Huge Radioactive Leak Closes Thorp Nuclear Plant - Guardian

[hatrack]

A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric acid, enough to half fill an Olympic-size swimming pool, has forced the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.

The highly dangerous mixture, containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, has leaked through a fractured pipe into a huge stainless steel chamber which is so radioactive that it is impossible to enter.

Recovering the liquids and fixing the pipes will take months and may require special robots to be built and sophisticated engineering techniques devised to repair the £2.1bn plant.

The leak is not a danger to the public but is likely to be a financial disaster for the taxpayer since income from the Thorp plant, calculated to be more than £1m a day, is supposed to pay for the cleanup of redundant nuclear facilities. The closure could hardly have come at a worse time for the nuclear industry. Britain is struggling to meet its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2010, despite a substantial programme of wind farm construction, while generating capacity will also be hit by the rundown of some of Britain's coal-fired power stations."

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1479483,00.html

[jpak]

1. Reprocessing has been and always will be

a dirty, dangerous and uneconomic business.

Mayak Russia

Sellafield UK

West Valley NY

Savannah River Plant SC

Hanford Reservation WA

Every single one of these facilities represent outrageously expensive threats to public health.

When are people going to wise up????

[NNadir]

2. Everyone in everyone of these cities is dead, right?

I did not hear a peep out of anti-nuclear anti-environmental activists when the refinery in Texas blew up, KILLING thirteen people a few months ago, all of whom are forgotten.

I NEVER hear a peep out anti-environmental anti-nuclear activists when a coal mine collapses, and we know that not one of them gives a rat's ass about a single dead out of the millions that take place each year.

Why?

Because anti-nuclear anti-environmental activists want to claim that every fucking leack in every fucking "NUCLEAR" plant requires infinite attention.

Why?

Because they don't understand radioactivity and are, frankly, terrified by it.

Why?

Because they are intellectual and moral cowards.

Now, no one has been killed. The plant has been shut down, and it is costing money. What is the claim here, that no other kinds of energy plants are ever shut down and cost money. What is the official Greenpeace position on a collapsed coal mine? Kick the bodies out of the way and start digging again because it's not nuclear?

Not one person will be killed by this accident, not one person will be injured. In fact, not one nuclear plant will shut down because of the economic impact of this accident.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, we're waiting to hear where one gigawatt, just one gigawatt of solar PV electricity even exists and is operating economically and attracting investors world wide.

I'm sure we'll hear what will happen in twenty years with solar power, which will neither be qualititively or quantatively what we were hearing about Solar power thirty years ago: "In ten years, solar power will provide 20% of the world's electricity."

Solar PV power put forth by solar hype types, of course, benefits from largely being just a few points from non-existent. People can make all sorts of claims about how wonderful it is, because there is no test. There is no test, because it is too expensive for anyone but rich twits with vivid imaginations.

We'll just add this accident to the list of rather harmless, if expensive, system failures associated with nuclear energy that killed no one. We'll hear about it every day, and people who know nothing about radioactivity will scream "Radioactive! Radioactive! Radioactive!" as if this somehow distinguishes this accident from an accident (or normal operation) that actually DOES kill people.

Of course, as usual, we will examine this nuclear industry related accident in isolation, making the claim that so called (in the ususal double speak) "wised up" :eyes: :puke: people make, accidents are only important if they have the word "nuclear" in them. All other forms of energy are devoid of accidents, and all other forms of energy are harmless.

I can't wait for the next twit thread where some solar hype type pretends to be concerned about global climate change. No risk there, eh? Not until we have a few hundred years of empty undelivered nonsensical unsupported promises about solar nirvana.

[jpak]

4. Global PV module production in 2005 will exceed 1.1 GW

Current global installed PV capacity is 3.5+ GW.

Portugal announced this week it will build a 116 MW PV facility.

...and nuclear power still sucks...

:)

[Wilms]

6. Your posts are making me rethink.

I'm one of those hate-the-nuke types, for all the reasons that probably bore you by now.

I'm big on conservation, and on using a panoply of renewable sources for energy production. But, I haven't been able to assume that our problems would thereby be solved.

I have to admit, the hoopla over ZEV's--that always seemed to leave out of the equations where the electricity comes from--left me wondering how many people think the whole of the problem through.

Thanks for illuminating the points of view you do. They make me think.

[phantom power]

5. By the by, I invite you to be a contestant for my "100-ExaJoule" challenge

What is your scenario for providing the 100 ExaJoules per year that the United States uses? If you think we can get by on less than 100EJ, then you name your figure, and show how we get there. But to be fair, you should add some explaination about what our standard of living will be like on your new figure.

