NRC and the New Nuclear Family

"How can the government balance nuclear safety with industry scheduling needs?"

When it comes to nuclear power you don't "balance" safety. The systems must be made inherently safe. A measure might be to have the utility companies be self insuring where those companies operating the plants assume all of the risk.

Does the industry factor in the cost of waste storage and plant dismantlement into the pricing structure? How much of this cost is paid by the direct service consumer and how much is paid by the taxpayer? How about security costs? How could the industry factor this into the pricing structure?

I haven't seen any of those questions answered. Perhaps if those questions were answered in the licensing process, there wouldn't be an "onslaught."

Gavilan

Gavilan, I agree with most of your statement, but I'd also have the design engineering company and the company (NRC or whomever) that certifies the final safety assurance share in the risk funding. One place to start looking at safety and anti-terrorism systems would be the Seabrook (NH) Nuclear Facility. They have elaborate electronic sensing fencing and other security improvements. In addition, the containment system was designed such that the largest SAC bomber,from the nearby SAC (PAFB) airfield, could not penetrate the containment with a direct impact. The 3-inch rebars could not be conventionally welded, and each rebar intersect point was "welded" by a thermite process.

Cardio,

You made a number of good points.

I recall from recent reading that the requirement for hardening the containment buildings to meet your scenario was to be dropped from the design requirements.

I am not going to comment on security issues other than to say I do not believe the containment building as being the most vulnerable and therefore likely target in any type of destructive attack.

My interest in this issue involves the end cost economics of the industry and who pays the bill. I think it is quite unfair to force the taxpayers of our small power cooperative to subsidise the industry by any means, whether it be the cost of regulation and security anywhere in the fuel cycle to the end cost of waste and plant dismantlement.

FAS recently published some material on this issue. As I read it, it appears that industry interests have convinced our political leadership that it is in the interests of the American people to subsidize the fuel recycling and waste storage not only for our own reactors but those sold abroad.

Again, the economics doesn't make sense to me, but then again I hold no financial interests in the industry.

Gavilan

I think you have made some valid points, however, considering what we now know about the global impacts of burning Coal and Oil (as well as what we already knew about local effects), would it be just as valid to have similar financial requirements across the board for all power plants, no matter the fuel source. As such there should be an environmental impact fee assessed against all power plants that covers their environmental impacts (such as waste disposal for nuclear, carbon emissions for carbonaceous fuels and smog, bird strikes for wind mills). As far as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission goes, there job is not to maintain industry schedules. They need to act on the best interest of the people of the United States, which means a reasonable standard of safety must be met, but our need for cleaner low-emissions power must be met in a timely manner also. So, I guess, they need to meet the schedule of the People. The idea of using older accepted designs just to streamline the permitting process is a bit of a concern, but new untried designs would be even more of a concern. The best process would be to take known designs analyze for weaknesses, and make slight modifications that improve the designs without substantial impacts to the operations that could lead to unidentified failures.

For as long as I can remember nuclear utilities have had to put aside funds for decommissioning their plants at end of life. This is paid for by current rate payers.

Additionally, I think something like a mil per kWh is put into a waste fund to cover waste disposal, again paid for as part of current rates.

Security costs are also a combination of capital and operating expense, both of which have increased since 9/11, at utility cost.

Utility self insuring is substantial, with all plant owners sharing risks to a substantial degree.

These are not new answers either, and they don't need to be addressed, again and again and again, in licensing processes.

Nuclear power plant operators have continually strive to operate and maintain existing plants well. The reward has been steady improvements in performance in both safety indicators and electricity delivery, at largely stable costs. This maintenance and attention to detail has also provided the bases for options such as life extension.

Upcoming units will use existing technology with some substantial improvements in safety characteristics and operating capabilities, based on lesson learned in operation and design.

There is also a lot of interesting activity in Generation IV designs that will develop with time and need. Examples would be those with characteristics particularly suitable for hydrogen production, or for nuclear waste destruction, or nations needing smaller capacity and with less demanding infrastructures.

