Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:47:36 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"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

Good luck, their will be no power.. Unintentional effects of the 1962
"Starfish Prime" detonation was to FUSE a number of vehicle starter
motors. (~1300km away).

Good luck getting the diesel generators operating after such an event,
since you're not going to have any grid power. The NRC is full of
reports of those generators not starting up after normal grid trips.

It's also unlikely that even the small number of instruments will be
operational. The automatic scam systems won't work after an EMP pulse
event. Thus the operators must personally go into the secondary
containment in order to shut down a hot reactor.

If a relief valve opens before while they are still inside secondary
containment, then it's probably a death sentence.. With no operational
cooling systems the emergency relief valves will open.


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.

That 30 year study done to date analysed(no testing) just one reactor
design. (In the US nearly very reactor is a custom design. )

Circuit breakers are fairly slow to trip (several hundred
milliseconds), meanwhile an EMP pulse is over in a microsecond. It's
unlikely such circuitry will prevent insulation damage from an EMP
field as high as 60,000 Volts per meter.

None of our reactors have undergone anything similar to an actual
test. Any operators will to completely isolated from additional help.
NRC's remote control/admin will not be functional. Auto's won't
start.

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.

Soo much blather, so little truth.. For an untested design it would
be shear insanity for ANY engineer to make such a prediction.
.

Relevant Pages

  • @@ Stronger future for nuclear power - China is getting ready for the 4th-generation nuclear
    ... Stronger Future for Nuclear Power ... Nuclear reactor builders are jostling for business as energy utilities take another ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Moonbase Power
    ... The United States had several nuclear generator and nuclear reactor and ... SNAP-2 has already provided power on the moon, ... this to obtain the total thermal power of the reactor at full thrust ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Transportation and the energy economy, was Re: Just an FYI....Atlanta Police stalk Critical Mass
    ... > in history and presented that as nuclear power. ... slightest thing to do with a nuclear reactor and they go absolutely nuts. ... The net is that while proponents of fission power can claim that new generations of reactors are safer, that category of reactor is not a viable candidate for significant global energy production. ... A total construction cost ~$5,200/kW, near the low end of Moody’s October 2007 estimate, implies a levelized busbar cost of ~16¢/kWh. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Our Atomic Future
    ... require a revival of nuclear power. ... Pa., in 1957 to create the first country's civilian nuclear reactor, ... station operates much more efficiently than two 600 MW plants. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Torchwood S3E13 Brothers, or Burried, or Dead Again, or Back Agian
    ... Are we expected to believe that a Nuclear Power Station has absolutely no back up systems and bases it's central control systems in a building miles away which if the link is broken the reactor goes into immediate meltdown. ... Every Nuclear Power Station is built with an automatic multi-triggered scram-down system which when the temperature, coolant flow rate or radiation hits a critical level or when power is lost, automatically drops carbon control rods into the reactor core, by gravity if necessary so that the reaction stops dead long before it has any chance to reach critical. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)