Oyster Creek, Salem and Global Warming

wind and nuclear (4.00 / 1)

Just a quibble, but if sea levels rise enough, wind turbines won't work as well because wind speeds near the ground are very low.

I don't know enough to comment specifically on Oyster Creek, but we should be expanding, not reducing our use of nuclear power. This is one place where the environmental movement has got it wrong. Solar and wind are great technologies, but they don't produce anywhere near enough power to keep up with our increasing demand. We should be building PBR (pebble bed reactor) nuclear plants like China and South Africa are pursuing.

This technology claims a dramatically higher level of safety and efficiency. Instead of water, it uses pyrolytic graphite as the neutron moderator, and an inert or semi-inert gas such as helium, nitrogen or carbon dioxide as the coolant, at very high temperature, to drive a turbine directly. This eliminates the complex steam management system from the design and increases the transfer efficiency (ratio of electrical output to thermal output) to about 50%. Also, the gases do not dissolve contaminants or absorb neutrons as water does, so the core has less in the way of radioactive fluids and is more economical than a light water reactor.
....
The primary advantage of a pebble bed reactor is that it can be designed to be inherently self-controlling. As the reactor gets hotter, the energy spectrum of the neutrons released by fission will be randomized by the Doppler effect. Normally the neutrons released in 235U fission are too high energy to react with other 235U atoms, and too low energy to react with the 238U. When the fuel heats, some of the neutrons are "dopplered" into the energy range that makes them react with the 238U, thereby lowering the reaction rate in the 235U and lowering the temperature of the fuel again (238U fission contributes a negligible amount of energy). This places a natural limit on the power produced by the reactor. The reactor vessel is designed so that without mechanical aids it loses more heat than the reactor can generate in this idle state. The design adapts well to safety features (see below). In particular, most of the fuel containment resides in the pebbles, and the pebbles are designed so that a containment failure releases at most a 0.5 mm sphere of radioactive material.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 01:35:13 AM UTC

explain (4.00 / 1)

One of your poll responses to whether or not the license should be renewed is. "Yes. 'Global Warming' is balderdash."

Could you explain how nuclear power contributes to global warming (except for the Uranium enrichment process)?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 01:44:54 AM UTC

Nuclear Power and Global Warming (0.00 / 0)

The 'Yes, Global Warming is balderdash' answer is meant to be ironic.  I am not suggesting that nuclear power plants are a major cause of global warming - the nuclear industry hype is that they are not, however, I don't know if anyone has studied the problem - but the question is - if these facilities are within 20 feet of sea level, and sea level rises 20 feet --- then we have a problem.

Fission Reactors basically allow radioactive material - uranium and plutonium - to fission, which releases tremendous energy.  This occurs at extraordinary high temperatures - sometimes 1177 degrees F.

The heat boils water; the steam spins turbines. It is rather Rube Goldberg - a lot of trouble to boil water.

http://www.fluent.com/solutions/articles/ja080.pdf

Waste heat is released directly into the biosphere.

Here in NJ we get 40 to 50% of our electricity from nuclear power plants. Incidentally, nuclear power is said to be very inexpensive, yet our bills rise 10 to 15% per year.  Solar and wind are the inexpensive energy alternatives. And as Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute says, 'the cheapest energy source is conservation.'

There are 104 commerical reactors in the US, as of October 2005, which can produce 97 gigawatts (GW), if operating at full capacity.  They generally operate at something significantly less - I think 50-70%. 
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

A back of the envelope analysis suggests that these produce enough power for about 40-60 million people with American consumption habits.  I don't know if any climate scientists have been factoring nuclear reactors into the global warming equations - I was reading Gore's book and then read an e-mail from a friend of mine who thinks that renewing the license for Oyster Creek is a spectacularly bad idea ...

So the  question is what will happen if sea level rises 20 feet because of global warming.  If Oyster Creek or Salem, which are on the shore - are less than 20 feet above sea level then I believe we have a problem.

---

by: ljf75 @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 03:51:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: (4.00 / 1)

Nuclear power plants do not emit air pollution and the scenario you've described is only a real problem if the sea level rises instantly. Practically speaking, if the water level is rising, we will have plenty of time to shut down the plant before it happens.

The heat boils water; the steam spins turbines. It is rather Rube Goldberg - a lot of trouble to boil water.

