast earthquake that affected the North Anna plants in Virginia caused a large radioactive release.

Arnie Gundersen cited his work as an expert witness, and agreed with the film.

Dr. Ed Maher described what health physicists do, and his credentials. He stated his support for nuclear power.

The questions and answers

The moderator moved immediately to questions from the audience, picking responders from panel members who indicated they would answer, and allowing follow-ups to answers by other panel members. The session was scheduled for 4:00–5:30, including the 30-minute film, but continued for an additional 45 minutes and ended only when we had to leave the room so it could be prepared for another group. Conversations continued in the hallway. The producer recorded the Q&A, and we were promised a DVD of it.

Questions covered

The externalities of all power sources

There were two questions on this topic. The replies from others on the panel were vague. One response reported the installation of tide-driven hydro generators along the Korean coast, with enough units planned to equal four nuclear power plants. I had listed the airborne externalities of coal in my introduction. Dr. Maher discussed the amount of land used for solar and wind. I cited the Inhaber Report used by the Canadian government 30 years ago, and a recent Washington Post article reporting on an update study a few years ago.

The legal tangle and lawsuits involving Vermont Yankee

The Vermont Yankee plant was accused of breaking its word in not following state law, as agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding. I replied that in my citizen’s opinion, the Vermont legislature violated the Constitution by passing a law changing a contract after the fact.

Reactor fuel and weapons

It was stressed that weapons can’t be made from power reactor fuel. If they could be made this way, it would be done. The ironic proof is the Chernobyl design. A special design was needed to produce electric power and to breed plutonium 239 at the same time, requiring removal of the fuel after a short time, while the reactor was running.

In follow-up after the session, it was stated that fuel cycle technology (the factories) can be retooled to produce weapons—that it is fuel cycle technology that Iran and North Korea are using. It was then asked if power fuel could be taken and put back through the fuel production cycle to provide weapon material. The reply was that this would be like building cars so that one could then melt them down into tanks. Too much work. Anyone who wants to cheat will start at the beginning.

Nuclear fuel availability

The film stated that there is only 30 to 40 years of fuel available. The reply was that it has always been intended to have breeder reactors to use all the uranium. With a thorium fuel cycle available and proven, there is perhaps 1,000 years of fuel for everyone on earth.

Vulnerability of the GE Mark I containment

It was stated that the Fukushima reactors that melted all have GE Mark I containments, as do 23 reactors in the United States. Mr. Gundersen said that all Mark I’s should be shut down, and he had predicted that the next accident would be at a Mark I. I said that the types of reactors are irrelevant. Any reactor that lost cooling for that long would melt down. Mr. Gundersen then referenced a memo by Stephen Hanauer from years ago, saying that the MK I was vulnerable.

Nuclear power and alternatives

To be for nuclear power is not to be against conservation, efficiency, wind, and solar power. I am in favor of them all. But I asked, “What is the transition plan to get to an all-alternatives power supply? What do we do tomorrow? Do we shut down all the coal and nuclear power plants? How do we keep the economy going and people employed? It is believed that the transition will be a long one, perhaps a century.” There was no response.

In the film, one man interviewed said that nuclear was 20 percent of our electricity supply, but we could easily use 20 percent less electricity and be happy, so we could do without the nuclear plants.

No plant has ever been denied a license extension

I replied was that this is true, but that plants that think they won’t succeed don’t apply for relicensing. It costs a lot to apply, and plants can informally check with the regulators beforehand. Some plants have done this and have subsequently not applied. It is similar to asking your mechanic if you think your car will pass inspection—if he says no, then you don’t bother fixing it. You don’t have to pay for an inspection to find out the car won’t pass.

After note

In discussing with Dr. Maher the fact that the name health physics originated at the Chicago Pile of the Manhattan Project, I told him that my congressman did not know what the Health Physics Society does. Dr. Maher said that they are attempting to change the name to the American Society for Radiation Protection (formerly the Health Physics Society). The HPS name was chosen during World War II to hide what was being done, and it has succeeded too well in continuing to hide what it does today.

________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Entergy, South Korea, View from Vermont

Small Modular Reactors Competing Head to Head With Natural Gas

Posted on December 6, 2011 by radams| 4 Comments

By Rod Adams

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute at Chicago (EPIC) released a study titled Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U. S..

Although I could have saved some money and vacation time by just watching the web cast or the archived video, it is hard to pass up a chance to ask questions from people who have spent so much time researching a topic with so much national impact. I must also admit a selfish motive for taking a day of vacation to make the trip to D.C.—widespread acceptance of the analysis may have an impact on my personal career.

John Hamre, the president and chief executive officer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, gave the introductory speech and focused on the possibility that smaller reactors, partially built in factory settings, might help to overcome two barriers to new nuclear plant construction.

Instead of requiring a per-unit capital outlay on the order of $10 billion, which is a large portion of the total market capitalization of even the largest U.S. electrical power utility companies, they could cost 1/10th that amount. Instead of requiring a 7–10 year planning and construction time delay, they might allow a more manageable 3–4 year planning and construction period once the designs are complete, the licenses have been obtained, and the factories start producing modules.

The researchers and the study sponsor made a conscious decision to design the study to be technology agnostic. The goal was not to determine the advantages or disadvantages of one particular design, but to determine if the economy of unit volume (mass manufacturing) could provide sufficient competitive advantages to overcome the economy of very large sizes.

The authors also made the decision not to compete smaller reactors against large ones, but to compete each type of reactor against natural gas. During several exchanges with the audience during and after the talk, the study authors emphasized that they thought that smaller reactors complimented large ones and opened additional markets that would not otherwise be accessible to nuclear energy solutions.