[jpak]

7. OK, bulldoze all existing American homes

Replace them with super-insulated passive-solar heating/cooling zero-energy homes each with a 4 kW PV array, a 2 kW wind turbine, a large solar hot water heater, a hydrogen fuel cell storage system, organic Permaculture landscaping and a 1 hectare garden plot. Each of these homes would be net electrical generators and produce much of their own food.

Put every one of those new homes near a (super-insulated) shopping center and/or industrial facility within walking/biking distance. Each commercial/industrial center will have its own PV/wind turbine/biomass/biogas co-generation power plant with a hydrogen fuel cell storage system.

Replace all existing central station power plants (nukes, coal and gas) with distributed PV/wind/biogas/biomass co-generation facilities backed up by hydrogen fuel cell storage systems. Remaining fossil fuels would only be used for chemical feed-stocks.

Recycle all existing juice guzzling refrigerators, incandescent light bulbs, CRT displays and electrical appliances into highly efficient new fridges, CF bulbs, flat screen displays, etc.

Junk all existing internal combustion vehicles and replace them with electric trolleys powered by distributed PV/wind/hydro/biomass/biogas electrical co-generators, small battery powered personal electric vehicles and intercity electric trains (and bikes and footpaths).

Replace all existing fossil fuel-based agriculture with solar-based Amish-style organic agriculture. Solar hydrogen would be used to produce nitrogen fertilizer.

Grow LOTS of hemp.

Live Happily Ever After.

I win.

:)

PS: this is just as "realistic" as the (stupid) idea of 10,000 nuclear power plants, thousands of reprocessing plants, breeder reactors, actinide burners, spent fuel dumps, etc...

[phantom power]

8. You'd be more convincing if...

you included any actual calculations in your scenario.

How many of these "PV/wind/biomass/biogass" power plants will there be? However many of them there are, it sounds like we have to build four redundant plants per center. How much does that cost?

Currently, it's not possible to recycle "refridgerators". They contain all kinds of non-recyclable components. Same for light-bulbs. No recycling center I've ever seen would take them.

And it's hard to take seriously any "proposal" that opens with "bulldoze all existing American homes." How much money is it going to cost to dispose of all that, and then re-build with modern construction? With however many million "4KV PV + 2KV wind" installations.

Where are these hydrogen fuel cell storage systems coming from? How much waste will be generated by their manufacture? How much will they cost?

What are we using hemp for? How many acres are we going to use for growing it?

I know more or less how much a nuclear solution costs. About 1000 plants, times $4billion, or 4 trillion bucks. Europeans make their plants cheaper. $2billion. So maybe it's even better: 2 trillion bucks.

[jpak]

9. Costs???

Didn't see any cost analysis for 10000 nuclear power plants on the other thread.

Energy (and food) self-sufficient all-electric solar homes built close to places of business/commerce, serviced by light electric transit would eliminate most - if not all - of residential demand for electricity, petroleum and natural gas.

How much energy would that eliminate or replace????

(clue - a bunch).

Super-insulated passive solar homes would have virtually no requirement for heating and very little requirements for air conditioning (site dependent).

Energy efficient solar homes cost ~15% more to build than nucular-powered energy-hog McMansions...

http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/cases/usa_04.htm

There are about 116 million homes in the US. A 4 kW PV array on each would provide a peak generating capacity of 464 GW. Supplying 2 kW wind turbines to each home would add an additional peak generating capacity of 232 GW, for a total of 696 GW.

The cost??

Assuming $1 per peak watt (economy of scale price - current price $3 per peak watt) supplying 116 million 'Merican homes with a 4 kW PV array would cost ~$0.46 trillion - an order of magnitude less than the cost of nucular power. Of course, the nucular figure doesn't take in account the cost of fuel, spent fuel disposal, transmission etc..

At $2000 per 2 kW wind turbine (current retail price), this would cost another $0.232 trillion.

The hydrogen fuel cell storage systems would manage household electrical generation and demand loads without the need for external power plants. The cost??? At $2000 per 2 kilowatt fuel cell system (all that would be needed for an efficient all-electric home) that would cost another $0.232 trillion.

Note: 7 kW residential fuel cells currently cost between $4-7500...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3718/is_199904/ai_n8850940

Total cost of residential PV/wind/fuel cells = ~$0.9 trillion or substantially less than the nucular option.