That's how you convert nuclear energy into mechanical energy into electrical energy. It's no more Rube Goldberg than your car converting chemical energy into mechanical energy or a wind turbine converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy into electrical energy or a hydro plant converting potential energy into mechanical energy into electrical energy. That's the process we use to make energy useful to us.

Finally, it shouldn't be a surprise that our energy bills are increasing with the rising costs of oil and natural gas.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 04:09:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE (0.00 / 0)

Oyster Creek is approximately 19 feet above sea level.  So you are talking about maybe a foot of water.  But the idea of a flood raises some good questions.

First, it would depend entirely on what kind of flood it is.  A river flood is characterized by powerful and fast moving water that can undermine supports and destroy buildings.  A flood a la "An Inconvenient Truth" would come slower and from the ocean.  It should give them time to shut down safely or build a retaining wall to keep out the water.

The danger to a reactor plant from a flood (other than things swept away in flood water) is from the danger of flooding electrical equipment and causing it to shut down.  If the redundant forced cooling systems fail, the reactor shuts down and the natural flow of hot water through the core keeps it cool.

So a flood wouldn't be of any risk for releasing radioactive fuel.  It would take multiple failures for it simply to release steam without any radioactive particles.  That doesn't mean it couldn't happen - there are "worst case scenarios". 

Solar panels will not work when submerged - or at least there is a level at which they will not work after they reach that depth.  Water cuts down on the absorbtion of the sun's heat.

Coal plants can actually experience steam explosions.  That's the same kind of explosions that nuclear reactors are subject to.  It's the nature of the steam - and the temperature - that makes it so, not the fuel that heats it.

You could fully submerge a reactor and you would actually be safe.  24" of water cuts your exposure by half - not to mention the building that would either still be standing or collapse on top of it.  It might be dangerous - actually it would - to go scuba diving in one, but it wouldn't be dangerous beyond that.

Yeah, I think Oyster Creek should be re-licensed unless and until we build enough generating capacity to no longer need it.  I don't want to go through 99F weather without adequate electricity.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 13:48:27 PM UTC

Oyster Creek, Katrina, Wind Power and Money (0.00 / 0)

So a Katrina-like event would destroy the control room and much of the machinery but (other than that) not dramatically effect the nuclear facility? 

It would cost a bundle to rebuild or move the control facility. 

Last year Brad Campbell wanted Amergen to build cooling towers on Oyster Creek.  The cost to build cooling towers would come close to the cost of offshore wind facilities with the same capacity of Oyster Creek.

I believe that the reactor should be decommissioned.  There are sufficient wind resources offshore to provide utility grade power much more cost effectively.  No toxic waste, no radioactive waste, no greenhouse gases, and cost is estimated to around $2.50 per Watt of installed capacity.

What are the true costs of nuclear power? Building in a level of safety that the administration considers 'safe' adds billions to the cost. The Federal Price Anderson act is still in effect, so insurance is not necessary - but if the  utilities had to insure the plants against potential damages, what do you think they would do?  They would mothball each one.

And on top of that, nuclear plants produce plutonium, and plutonium can be used to create a bomb.  Why did Saddam want one in the late '70's?  Why did Israel feel compelled to destroy the Osirak reactor in 1980?  Why does Iran lust for a nuclear plant today?  For electric power?  They have oil.  They want an Arab or Persian 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy.'

Israel proved that they are vulnerable to military attack.

No nuclear power plants were built during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush years - not because Greenpeace was in control but because the bean counters are going 'hmm - this stuff isn't cost effective.'

---

by: ljf75 @ Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 02:54:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Peak OIl Trolls Afoot (0.00 / 0)

I'd let this thread die, frankly. It stinks of a peak oil doomer's wettest dreams.

52% of NJ's electricity is produced by the three nuclear plants within its borders. NJ could be energy self-sufficient with another nuke or three -- hey kids, they're hot, but they've been safe a long time -- and a smattering of wind and solar. What a selling point that would be for industry to locate here, produce ratables, and solve the tax problem ...

Hell, I discuss this with a friend who is obsessed with the issue on an almost daily basis -- I did some napkin math the other day -- we could replace one of the three nukes needed nuke with solar panels alone if we put them on the roofs of every house in Edison, Woodbridge and Piscataway. Impossible, you say?

I expect energy leadership from the Demmocratic party. And when a candidate addresses the issue, I think we should go there. But the person who started this thread is clearly an inflammatory igit looking for a fight. Let me get his kicks elsewhere.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 18:38:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]