The death of a thousand cost-cuts. Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage

[TalkingDog]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263&page=45

Alvarez and his co-authors concluded that such an event would lead to the rapid heat-up of spent fuel in a dense-packed pool to temperatures at which the zirconium alloy cladding would catch fire and release many of the fuel’s fission products, particularly cesium-137. They suggested that the fire could spread to the older spent fuel, resulting in long-term contamination consequences that were worse than those from the Chemobyl accident. Citing two reports by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL, 1987, 1997), they estimated that between 10 and 100 percent of the cesium-137 could be mobilized in the plume from the burning spent fuel pool, which could cause tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths, loss of tens of thousands of square kilometers of land, and economic losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The excess cancer estimates were revised downward to between 2000 and 6000 cancer deaths in a subsequent paper (Beyea et at., 2004) that more accurately accounted for average population densities around U.S. power plants.

Alvarez and his co-authors recommended that spent fuel be transferred to dry storage within five years of discharge from the reactor. They noted that this would reduce the radioactive inventories in spent fuel pools and allow the remaining fuel to be returned to open-rack storage to allow for more effective coolant circulation, should a loss-of-pool-coolant event occur. The authors also discussed other compensatory measures that could be taken to reduce the consequences of such events.




But hey, safety costs too much, so lets nuke the fuck out of everybody and call it a penny saved.

[enough]

1. Americans are going to have to learn about how much of this stuff is spread all over our country.

Thanks for the useful link.

[MadHound]

2. Nuclear waste, another reason to get rid of this unneeded, dangerous source of energy.

The cost simply isn't worth it.

[Fuddnik]

3. Now consider how much denser the Japanese population is.

The tragedy is almost incomprehensible.

[Statistical]

4. Who is blocking the safety?

Nuclear power companies have long since advocated for a long term repository and have even paid for one.

Yucca mountain was closed by pressure from anti-nuclear groups. The spent fuel is spread out over hundreds of sites because those who oppose nuclear power oppose any attempt to store spent fuel in a safer manner.

Even if nuclear power stopped today. Every single plant shutdown never to start the spent fuel issue would remain. People who oppose a repository do so because not having a repository gives them a talking point.

[MadHound]

5. No, Yucca Mt. was closed because the site was simply too dangerous

Lying at the intersection of three fault zones and regularly flooded with water, water that within two weeks flows in the the Las Vegas water supply. That is why the anti-nuke folks were against Yucca Mt., safety.

But hey, thanks for gratuitously smearing people who were doing the right thing.

[Statistical]

6. So you would support an alternative deep geological repository?

I recall you saying in the past you oppose any repository. Which is it?

Also in the interim (given that designing, building, and storing fuel in any repository would take decades) some have pushed for an interim spent fuel storage facility. A hardened above ground facility designed to store spent fuel in concrete vaults safely for decades. A small number of well guarded sites with extensive human and electronic monitoring run by the DOE would improve the security and safety of all spent fuel in this country.

Even those who oppose new nuclear plants should be for storing spent fuel in a safer manner. Right? So would you support a Interim term storage facility?

Yucca mountain was and is safe. It was closed because of politics. Still at a minimum we can build interim spent fuel storage facilities.

[hootinholler]

8. IIRC Yucca was abandoned because of geological features with the potential to leach.

As described above. A better spot would be in granite or perhaps a salt dome, but where ever it is (and we can overcome NIMBY) it needs to be dry and within an impermeable geological feature.

-Hoot

[BeFree]

9. "..at a minimum we can build interim spent fuel storage facilities."

So why haven't they? What are they waiting for?
Is Fukushima what they have been waiting for?

Because, now, the government has to step in and bail out the nukes.
The private companies could never afford on their own to solve the waste problem.

[Duende azul]

10. And you can safely bet, if nukes weren't a private, capitalist business

you wouldn't find that much nuke advocates on discussion boards.

[Statistical]

11. Nope. Nuclear utilities PAID for disposal (well more correctly American ratepayers did).

They are prohibited from removing spent fuel from the site. It is the property of the DOE. Spent fuel can only be moved to a certified storage facility. The authority for designing and building a facility is solely the DOE. The DOE has authorized no facilities hence there is nowhere to move the spent fuel.

Funds have been paid for a storage facility. Funds continue to be paid for a storage facility. It is included in each kWh of electricity generated. Yet the DOE has built no storage facility. It is politics.

"We can't use nuclear because of the spent fuel". "We can't properly store the spent fuel because then we could use nuclear". Catch-22.


Of course you believe the fuel should be stored properly right? So you will support building a DOE run interim storage facility?

[BeFree]

13. That's beautiful

Blame the government for the problem.
Why not just offer us nuke tea and be done?

Or.... you could come up with a foolproof way of storing the wastes for a thousand years?
Bwahahaha! You got nothing. Just nukie tea.