Why the "onslaught". Maybe it has something to do with fossil fuel limitations and costs, and climate change issues. The existing 103 US nuclear power plants, by not being coal fired, already avoid an amount of CO2 emissions that is on the order of that produced by the US transportation sector.

Dear N&P:

I think that nuclear power is relatively safe with the worst case scenarios, as promised, not being something we as a nation could not recover from. It's the economics that concern me.

I am not convinced that the domestic industry, and the sales by that industry to foreign purchasers, is not subsidized by the US tax payer.

Your emphasis on the fact that these answers need not be re-addressed in the current licensing process seems unreasonable since we now have some history as to end cycle costs; except of course, the long term storage costs. Those mils you referred too may cover the temporary on site storage; but since there is so little experience in the area of long term storage and security it would be difficult to accurately factor those costs into the economic structure of the industry.

I now ask; since the industry is now more than 50 years old, how much money has the industry accumulated to finance long term storage and security costs? As a tax payer I would feel better about the economics of this issue if I knew if those monies existed and how that money was secured against potential catastrophic economic losses that can occur in any capital enterprise. Where is the money at and how is it secured against catastrophic economic losses individual companies within the industry could incur? Just because some unforeseen economic catastrophe may occur within the industry doesn't make the waste any less hazardous, less difficult, or less expensive to deal with. Surely if the nuclear power industry is self supporting as you imply, there would have to be billions of dollars in reserve somewhere!

Unlike any other industry, when a major player goes under the stock holders end up holding an empty bag, I don't believe this to be the case for a company heavily invested in nuclear power.

Your reference to hydrogen production may be a great selling point, but I don't see any advantage of electrolysis being powered by nuclear power vs other alternatives. If the process is indeed electrolysis it would make more sense to reduce and increase the efficiency of night time lighting and use that excess low peak demand power to produce the hydrogen.

Your reference to the "the existing 103 US nuclear power plants----already avoid an amount of CO2 emissions that is on the order of that produced by the US transportation sector"; is the single advantage I can agree with; but only in comparison to current fossil fuel use. CO2 can be scrubbed and stored. The storage or alternative use of that CO2 would seem to be much less problematic than nuclear waste.

It may be possible that the referred to "onslaught" was triggered by the reduced capital risk and increased return on investment to be guaranteed by the taxpayer; and not any fundamental change in the technology. There must be some reason other nations, who have even less access to cheap fossil fuels, have begun to phase out nuclear power.

In closing; given modern technology huge centralized power production schemes don't make sense to me anyway. Given the very low delivered energy efficiencies and distribution infrastructure costs, it may be worth looking at near point of use production using the variety of prime energy supply sources now available.

Gavilan

You bring up a number of concerns, in theory, where you would do well to do some homework before reaching conclusions. And I don't have the time to do it for you. But in general:

Waste Fund: The selection of a waste fund charge is intended to address geological disposal. The design and costing of such facilities is not exactly rocket science. It's the cost of mining out the tunnels, designing and constructing engineered disposal overpacks, the final closure, and, of course, the interminable investigations before going forward. My bigger concern about the waste fund is that it is subsidizing tax payers (or given the deficit, borrowers) since the payments go into general government funds. There has been a few cases where utilities have sued to recover the cost of onsite dry storage brought about by delays in the government taking title to waste, as funded and expected by those utilities.

Nuclear Waste Disposal vs CO2 sequestration Cost and Practicalities: Again no evidence of homework here. But in general, Nuclear waste is a solid with a half-lives. CO2 is a gas without one. Which is more easily and reliably stored until harmless?

Gotta go to work, I'll pick this up later.

How do you generate the base cations to scrub CO2?

Last time i looked they strip the CO2 from limestone, release it to the atmosphere, to make quick lime. So scrubbing is a net loss situation, as it takes more energy to process the limestone, than you gained from the carbon you scrub. Regarding hydrogen use, water vapor is a stronger global warming compound than CO2, though it has less residence time in the atmosphere. So we may not see the benefits everyone hopes for by generating water vapor.

