Techdiplomacy

Calloway Nuclear Power Station Fulton, Missouri

This is not a new subject for me I wrote a piece called Nuclear Power is Not Renewable Energy, last year, check the archives October 16, 2008, it’s there.

Now the Nuclear Power industry is actually challenging Solar and Wind power, they are claiming that they are far more ‘green’, than is the traditionaly accepted renewables, solar and wind.  This is almost criminal and I cannot see where this information has it’s basis in fact. 

I would like to reprint part of my post from October 16, 2008, in order to reinforce my thoughts, (I have done research!) there are a number of underlying problems that I don’t touch

I suscribe to Power Engineering, “the magazine of power generation”, (self described motto), most of it’s subscribers work in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, they often have heated discussions on this topic.  I used to work with these guys, I know the mind set.  They actually did a poll in which they asked the question, “is nuclear power a renewable energy resource”, the majority said, “yes it is”, I was not all that surprised.  This is giving a knee jerk opinion because you pay your mortgage by working in these industries.  You would like to believe that you’re doing good rather than destroying your environment.  These are not ‘bad’ men, simply ill informed.  They don’t spend a lot of time researching the topic, for the most part.  I’m not saying, no one does, just that, most don’t.  This is a subject that begs research, and there is a lot of information out there in this electronic age.

Please take a little time to read part of my post from October 16, 2008, the information still applies.  This has to do with the problem of bringing the nuclear power plants in operation up to speed.  I said this in regard to the costs associated with bringing our aging nuclear ‘fleet’ up to modern standards

The owners of some plants want to replace low pressure steam paths with higher pressure steam flow equipment. This theoretically could result in higher output. The emphasis on theoretically is mine. I have worked in the nuclear power industry as an engineer and one thing is certain, and that is nothing is certain. It is hoped that this solution will address reliability issues with these existing steam turbines.

The retrofit that most are opting for would include installing new low pressure rotors, rotating and stationary blades, inner casings and blade carriers. The scope of this type of retrofit would be large and costly. They would have to install or replace: high efficiency, integrally shrouded, reaction type blading for their front stages; longer last stage rotating blades to reduce the energy content of the steam leaving the turbine, thereby increasing turbine output; provide consistent and predictable vibration characteristics, snubbers at three quarter height will need to interconnect the last stage rotating blades and the second to last stage blades will need to be linked by integral tip shrouding; provide reduced stage leakage due to better sealing and reaction characteristics over the length of the blade; and select materials to provide erosion corrosion characteristics.

I at the time emphasized that I didn’t want to confuse anyone by using a lot of technical jargon to indicate that just updating a small portion of that which is huge, is a large almost impossible task.  I said that owners of utilities would better serve the public by investing in a new power grid, not endless repairs of our aging nuclear power stations. 

The current effort to paint themselves green is an effort to get the go-ahead to build new plants.  We are already paying dearly for the plants already in operation, by our rising costs for electricity.  The supporters of this notion are for the most part, people engaged in the nuclear power industry.  I once made a good living as a design engineer in this industry.  So I understand, I just don’t approve of this line of thinking. 

Renewable energy by it’s very name is energy that can be obtained in a fairly passive manner.  If you have to mine it, process it, or burn it, then it isn’t renewable.  Even the uranium required for nuclear power is not renewable and it is not forever.  The sun and the wind will be with us as long as man exists, for exist we will not if we don’t have these sources.  Solar power is from renewable sources, wind turbines spin because of a renewable source of energy.  The sun and wind are virtually omnipotent, uranium is not.

I won’t repeat the problems of nuclear waste, only to say that nothing has changed.  We still have no idea as to what to do with the waste or how to solve the problem that one of the components of nuclear waste is weapon’s grade plutonium.  I am researching this situation further, some strides have been made by the French, however there are still problems associated with nuclear power and the reactors required to operate these systems.

I wanted to say this because I believe to seriously give the nuclear power industry free rein, would harm mankind and our environment in the long run.  Any thoughts?  Make a comment, we’ll print it and we will answer any questions put to us, see you around the galaxy…

Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Fulton, Missouri

The nuclear power industry is, in it’s effort to revive the building of new reactors, closing it’s eyes to the actual facts with regard to cost and safety.  Their opinion is that nuclear power must be included if we are to change our climate.  They see a nuclear renaissance as the number of applications for construction and operating permits rises.  This information comes from the nuclear regulatory commission, they have not seen this type of activity in over 30 years. 

The Department of Energy keeps a ongoing count of nuclear licensing applications.  The DOE is predicting 23 licenses for 34 reactors.  The industry hopes this will continue in 2009 in order to shore up their hopes in an effort to build new reactors.

The same climate change legislation that the renewable energy sector wants to see, the nuclear industry is counting on that very same legislation to get the country to back their efforts.  Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel, however it has been shown in several studies that any gain in cleaner emissions are offset by the dangerous process that is nuclear power.  The nuclear industry has started to release real prices instead of the low estimates that had been their stock in trade.  Now you see prices have doubled to well over 5 billion dollars per reactor which is double estimates from early 2008.  The DOE loan guarantee program would be new hope for these people.