In both the 2004 Chicago Study and the current work, the future behavior of natural gas prices is the dominant factor when assessing the relative competitiveness of nuclear energy for baseload power. In the absence of carbon pricing and increasingly stringent air and water quality and waste management regulation, natural gas-fired generation is cheaper than all other source of generation at the moment.

(Key to Future, p. 10)

The researchers made an excellent case for the importance of developing a strong order book, of investing in design refinements that make it easier to manufacture plants in series, and of finding early adopters that can potentially accept the higher prices that will be necessary before the producers have a chance to drive down costs by moving down the learning curves.

One thing that the study did not do very well was to explore unconventional (for the nuclear industry) financing that might be available for companies that are producing disruptive technology. Inventors of capable small reactors have the potential to gain access to reasonably well-protected markets where there are large barriers to entry for later movers who wait until the first movers have proven their systems.

Instead of discussing venture capital, early acquisition by large companies that are already in the energy business or initial public offerings—models that are widely used in the capital intensive high technology industry—the researchers focused on ways that the federal government could assist in stimulating industry development.

Some ideas that are explored in the study are long term power purchase agreements, government funding for the detailed design and engineering (DD&E) phase, and public-private partnerships for the lead plants.

During the Q&A session, it became apparent that the researcher best able to answer some of the questions that most interested the audience had not been able to attend the report rollout. Dr. Geoff Rothwell’s name came up both with regard to the modeling of natural gas price behavior and with regard to the modeling of the plant operations and maintenance staff.

Dr. Ed Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists asked whether the study analysis took into account the spacing or protections that might be required in order to locate multiple modules on the same site, citing the lessons he learned from the events at Fukushima. The answer was that it was not part of the study, but would be a part of the detailed technology and safety evaluations that would be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s responsibility.

A visitor from South Korea noted that his country had already started the process of evaluating a license application for a small modular reactor and had determined that the economics for a pure electrical power generator were not favorable without taking advantage of the waste heat production for either desalination or industrial process heat. (Video minute 45:50)

That is an area where smaller reactors have a significant advantage over larger ones—they can theoretically be located close enough to a heat customer so that the heat does not have to be transported over long distances. The study authors responded that although they had talked about those heat applications and the potential for using waste heat, they had not pursued that path for this version of the study.

The researchers are not yet finished; in addition to process heat applications, they identified many areas of additional work that needed further refinement. The report is a good start, however, and worth studying if you have an interest in the factors that need to be addressed and carefully managed in order to enable smaller reactors to achieve their full market potential.

[Note: Although I work for B&W on the mPower^TM reactor team, all opinions expressed here are my own. I do not speak for my employer.]

_____________

Adams

Rod Adams is a pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Economic benefits of nuclear, Education, Small modular reactors, South Korea

A Study in Nuclear Success, A Review of “Nuclear Silk Road: The ‘Koreanization’ of Nuclear Power Technology”

Posted on October 13, 2011 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Robert Margolis

As part of the team that supported the startup of Yonggwang-3 and -4 (South Korea’s first nuclear units, built in a technology transfer program with Combustion Engineering), I thought it long overdue to see a book that chronicled South Korea’s journey from an impoverished nation to one of the world’s leading players in the nuclear industry (e.g., South Korea has 21 operating reactors versus Germany’s 17).

The book, “Nuclear Silk Road,” is an effective historical narrative on South Korea’s nuclear power program that combines official reports, pertinent interviews, and personal recollections with a focus on the country’s technology transfer program with Combustion Engineering (now a part of Westinghouse).

The author, Dr. B. K. Kim, a former project manager for the Yonggwang-3 and -4 system design, invokes the metaphor of the Silk Road, which brought commerce across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, as the majority of nuclear new build is geographically situated along this same historic pathway.

Kim

Kim’s book is divided in two parts. Part 1 describes the political challenges in establishing the policies and organizations required to construct and operate nuclear energy facilities. This description includes the decisions of South Korea’s first presidents and the country’s key nuclear pioneers. Nuclear industry veterans will enjoy Kim’s depiction of a semi-surreptitious nightshift measurement of new fuel assemblies at Wolsong in 1981 (often, the interesting events occur on nightshift).

Part 2 chronicles how these organizations evolved from being a receiver and operator of foreign turnkey reactor projects to that of a national industry that could independently design, construct, and operate nuclear power plants. The country’s domestic industry then went global with the recent sale of four nuclear plants to the UAE (Braka Units 1 through 4) and the sale of a research reactor to Jordan. Kim details how South Korea was able to capitalize on the Chernobyl accident to negotiate a comprehensive technology transfer arrangement for the Yonggwang-3 and -4 plants. He discusses many of the primary Korean nuclear experts involved, and even provided interesting anecdotes such as how the first group of Koreans sent to Combustion Engineering in Windsor, Conn., were given one-way plane tickets.

A major strength of this book is that it is written as a basic narrative rather than an academic treatise or policy exposition. It is readable and easy to follow. My own experience on the Yonggwang-3 and -4 project matched Kim’s contention that the successes of the South Korean nuclear power program were the result less of genius than of simple “elbow grease.” Several places in the book describe the long hours worked and the dedication of the engineers, policymakers, operators, and craftsmen who navigated through the crucial points where the South Korean nuclear program might have foundered. The nuclear industry is well-known for its continual thirst for operating experience (OE) on events that have challenged equipment and personnel resulting in unexpected issues.

Kim’s book also provides important OE. In this case, it is the experience of how dedication, hard work, and ability to see otherwise hidden opportunity can be leveraged to develop a successful nuclear power program. These lessons continue to be valuable as the nuclear profession charts a way forward across the globe in this new century.

_____________

Robert Margolis, PE is a nuclear engineer with more than 24 years of experience as a reactor engineer, startup test engineer, project engineer, and safety analyst. Margolis supported the Yonggwang-3 and -4 startup from 1993 through 1996.