As you continue to deal with the nuclear power issue, you might find it helpful learn what nuclear power is really like day-to-day, as it is far different than the portrayals (positive or negative) by politicians and the press. I've worked in the industry for over two decades and saw a need for a book that would provide some perspective - and hopefully be entertaining as well. The result is "Rad Decision." Stewart Brand, noted enviornmentalist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog has said: "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." James Aach jimaach@comcast.net

N&P Stated: "There has been a few cases where utilities have sued to recover the cost of on-site dry storage brought about by delays in the government taking title to waste, as funded and expected by those utilities."

First off, I don't think the vast majority of the American People want to take "title" to any of it. I don't care what the industry pundits sold to the politicians. And if we, The People of the United States, are obligated to take "title" to that waste then it should be only in the amount adequately "funded" and not based on projected sky pie figures.

You are right, I don't do a lot of home work regarding the Nuclear Power issue and I am jumping to conclusions here; based on past experience with "projected" costing performed by industry pundits.

Gavilan

The reason for taking "title" is to put it into a government run repository, along with the governments nuclear waste from the weapons program. It certainly could go the other way, with a private entity building and owning a repository and taking title to government waste.

At any rate, I agree that you are jumping to conclusion, doing little or nothing to validate them, and therefore, I am wasting my breath and time.

This is an engineering site. I'd prefer to find those who handle issues as such.

N&P clearly makes the point - "This is an engineering site. I'd prefer to find those who handle issues as such."

And this from an "Engineer" who's sole reference is a study basing the health of the Nuclear Waste Fund on "assumptions" of value growth in government securities over a small fraction of the time frame required for secure storage.

In that reference, "Nuclear Waste Fund Adequacy – An Assessment", I failed to see other "assumptions" as to "projected" program cost creep. Although more speculative than the average return on government securities, there is still substantial history to be referenced. Granted, what follows is not as current as the 2001 "Nuclear Waste Fund Adequacy – An Assessment"; but it is not an uncommon example of cost creep in such programs. It is most probable the value of that reference, "Nuclear Waste Fund Adequacy – An Assessment", is that it meets the inclusion requirements of a bureaucratically mandated governmental study where the probability of predicting an accurate outcome is quite small. I question whether that single reference represents an example of good engineering or creative accounting.

The following report gives some perspective as to the success in accurately projecting the cost of this specific program.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/loux05.htm

Circa - 1998

"In 1982, DOE's initial estimates for characterizing three potential repository sites under the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act was in the neighborhood of $80 million per site. To date, almost $4 billion has been spent on Yucca Mountain alone, with the total cost for simply characterizing - not constructing or operating - a single repository site now estimated at over $5 billion."

Commenting on a further remark - "Nuclear Waste Disposal vs CO2 sequestration Cost and Practicalities: Again no evidence of homework here. But in general, Nuclear waste is a solid with a half-lives. CO2 is a gas without one. Which is more easily and reliably stored until harmless?"

The remark regarding the sequestering of CO2 may sound quite "expert" to the uninitiated; but it is also indication of failure to consider "engineered alternatives." There are other alternatives to sequestering CO2 as a gas. Yes indeed, OUR homework has much to be desired.

In reference to that part regarding the half life of the waste radio-nuclides; the presentation of that reference speaks for itself but deserves further comment. Specifically, that the time frame referenced in the opening letter of - "Nuclear Waste Fund Adequacy – An Assessment," does not even begin to cover the length of required monitoring and mitigation required by those "half-lives." I am impressed by expert engineering, not by arguments in which the foundation is merely the claim of expertise.

Intellectual honesty, moral responsibility, and the public trust deserve a fair and accurate estimation of the long term economic factors impacting this "public interest" issue.

Yes, this is indeed an engineering site, and if there is any issue that should be based on sound engineering, this is the issue.

Gavilan