Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward


"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:85use31bdn6gbn831u1tqd1sqhvmekbfls@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:21:26 -0700, "EnergyForum.cc"
<fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello newsgroup members,

This might be of interest to someone:

An environmental think-tank in the UK, New Economics Foundation (NEF),
has said that more nuclear power plants in the country is not the way
forward for cutting carbon emissions from the power generation sector
and reducing the consumption of imported fossil fuels because
implementing a nuclear building programme will be slow, expensive and
risky. Additionally, it will not have enough of an impact to prevent
climate change nor guarantee energy supply security. According to NEF,
the cost of building new nuclear reactors is actually triple what is
being claimed by supporters of such plans.
Source: Energy Business Review


There is a significant chance that our current nuclear reactor designs
will enter into a class-9 meltdown phase after being subjected to a
EMP attack. (google CRAC-2, "Calculation of Reactor Accident
Consequences" ) .

I.E. Simultaneous failure of all power, measurement, electronic
control, and cooling systems.

If this EMP pulse occurs in near space (altitude 200+ miles, just off
the US east coast), we could have dozens of reactors entering into a
simultaneous meltdown phase. Thus sealing the US's fate as a
massively contaminated radioactive wasteland.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/020r1.html
Unfortunately.. this study was prepared(1982) before many electronic
control, and monitoring system additions where made to many of these
plants.

Unfortunately for your theory, the digital controls and other protective equipment at nuclear plants are used to keep the control rods 'out'. A failure of nuclear instrumentation systems, whether from EMP or dropped screw-driver in the works, results in the reactor scramming and stopping the fission process. Digital control of the main turbine-generator is a non-issue as well. The small number of instruments actually needed to maintain a reactor in a safe shutdown condition is very small. And these instruments are environmentally qualified to a very rugged level, including sustaining several hundred RADS of ionizing radiation. An EMP wouldn't damage them.

The emergency cooling systems do not use digital controls to operate. Large electrical motors, motor operated valves and tanks of water are not significantly affected by EMP. As the 82 study points out, the most that would happen is a momentary loss as some switchgear breakers trip and re-close.

As much as you'd like to think that an EMP would devastate the US with nuclear power plant meltdown, the emergency shutdown and cooling systems of these plants are *not* that vulnerable. That's what the NRC said in '82 and its still true today. In fact, there are no plants that I'm aware of that have upgraded to digital equipment in any category I equipment, they still use simple, rugged controls designed from the 1960's.

daestrom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward
    ... has said that more nuclear power plants in the country is not the way ... forward for cutting carbon emissions from the power generation sector ... While I agree that building nuclear plants is 'slow', ...
    (sci.energy)
  • OT ~ Dr. Bill Wattenburg On Quick Build Of Nuclear Power and Oil
    ... Three ways to get the first new nuclear power plants built very ... This will profit the country and they oil companies as well.  ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Apprenticeship for our Future
    ... Sounds a lot like what I heard in High school many years ago; Nuclear ... so small nuke plants we could shut down the East Coast's coal plants, ... Nuclear power encapsulates this problem. ... thus eliminating any "economies of scale" in construction ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: This months popular science - hydrogen powered hyper jet
    ... fuel and petro-based ag-chems vs. ethanol yield. ... However the nuclear plant has an economic lifespan of less than 40 years. ... Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to ... Nuclear power plants in a "war" situation are very attractive targets. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: COAL - Was: damage from ethanol?
    ... The electricity generated at nuclear power ... plants is no better at splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen than ...
    (alt.home.repair)