As these homes would have very modest electrical requirements (1000 kWh per year for an EnergyStar fridge and freezer, 200 kWh per year for CF lighting and ~3000 kWh per year for electric cooking: total = ~4200 kwh), a 4 kW PV system and a 2 kW wind turbine would produce more than enough electricity per household (conservatively 10,000 kwh per year). Everything else would go to the grid.

How much juice to run a trolley system? The (really) extensive trolley systems of the early 20th Century were very efficient and convenient. A typical "electric car" was powered be a 30 kW(e) DC motor and had a top speed of 50 mph. Replacing the 200 million existing US autos with 2 million 50 kW(e) trolleys would require 100 GW of peak generating capacity. Existing US hydroelectric capacity (~103 GW) could supply all this electricity today.

How much energy to run the commercial/industrial sector? Who knows. In a post-petroleum world there won't be an auto, trucking or airline industry. Low-medium industrial heat could be supplied by parabolic trough arrays backed up by distributed electrical generators on the grid. These industries would be located in the American Southwest.

How much hemp to supply biomass chemical feedstock, heat and electricity?? One hectare per US home (~116 million hectares) would require ~30% of existing US agricultural land (385 million hectares).

The soft-path option is cheaper and provides a higher level of creature comfort than the nucular hard path - any way you cut it.

[phantom power]

10. Let's not forget...

your plan also calls for demolishing all 116 million homes, and building super-energy efficient homes.

Let's suppose, conservatively, that (on average) each of those homes can be built for $50K. That adds 5.8 trillion dollars to the cost of your plan.

It also costs anywhere from $5-$15K, just do demolish a home, but since that's insignificant relative to re-construction, I'll let it slide.

For the moment, I'm assuming your other numbers are realistic, which I haven't checked yet. The quote of $1/watt seems rather optimistic.

One other thing: you didn't include the cost of your "nation-wide" trolley system. I'm all for mass-transit, but I don't think we're going to replace all of our roads with light-rail, and so nobody's just "getting rid" of all the cars. It would be a reasonable goal to vastly reduce the number of cars needed in major cities. But again, it costs billions of dollars to build even a partial light-rail system for a typical city. To say nothing of all the major cities.

Regarding nuclear, the figure was about 1000 new plants, to power the united states. At 2003 levels. The 10K figure was for the whole world, at hypothetical 2050 levels.

[jpak]

14. Your cost of 1000 nuclear plants does not include...

the cost (and availability) of uranium...

...The US currently imports >90% of its uranium. Where is all this uranium going to come from, especially if we have to compete with other major uranium importers (France, UK, Japan, S. Korea, Finland, Germany and China)???? Russia has recently suspended exports of uranium (they want to keep it for themselves). What if Canada follows suit??? What happens if Australia suspends uranium exports over proliferation concerns???

...and decommissioning: Maine Yankee (920 MWe ) cost $0.5 billion to decommission. Applying that cost to 1000 new nuclear plants will add another $0.5 trillion to the cost of new nuclear power.

...and spent fuel disposal: The estimated cost of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel depository is $60 billion and climbing. It was designed to accommodate the spent fuel generated by the existing ~103 US nuclear reactors. Applying this to 1000 nuclear reactors would add another ~$0.6 trillion.

...and the cost of new uranium enrichment facilities ($4 billion per plant: 10 plants = $40 billion to build and billions more to operate), fuel fabrication plants ($ billions) and the cost of disposal of depleted UF6 (additional billions depending on how much is generated).

You can add another trillion dollars or so to the cost of 1000 new nuclear reactors....

[phantom power]

15. Reactors are expensive, but uranium and thorium are cheap.

We actually have a lot of both. We currently import it, just because it's even cheaper to get it elsewhere. But if for some reason, we had to use our own, it would still be cheap fuel. And there's always extraction from sea water. This is even more expensive, but still cheap per unit energy yield.

I don't see the point of "disposing" of the fuel, since most of it can be re-purified and recycled. Let's say that we actually need ten times as many facilities for enrichment, processing, etc. Then it would be $400 billion. Which isn't especially significant, compared to the construction of the actual energy plants.

I'm not really trying to claim this plan is cheap. The upfront construction costs are quite large. But not so large that it's impossible. But if you account for all the costs of your plan, we're still talking multiple trillions of dollars.

That in itself isn't a problem. I fully expect that any real plan is going have a price-tag of several trillion dollars. It's simply an enormous project.

[jpak]

17. Seawater uranium extraction (ugh)

The concentration of uranium (by atoms) in seawater is 3.3 micrograms per liter.

There are a trillion liters in a cubic kilometer of seawater.

A cubic kilometer of seawater contains 3300 kg of uranium.

