Nuclear Power Plants

[jon]

Over the years, I've lost track of just how widespread Nuclear Power Plants are in the U.S. Here is a summary from a CNN article here http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... l?hpt=Sbin

The United States nuclear reactors operate at 65 plants across the country. In addition, there are dozens of reactors, weapons labs and other nuclear facilities associated with national defense. Most of the civilian plants are located near major population centers.

There hasn't been a new nuclear plant commissioned and completed in the United States since the Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979, although dozens that were approved at the time have come on line.

Federal regulators are reviewing 20 applications to build nuclear plants, and several existing facilities have applied to extend their operating licenses.

Typically, nuclear power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters, including earthquakes.

Perhaps the most vulnerable U.S. nuclear power plants are two located in the quake-prone state of California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo and the San Onofre station, north of San Diego, were built along [the] Pacific coast near the San Andreas Fault.

Those plants were built to withstand a magnitude-7.5 earthquake, said Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Energy.

[jon]

While searching for a list of Nuclear Power Plants in Canada, I came across this quote from a Vancouver Sun article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Nu ... story.html

Canadian experts said the unfolding disaster combined with low natural gas prices all but spells the deathknell for nuclear power in Canada.

According to Tom Adams, an electricity expert and consultant based in Ontario, the economics of nuclear power were already challenged by abundant shale gas supplies. After the incidents in Japan, Adams predicted there will be no new nuclear reactors built in Canada, including a proposed facility in Alberta, and in fact attention might shift to retiring Canada's nuclear fleet as quickly as possible.

"The future of nuclear power is highly questionable," he said in an interview. "All those questions about reactor safety are back on the table."

According to Adams, the Japanese nuclear industry was considered to be the world's "gold standard" and the weekend's incidents will convince many that there is no safe way to operate a nuclear reactor.

"This is not like Chernobyl, where you had a bunch of drunken commies doing a bunch of things that were obviously stupid. This is a fall from grace from the top of the top, the best of the best," he said.

[jon]

I found what appears to be the complete list of full-sized production level nuclear power plants in Canada, in an article taking the opposing viewpoint of the one above:

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. — which the feds are trying to sell — has its Candu reactors at five power plants across the country. There are reactors are in Darlington, Pickering and Bruce in Ontario, Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, and Gentilly in Quebec.

ref. - http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada ... 59494.html

I say "full-sized production" because, last I heard, the only nuclear reactor in Alberta is at the University of Alberta in Edmonton where it is used for experimental work. Needless to say, it is rather small.

Atomic Energy's Chalk River facility also has one or more nuclear reactors, which were in the headlines not long ago, because of their role in producing much of the world's supply of radioactive medical isotopes.

[pave]

Here at The Centre of The Universe, we are living on the lakeshore, smackdab in the middle of two of these nukes and a hundred miles south of another.
It's time to break out the gerbil-wheels and to reinstate the galley-slaves.

[jon]

Interesting poll at edmontonjournal.com this morning:

In light of Japan's nuclear reactor crisis what's your level of support for Bruce Power's possible plan for nuclear reactor and power plant in the Peace River area?

• Zero 39.73 %
• I still support it 15.91 %
• I was for it, but not now 4.41 %
• The situation in Japan can't be compared to Alberta 39.94 %

[Howaboutthat]

Oh good, lots of quotes from 'experts' and consultants.

[Ray in YK]

CNBC; finally less conjecture, that is passed off as news.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXIODVlfXk

[hagopian]

CNBC has been balanced - CBC,CNN all over the place - and the world's media is all fighting over truth versus fiction. This has been one hell of a compelling story and very worrying.
If you have been in Northern Japan, you know it is like driving to Tofino, at times.

No wonder aid supplies are only now trickling in.

They have few hours left - or many poor people will be killed by cold, probably more than the darn Tsunami and Quake

For any of us who have been through a Quake - we can all tell you with alacrity that is is terrifying beyond belief.

In Mexico - I was in the middle of three beauties and believe me, only 7.2 or so, max, and that was awful.

Scared the bejabbers outa me - and watching the mountains undulate around a bay emptying of Sea water, you feel REAAAAALY small and vulnerable.

