Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 10:55pm PT
|
"Stagg Field, the site of Fermi's original graphite pile was an open lot in the late fifties. Anyone know if something was ever built there?"
Nuclear Energy by Henry Moore, Regenstein Library in background
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:00pm PT
|
Karl wrote:
Sounding like a Republican here don't I.
no, just someone with an argument on a roll...
I have reservations on the Price-Anderson Act, but at the time it was passed there was no way to price the insurance. This first passed in 1957.
Since then the following accidents have occurred:
July 26, 1959 - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown
July 24, 1964 - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident
October 5, 1966 - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
March 28, 1979 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
January 25, 1982 - Ontario, New York - Radioactive materials released
November 2005 - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
March 6, 2006 - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
resulting in one fatality and no expectations of additional fatalities due to contamination.
I believe that some PAA dollars have been paid out, but dollars have been paid in for violations of the act... $151M has been paid to cover claims. DOE alone has paid $65M to cover claims under its own nuclear operations.
that's $216M for 55 years or about $4M per year.
From a business perspective this has not been great in terms of operations...
from the Wikipedia page...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential...
however, these plants supply roughly 20% of the electrical power in the US, 806.2 TW, at $0.1/kW as an order of magnitude cost of electricity, that's $81B/year
Probably a good business proposition... in spite of the investment issues with the plant designs of the pre-1970's.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:40pm PT
|
if you view the current "spent fuel" as waste that has to be protected forever there is a problem.
However, if you view the "spent fuel" as a resource, which when properly processed provides more fuel for the future, then we have a technology puzzle to solve, and we have somewhere around 100 years to solve it before the isotopics becomes problematic. During that time we have to secure the fuel, and that is possible to do, safely, I believe, using methods that we know are tried and true... gates, guards and guns... and we have places to do it, like the Nevada Test Site, local politics not withstanding.
Learning how to separate out the parts of the "spent fuel" into those parts which can be usefully recycled into new fuel, those parts which have such low radioactivity that they can be buried (that is, no more radioactive than the ores that were mined out in the first place) and what is a tiny fraction of the remaining that has to be stored in places like Yucca Mountain, but not having to be "safe" for tens of thousands of years... that would be the way to go.
So the immediate need everyone agrees on is where to move the already spent fuel where it can wait for the time we know how to make the best use of it... and then working out the issues of reprocessing over the long run.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:48pm PT
|
read the Wikipedia entry for the PAA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Anderson_Act
we learn that industry payments into the insurance pool (now $95.8M per reactor)... since 1987 such pay in measures have "eliminated the contribution of the federal government to the insurance pool."
So Karl's criteria is met, the industries are required to fund the insurance pool...
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:59pm PT
|
Nobody ever only cares about the public only. Most people care about themselves first and foremost.
LovesGasoline, watch out for that Werner guy, when he is saving your ass on El Cap he carries a visa card reader in one hand and a knife in the other. under those conditions most people pay up.
Sorry Werner I couldnt help myself.
Thanks Ed. Good stuff.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:07am PT
|
It's my understanding that nuclear plants are unable to insure themselves and require taxpayer backing in this regard. Am I mistaken Ed? Given the statistics you've shared, it would seem that insurance would be easy to get or can the industry just not convince insurers that the mega-billion accident just won't happen?
I can understand the argument that Nuke Plants might need public financing to build them as cost overruns, protests, and environmental reviews plus the NRC have a way of delaying construction and making it uneconomical (which are also reasons not to go there) but the insurance angle still seems to point toward real danger.
It's possible the industry could go a long time before another serious accident, but then again, it could happen tomorrow. I have trouble thinking the rebuilding of New Orleans was such a good idea.
The Japan situation is a serious wake-up call. Let's hope that's all it is. Now what to do?
In some ways, the cat is out of the bag and bigger forces will guide our destiny, partly depending on pubic perceptions of the Japan event (which is why I worry about downplaying, everything is at stake for various stakeholders)
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:15am PT
|
Checking out that link Ed I see that
"Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.
I have to believe a full-on meltdown at a place like Indian Point would bust through 12 billion in no time. Wouldn't even the loss of a major plant run into many billions in itself?
"Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s).
The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit.
As of 2011, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $12.22 billion ($111.9m X 104 reactors) if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund. This fund is not paid into unless an accident occurs. However, fund administrators are required to have contingency plans in place to raise funds using loans to the fund, so that claimants may be paid as soon as possible. Actual payments by companies in the event of an accident are capped at $17.5 million per year until either a claim has been met, or their maximum individual liability (the $111.9 million maximum) has been reached."
Hmm, so the insurance is basically all the other nuclear utilities promising to may 17 million a year each until a claim is paid off. After the real estate meltdown recently, somehow I get a little worried that if there were a super bad accident, that the industry might have trouble ponying up extreme cash over a period of 10 years (but who knows?)
Anyway, thanks for researching that angle.
Peace
karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:26am PT
|
as you know, insurance is a tricky business, and it is doubtful that such a difficult to calculate occurrence is a bet any insurance company is willing to make...
we don't have meteorite insurance either, Karl, you know, to protect your assets in the unlikely, but not zero, chance that they are wiped out by a collision with an extraterrestrial rock moving at high speed...
Three Mile Island was a "full on meltdown" and is one of the accidents listed... no major contamination...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:28am PT
|
Yeah, Let hope none of those meteors hit a nuke Plant Ed or we're double screwed!
But the other point, which I've probably made too much already, is there's only one industrial accident for which an large area would be hopelessly contaminated for 100s or 1000s of years, which is what makes nuclear a risk class of it's own
Peace
karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:29am PT
|
word
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:31am PT
|
This is posted to the NHK website.