The US consumes ~20 million kg of uranium each year.

You would have to extract 5840 cubic kilometers of seawater each year to just to satisfy current US uranium demand.

To put this in perspective, the mean annual discharge of the Mississippi River is ~534 cubic kilometers per year.

How much energy would this require????

(too much)

How much ion-exchange resin and chemical reagents would this consume each year???

(ungodly amounts)

Seawater uranium extraction = one very expensive environmental disaster...

The US has high-graded its uranium reserves - any remaining uranium will be expensive to extract, consume large quantities of fossil fuels and despoil large areas of the West. It's not a good deal at all...

And finally, thorium breeder reactors and their associated fuel cycle do not exist (remember, the emergency is NOW!!!).

A thorium fuel cycle would absolutely require reprocesssing.

See topic of this thread...

[phantom power]

11. This plan also costs 30% of our agricultural land.

I don't know what monetary value to attach to that, but it's pretty significant.

And there are still those other industrial PV/wind/biomass co-generation plants, which you didn't include.

[jpak]

13. OK - 0.5 hectares per household 1-4 metric dry tonnes of hemp per year

15% of existing agricultural land.

Pick any number you want...

:)

[phantom power]

16. That's exactly what I'm trying to get away from :-)

Cherry-picking numbers is indulging in useless fantasy. The entire point of this exercise is to engage in calculations that represent what real numbers would be, if we actually did the things we suggest.

If you want to use hemp, that sounds fine with me. But what are we using it for? And how much will we need per year? If you are proposing a serious solution, you don't get to pick any number you want, there's an actual number that is required by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.

That's maybe the single biggest reason why I take NNadir's proposals seriously. He calculates the numbers behind his proposals, and doesn't cherry-pick his numbers. He's engaged in trying to come up with solutions that can be implemented.

[jpak]

18. Cherry picking numbers, hysterical name calling and bullshit

are not "calculations"

Molten-salt thorium reactors do not exist

The thorium fuel cycle does not exist

Pebble bed reactors do not exist

Pebble bed fuel fabrication infrastructure does not exist

To believe in these intangible unseen technologies, one must be possessed with rrrrrrrrreligious fervor!

We cannot wait for these "someday" technologies to magically appear!!!!!

The atmosphere is collapsing!!!!!

The emergency is NOW!!!!!

repeat...

The emergency is NOW!!!!

For the sake of the Planet....Google is your friend...go on-line....TODAY!!....use your credit card....TODAY!!!.... buy yourself a PV array, wind turbine and solar hot water heater....TODAY!!!!...go buy an EnergyStar appliance....TODAY....go buy a hybrid vehicle...TODAY!!!

Do not wait for some fictitious Molten Salt Messiah or Pebble Bed Poobah to descend from Heaven to save you.

The Emergency is NOW!!!

LOL!

<sarcasm off>

:)

[dcfirefighter]

19. Future Neighborhoods

It's not practical for each of us to produce our own power and food...why not have someone who's good at being a farmer, farm, while someone's good at being a doctor, doctor.

Division of labor. It's what has allowed human progress such that poor people have come from half-starved serfs, to obese kia drivers.

I like permaculture, biointensive farming, agroforestry, etc. I like light rail and electric mass rapid transit. But realistically, and practically, there should be rural land, where most of the crop is grown, and urban land, where most of the transit infrastructure (and homes) are.

Hell, the best thing we could do to ensure that we maintain large tracts of unbuilt, uncultivated, wilderness long into the future is to build a bunch of nuclear plants next to existing wildernesses. The flora and fauna don't care.

If you want to encourage intensive urban development (and reduced transportation costs), while encouraging 'more' from existing suburbs (re: edible landscaping, etc), and enabling the single best method to raise money to pay for transit, support a split-rate property tax, where land value is taxed at a higher rate than building value. It also encourages NEW buildings which tend to be much more energy and land efficient than 20-50 year old building stock.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. I would guess even

John Zerzan's "Anarcho-Primitivism" carries environmental risk.

To get away from being facetious - every human activity carries risks. Just look up "Failure Mode Effect Analysis" - try it on Google, try it on Amazon, try it on Chem Abstracts, try it on Dialog, try it on NTIS. Then, after you have digested that stuff - you will be an agoraphobic.

Fun idea: "AND" the search terms "Failure Mode Effect Analysis" and "Coast Guard" --> you may find my papers. ;-)

Even coal - significant Hg and environmental degradation.
Even using a laser printer (Selenium)
Even gasoline (MTBE)
...and on and on and on.

Yes - my Dad was born and grew up just north of - everything has risks.