I'm afraid there is more journalese than useful info in this article,
Joe. No mention of fuel supplies, recycling or waste disposal. In
particular, there is no distinction between U enriching to 5% for fuel
and to 90% for weaponry. It is not easy to do the former (Iran has
reportedly succeeded in enriching a minute quantity to 5%); it is
hellishly difficult to do the latter (and experts say that Iran has not
the hardware to do the latter in more than milligram quantities, very
largely insufficient to reach criticality).
The article also omits mention that the EPR has further precautions
besides the 4 independent cooling circuits to avoid nasty consequences
of a potential meltdown, such as enormous gravity fed spray systems to
cool the whole reactor, not just the core and a refractory ceramic catch
tray to prevent the "China syndrome" and to separate molten fuel into
manageable size blocks. It also omits the fact that 96% of the fuel used
in the EPR is recycled, the remaining 4% being medium-level isotopic
waste of medium duration (illegal in the USA, because of an old Bill
forbidding recycling of nuclear fuel :-( ). And it implies that France
has not approved the construction of its EPR; it is my understanding
that construction is starting.
I strongly recommend you go through the www.areva.com site, in
particular the EPR_en.wmv video.
I, personally, would have no problems living within a 10 km radius of an
EPR. I would have problems living downstream from a large dam!
Brian
Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>
> The shape of things to come
> June 1st 2006
>>From The Economist print edition
> How tomorrow's nuclear power stations will differ from today's
> AP
> THE agency in charge of promoting nuclear power in America describes a new
> generation of reactors that will be “highly economical” with “enhanced safety”
> , that “minimise wastes” and will prove “proliferation resistant”. No
> doubt they will bake a mean apple pie, too.
> Unfortunately, in the world of nuclear energy, fine words are not enough.
> America got away lightly with its nuclear accident. When the Three Mile Island
> plant in Pennsylvania overheated in 1979 very little radiation leaked, and
> there were no injuries. Europe was not so lucky. The accident at Chernobyl in
> Ukraine in 1986 killed dozens immediately and has affected (sometimes fatally)
> the health of tens of thousands at the least. Even discounting the
> association of nuclear power with nuclear weaponry, people have good reason to be
> suspicious of claims that reactors are safe.
> Yet political interest in nuclear power is reviving across the world, thanks
> in part to concerns about global warming and energy security. Already, some
> 441 commercial reactors operate in 31 countries and provide 17% of the
> planet's electricity, according to America's Department of Energy. Until recently,
> the talk was of how to retire these reactors gracefully. Now it is of how to
> extend their lives. In addition, another 32 reactors are being built, mostly
> in India, China and their neighbours. These new power stations belong to what
> has been called the third generation of reactors, designs that have been
> informed by experience and that are considered by their creators to be advanced.
> But will these new stations really be safer than their predecessors?
> Clearly, modern designs need to be less accident prone. The most important
> feature of a safe design is that it “fails safe”. For a reactor, this means
> that if its control systems stop working it shuts down automatically, safely
> dissipates the heat produced by the reactions in its core, and stops both the
> fuel and the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactions from escaping by
> keeping them within some sort of containment vessel. Reactors that follow
> such rules are called “passive”. Most modern designs are passive to some extent
> and some newer ones are truly so. However, some of the genuinely passive
> reactors are also likely to be more expensive to run.
> Safety chain?
> Nuclear energy is produced by atomic fission. A large atom (usually uranium
> or plutonium) breaks into two smaller ones, releasing energy and neutrons. The
> neutrons then trigger further break-ups. And so on. If this “chain reaction”
> can be controlled, the energy released can be used to boil water, produce
> steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. If it runs away, the
> result is a meltdown and an accident (or, in extreme circumstances, a nuclear
> explosion—though circumstances are never that extreme in a reactor because the
> fuel is less fissile than the material in a bomb).
> In many new designs the neutrons, and thus the chain reaction, are kept under
> control by passing them through water to slow them down. (Slow neutrons
> trigger more break ups than fast ones.) This water is exposed to a pressure of
> about 150 atmospheres—a pressure that means it remains liquid even at high
> temperatures. When nuclear reactions warm the water, its density drops, and the
> neutrons passing through it are no longer slowed enough to trigger further
> reactions. That negative feedback stabilises the reaction rate.
> Most American nuclear reactors are pressurised-water reactors of this type.
> So is the reactor being built at Olkiluoto in Finland—the largest planned to
> date. This reactor will produce 1,600 megawatts when it starts generating
> electricity in 2009, enough by itself to supply the needs of 1.8m households.
> The Olkiluoto reactor has several protective measures against accidents in
> addition to its innate design. These include four independent emergency-cooling
> systems, each capable of taking heat out of the reactor after a shutdown,
> and a concrete wall designed to withstand the impact, accidental or otherwise,
> of an aeroplane. A second plant of similar design may be built at Flamanville
> in France. If this proposed power station withstands the scrutiny of a
> public inquiry and gets planning permission, it could be producing electricity by
> 2012. There are also plans to build four such nuclear plants in China.
> Canada, a country that has spent its entire history trying to distinguish
> itself from its southern neighbour, has its own nuclear design, too. Its
> pressurised heavy-water reactors, known as CANDU, are similar to ordinary
> pressurised-water reactors (or light-water reactors, as they are sometimes known) but
> they contain water in which the hydrogen atoms have been replaced by their
> heavier cousins, deuterium. Heavy water is expensive. However, the fuel used by
> CANDU is cheap.
> Light-water reactors rely on enriched uranium. The thing enriched is a rare
> but highly fissile isotope of the element. Enrichment is an expensive process.
> CANDU, by contrast, uses natural uranium. The cheapness of this fuel
> balances the cost of the heavy water. Moreover, instead of using a single large
> containment vessel, the fuel is held in hundreds of pressure-resistant tubes.
> CANDU reactors can thus be refuelled while operating, making them more
> efficient than light-water reactors. India has nuclear power plants based on the
> CANDU design, as does China. CANDU is passive in that the neutron-absorbing rods
> needed to stop the reactor rely only on gravity to drop into the reactor
> core.
> A South African design, called the “pebble-bed”, is, however, truly passive.
> Instead of water, it uses graphite to regulate the flow of neutrons, and
> instead of making steam, the reactor's output heats an inert or semi-inert gas
> such as helium, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, which is then used to drive the
> turbines.
> The name of the design comes from the fact that the graphite is used to coat
> pebble-like spheres of nuclear fuel. Like the CANDU design, pebble-bed
> reactors can be refuelled while running. China is also developing pebble-bed
> reactors.
> Further into the future, engineers are developing designs for so-called
> fourth-generation plants that could be built between 2030 and 2040. Work on these
> designs is the job of a ten-nation research programme whose members include
> America, Britain, China, France, Japan, South Africa and South Korea.
> Three of these designs are for fast reactors (which work without any need for
> the neutrons to be slowed down). These would have the nifty trick of
> generating their own fuel, since fast neutrons can convert non-fissile isotopes of
> uranium into highly fissile plutonium. But fast reactors have complicated
> designs that could prove expensive to build. They also operate at very high
> temperatures, so in two cases the cooling fluids pumped through their cores are
> liquid metals (sodium and lead).
> Whether such reactors would be apple-pie safe is a different question. But
> 2030 is still a long way away. Plenty of time for the sloganeers to sharpen
> their pencils.
>
--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
|