Germany to end reliance on nuclear power
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her government will end its reliance on nuclear power as soon as possible by increasing energy generation from renewable sources.
Merkel spoke to reporters about the plan on Friday after meeting with ministers and all 16 state governors to discuss the energy issue. Earlier, she had suspended a plan to extend the life of existing nuclear power stations following the crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The Chancellor said German efforts would focus on developing power grids and renewable technologies, including for wind and solar power.
Last year, Merkel reversed a decision by a former government to shut down all German nuclear plants by about 2022.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:47am PT
|
Also from the NHK website
"Wastewater level at No.2 reactor tunnel rising
The operator of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says the level of highly radioactive water in a tunnel of the No. 2 reactor has been rising.
Contaminated water in the plant's facilities is hampering efforts to restore reactor cooling systems. Leakages of such water into the ocean and the ground are also raising concern.
Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, finished transferring part of the wastewater -- about 660 tons -- from the tunnel to a condenser in a turbine building on Wednesday.
The transfer lowered the water level in the tunnel by 8 centimeters, but it began rising again, exceeding the previous level by 2.5 centimeters as of Saturday morning.
TEPCO says work to fix the leakage of highly radioactive water into the ocean earlier this month may have caused water from the reactor to accumulate in the tunnel.
The company hopes to begin transferring contaminated water to a waste-processing facility by the end of next week. It is now accelerating work to monitor and fix water leaks in the facility.
Highly radioactive water may also be leaking underground.
On Thursday, TEPCO detected higher radiation levels in underground water. The observed level was up to 38 times that of one week ago.
TEPCO began taking radiation readings 3 times per week on Saturday, instead of just once per week.
Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:13 +0900 (JST)"
Tough situation where you spray water that's bound to become highly radioactive but don't have effective ways to contain it. Devils bargain we're forced to accept.
Peace
Karl
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 12:12pm PT
|
Love...
I guess when something is a crime, a federal crime no less, then no one would ever dare assume such severe consequences?
Inspectors? Every inspector is capable of being paid off. Every inspector. And every man has his price, every man, you too Adam.
Critical and vital systems are inspected periodically, as in over and over again as time passes... That what ASME Sec XI (In-service Inspection) is all about. So, do you suppose that 2, 5, or 10 years later, the different inspectors inspecting those componants AGAIN will also be paid off so as not to uncover the previous 'pay off'?
As I said... There are people sitting in Federal Prisons who have falsified documents/inspections, and it was later uncovered by a later re-inspection. Just last month:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/mar/24/tva-faces-charges-tied-nuclear-site/
Davis-Besse is another example:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Siemaszko_found_guily_in_Davis-Besse_case_2708081.html
Note - A good friend of mine is the one who later identified the problem.
And, as per the CFR that I linked that outlines my job, there are checks and balances (E.g., independent verifications, periodic inspections of the same thing, functional tests, etc...) that are designed to make it so that if something is not 'as designed' it can be identified/detected, and that any one person is not responsible ensuring that a componant meets design criteria. The more critical the system, the more additional layers are added (I.e., more independant verifications).
There are also 'quality concern' drop boxes all over any nuclear site, for people to anonymously raise quality concerns... When contractors exit a site after their job is complete, they ALL fill out a 'quality/safety concern' form, that asks if they have ANY concerns... That too is anonymous.
Lastly... Think about it reasonably for a moment... In nuclear, since it is a crime to offer or solicite a bribe... Let's say 1 in 1,000 would offer or accept a bribe. That means that the one offering stands a 999 in 1000 chance of being turned in for offering a bribe, and if one solicites, he stands the same odds of going to jail. It's just not worth it, so nobody tries... At least not in nuclear.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 02:25pm PT
|
Fortunately, there are more honest people in this world than corrupt. That was an interesting link LG, and from my perspective the government servants who did that (ie: whitehouse peeps) should be tried and thrown in jail as should everyone who was party in making that announcement.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 02:32pm PT
|
I think we all have to remember that accidents happen. and when the consequences for a nuclear accident are beyond acceptance, then nuclear power is no longer an option. Until this time, most of us have had out heads buried in the sand, but as the birth defects start happening and we continue to be showered with nuclear waste from Japan, we need to follow the example of what Germany has just done, and move on to cleaner safer ways of generating power. We have no right, none at all, to poison this planet for our children and future generations.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 03:13pm PT
|
Adam makes good sense about being worried if the next inspector doesn't take the bribe too. But no worry, now you get to assume all the inspectors are taking bribes. This fits well in the conspiracy droid mindset.
|
|
hb81
climber
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 03:16pm PT
|
Is this an example of Germany deluding itself?
It's more like Angela Merkel trying to delude the voters after she and her
party just had prolonged the remaining time for nuclear power plants to operate about half a year ago.
It's a quick, not thought-out publicity stunt.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 07:41pm PT
|
I don't think Adam was saying that people were incorruptable, after he posted
As I said... There are people sitting in Federal Prisons who have falsified documents/inspections, and it was later uncovered by a later re-inspection.
So people must have been screwing up. He's just saying there are some checks and balances.
Still, it's far from the main vulnerability to nuclear power
Peace
Karl
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2011 - 09:36pm PT
|
Proof?
Perhaps that's a fiction you have to believe, in in order to maintain your faith in humankind.
And to retain faith in the man you believe yourself to be.
PS: You did not cheat on your taxes.
lovesG,
dood. maybe its the shithole you live in (see your location). i feel sorry for you. you want proof that a majority of peeps are not corrupt? you need to find a friend, look for RokJox, he will set you straight.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!