Red Cross has set up help and CBC - cnn.com as well.

[J Kendrick]

Has anyone yet happened to mention that Fukushima's first reactor -- Unit I, which was first constructed in 1967 -- was scheduled for shutdown early this year after forty continuous years of commercial operation... but... that the Japanese regulators had actually granted a ten year extension for the continued operation of that same reactor only last month?

... and that all six "BWR" (light water) reactors at Fukushima were designed by... General Electric...?

[Neumann Sennheiser]

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

[Dan Sys]

You guys must remember this thing while travelling down to Portland on Interstate 5 in the 70's & 80's:
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/entry ... wer_plant/
It was a very ominous and eerie looking thing, kind of like a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere.

[jon]

The accompanying text to the picture makes an interesting article. I was especially intrigued by the final paragraph:
"Trojan’s spent fuel rods are still stored on site. Nearly 800 rods sit in a pool next to the Columbia River, in anticipation of the day a permanent solution to their disposal is found."

Quite a different story from the widespread magazine article(s) around the time of Three Mile Island, with pictures of 55 gallon drums sitting at the bottom of San Francisco Bay, allegedly containing spent uranium pellets from fuel rods. The article admitted that the garbage scow owner had been paid to drop them outside of U.S. territorial waters, but wanted to save the time and money of that long a trip.

[jon]

Ever since the discussion surfaced about a year ago, of Alberta getting nuclear power plants as a cheaper solution than storing the CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, I have been wondering just how much radioactive waste is created over time. Since the '60s, I have been against nuclear power plants because of the dangers associated with the many thousands of years of wait time before the waste stops posing a potential health hazard. But I recently admitted that a lot depends on just how much nuclear waste is involved.

Well, I finally found the answer, in this article:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technolo ... story.html

The answer: 48 million kg. That is the waste left over from 40 years of nuclear power plant usage in Canada. Presumably, including the plant(s) used to create medical isotopes, too. And, of course, research facilities like the one at the University of Alberta.

Scary, isn't it?

[PMC]

The greedy and stupid continue to run the system.

It is a puzzle to me why they don't use natural gas to generate the steam to turn the turbines, but then the nuclear industry doesn't want to see their own demise, and governments have poured money into these things.

Safe and secure doesn't count when there is money to be made.

[jon]

It is a puzzle to me why they don't use natural gas to generate the steam to turn the turbines

I've always been a fan of natural gas, both growing up in Greater Vancouver, and even more so living in Edmonton since 1975, often only a few miles from a working natural gas well. I can even still hear, in my head, the CHQM commercials for B.C. Hydro, "Cheaper Now than in 1956", referring to natural gas.

When "everyone" here was switching their vehicles to propane near the end of the last Oil Boom (circa 1981), I was holding out for natural gas. Safer, especially in parkades and other enclosed areas, because it is lighter than air, and rises, rather than settling like propane and becoming an explosive danger. Cheaper, too.

As for power generation, in 1975 when I arrived here, new Alberta power plants were all being planned for natural gas. But that was pretty much scrapped within the next few years, as natural gas prices rose rapidly with oil prices. And we got more coal-fired power plants, using newer less polluting technology, to go alongside our aging coal-fired plants. By then, a few hardy souls even switched home heating to coal, because it was cheaper than natural gas by a wide margin.

All of this made sense until about 10 years ago when it was no longer good enough to control pollution. Greenhouse gases suddenly became an enemy. Carbon Dioxide, mainly.

Both coal and natural gas generate a lot of Carbon Dioxide. Nuclear power plants eliminate that problem. Which is why they are suddenly "The Green Solution".

I'm not debating the importance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Merely saying that they are "top of consciousness" for many people these days. In fact, the average man on the street would probably lump Carbon Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide pretty close together in terms of their "Badness" for the environment. Obviously, they have forgotten their high school Chemistry classes.

And that is the long answer to why Natural Gas is not being touted as the replacement for Nuclear Power.

One positive note in all of this. Edmonton's Mayor has just asked about the feasibility of switching the entire fleet of buses here to Natural Gas.