It would be hope misplaced.  Nuclear power is not the way to go at this juncture.  High construction costs and complicated licensing procedures make this option economically not feasible.  There is no solution to this, we should use renewable energy sources to power our society.  The nuclear option should not be an option.  We need to view this option with extreme caution.  We don’t have a solution for the energy woes that we are experiencing now that could be solved by the nuclear power industry.  This industry touts itself as the new way to avoid CO2 emissions, although they have their share of this global warming causing element.  There is a movement among the utilities that operate nuclear power plants to grab a share of funds that would be better spent investing in clean renewable energy.

We have a new administration taking office this month and they will be deluged with requests for funding for various reasons.  The nuclear power industry not withstanding will make their demands for funds known and they will use the arguments that they have used for decades, clean power.  How about clean, safe power.  The industry said that waste storage is improving due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reaction to the license application for Yucca Mountain.  The NRC did proceed with the docketing process and evaluations on items such as environmental requirements.  The general thinking is that geologic storage is necessary for nuclear energy’s future.  That does not solve any problems with regard to what is stored.  This is a problem currently and will continue to be a problem.  Some see the waste as valuable material and would like to recycle the material.

There are plans to build nuclear power stations in several states.  We as people with a desire to power our planet safely should protest this direction that these utilities are taking to provide electricity.  As we have stated here in the past clean and safe  renewable energy is the way to go.  Any thoughts on this?  Let’s hear from you in our comment section.  In the meantime work for renewable energy sources, new jobs, help for our failing economy and a clean environment are ours’ for the future.

There is quite a bit of talk about nuclear power as it is being touted as a clean reliable energy source. It is actually put on par with solutions to our power needs like solar and wind power. I beg to differ. The nuclear power industry is getting as old as I am! Nuclear plant owners are trying to see if they may be able to capitalize on these developments. They are doing retrofits and upgrades in every plant they can in order to spruce themselves up for the unwary public.

The problem as I stated earlier is the age of the nuclear plants currently in existence. Around 40 percent of U.S. nuclear power stations are over 30 years old. More than 90 percent of all plants in the U.S. are over 20 years old. Well, you might say, so what? If they are working out, then let’s use them. Therein lies the rub. Nuclear power plants are built using reinforced concrete and structural steel , with concrete having the higher numbers in so far as materials used are concerned.

Over time the materials used to build a plant start to corrode and develop cracks (known as stress corrosion cracking [SCC]) because of age and exposure to radiation. If you consider steam turbines then the blade attachment areas and disc bores of low pressure turbine rotors are in danger of SCC.

The owners of some plants want to replace low pressure steam paths with higher pressure steam flow equipment. This theoretically could result in higher output. The emphasis on theoretically is mine. I have worked in the nuclear power industry as an engineer and one thing is certain, and that is nothing is certain. It is hoped that this solution will address reliability issues with these existing steam turbines.

The retrofit that most are opting for would include installing new low pressure rotors, rotating and stationary blades, inner casings and blade carriers. The scope of this type of retrofit would be large and costly. They would have to install or replace: high efficiency, integrally shrouded, reaction type blading for their front stages; longer last stage rotating blades to reduce the energy content of the steam leaving the turbine, thereby increasing turbine output; provide consistent and predictable vibration characteristics, snubbers at three quarter height will need to interconnect the last stage rotating blades and the second to last stage blades will need to be linked by integral tip shrouding; provide reduced stage leakage due to better sealing and reaction characteristics over the length of the blade; and select materials to provide erosion corrosion characteristics.

These upgrades are not all that would need to be done, and I include them here to show the complexity of this proposed fix of the aging nuclear power plants. This is not to confuse the layman but merely to show that this undertaking would be of immense scope and would cost millions of dollars. Dollars perhaps better spent pursuing alternative energy in the form of renewable energy resources.

The owners of some of these plants are saying that by the low carbon output (i.e. lower CO2 which has been shown to cause global warming) and possible gains in capacity, they could in some cases identify around 350MW of electricity increase by 2014.

I don’t want to give the impression that nuclear power should be abandoned, I am a scientist and I would not make rash statements like this without some sort of research. It is simply obvious that we are already paying a very high price for electricity generated by nuclear power. The cost alone would be enough to deter some, and there is still the question of safety. Obviously we have not mastered nuclear power to the point that we can claim that it is 100 percent safe. The byproduct of nuclear power or it’s waste is weapons grade plutonium. That is enough to make me question the sanity of utilizing this option. There has never been a permanent solution for the question of waste storage.

There would certainly be a decrease of carbon dioxide emissions if we pursue this course, however is that enough? We have the technology for several different course to pursue. The carbon dioxide emission problem would simply cease to exist with renewable energy resources generating our electricity. The money needed for this option is not available, but if we can spend so recklessly on nuclear power, could we not use the same funds for sustainable and renewable energy sources?

I am saddened to say that in some cases utility operators, owners of the aging nuclear plant system would not invest in installing new power transmission lines to enable more wind turbine or solar power systems. Too costly, and not part of the scope of their work. This from the people selling us our electric power. My bills have increased over the past year by 20 percent. My income certainly did not increase by anywhere near that amount.

We should at least look at this problem and lobby our elected officials to make a stand for the sake of all Americans, for the sake of the people of earth in general. The utility companies work for you and me, write to them, we are their customers. We should at least try.

Why don’t we investigate wind power or solar power, there would be costs, but that is another article altogether. Just bear in mind that nuclear power is not renewable or sustainable.