[Statistical]

15. I don't blame the government I simply am pointing out they are the only ones who can build a facilit

Governmental policy is shaped by public opinion and a significant number of people oppose building any storage facility.

Here is the reality. If nuclear power ends tomorrow, every plant stops instanlty and is never used again we STILL need to store the spent fuel safely. Maybe we shouldn't put it underground at least not initially. The Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility was designed to safely store fuel for a century. That is a far easier engineering challenge then tens of thousands of years. Maybe in a couple decades we can build a deep geological repository.

Still a good first step would be securing and consolidating the spent fuel in a single govt run facility? No. Currently law only allows the government the authority to build a storage facility. Specifically the DOE. Actually they were mandated to have a facility in place by 1980. People like you have opposed any attempt to do so and likely will oppose any future plans forever.

Ending nuclear power doesn't make the spent fuel issue go away. So what is your solution? Will you support at least as first step an interim spent fuel storage facility?

[BeFree]

17. That's a stupid question

Of course I support taking care of the waste. See, I have not ignored the waste issue like pro-nukers have. So when the industry and the government come up with a plan that fixes this horrendous problem, who would be against that?

But, you now finally see, one can only hope, that there is no good fix and to keep doing the same thing - building more - and expecting a change, is insanity. INSANITY. INSANI TEA!

[Statistical]

18. So you support building a govt run interim spent fuel storage facility?

Would you agree that a single well guarded, secure, and monitored facility is superior to the current situation?

I imagine the issue of fuel storage will be coming up again after the problems with spent fuel ponds in Japan.

[BeFree]

19. No

I don't agree that a single place as you imagine (YES IMAGINE) is the solution.

The only real solution, right now, is to quit making more problems.

You see, playing along with the assholes that have put us in this spot, is to drink their tea.
I will not drink from that cup.

They have lied to me and tried to poison me already.

And you are offering nothing more than that same tea.

After 50 years of nuke wastes piling up, and no solution on the horizon, the only wise thing to do is stop.

[Statistical]

20. So ok for the sake of argument we end nuclear power then what?

Keep the spent fuel spread out all around the country in facilities designed for short term storage?

How is that superior to a single (or maybe a few) government run & owned storage facilities designed and built to store spent fuel safely for say a century?

How could it possibly be better to keep the existing spent fuel all around the country on power plants some very close to major cities?

Who gains under that scenario?

"The only real solution, right now, is to quit making more problems."
Ok but that does nothing about existing spent fuel. You say the "pro-nukers" have their head in the sand. Doing nothing isn't a solution. It is just pretending away the problem.

[BeFree]

21. """OK""""

Really? You agree we should stop creating more of the problem?

Damn.... that's pretty cool. Or am I reading you wrong?

[BeFree]

26. Hello!!

Where'd ya go?

[Duende azul]

24. You are blurring the issues.

Even if you had Yucca mountain, there would still be cooling ponds.
The cooling ponds exist independent of final disposal.

You know that perfectly well.
You explained it yesterday in another thread.

IIRC in the same thread where you claimed, the spend fuel ponds were a negligible problem.
Hours later they were up in smoke.
And you told no fission possible in spent fuels.
Later on TESCO admitted, that a recritcization even in the ponds was a possibility.

So there we are. You may understand that I'm reluctant to take promises for a "well guarded", "secure" and "monitored facility" with great enthusiasm.
Buzzwords don't bring security. Fukushima once was all of the above.

[Statistical]

27. One of the dangers in US and Japan is there is an excessive amount of fuel cooling ponds.

Part of that reason is there is no storage facility. Fuel only needs to spend about 5 years in cooling pond before it can be casked and transported.

Reactor fuel is good for about 5 years (1/3 of core is changed every 18 months). So while there is still the need for cooling ponds it would reduce the amount of nuclear material at the plants.

If Fukushima had fuel older than 5 years offsite there would only be about 12 cores worth of fuel in danger. Not only does the reduce the amount of nuclear material it improves the safety margin of the pools as there is less thermal output. Currently Fukushima has nearly 28 cores worth of spent fuel onsite.

The situation is even worse in the US. Many plants have almost 40 years worth of spent fuel on site. Largest plants are 4 reactors. That is nearly 32 cores worth of fuel.

Is a govt run storage facility a silver bullet? No. However there is no credible argument against building one. Even if US ends nuclear power (which is highly unlikely) it will be a phase out. Germany is "anti nuclear" yet still continues to operate reactors. The issue of spent fuel will be around for a long time.

[Duende azul]

32. Oh boy. "The issue of spent fuel will be around for a long time"? It's forever.

Measured against human lifespan.

In Germany the population is overwhelmingly "anti nuclear".
But the corporations still run the show. Although that might change.

How to address the problem of accumulating spent fuel at the sites?
Easy. Stop production. But you advocate to run further into a blind alley. Accumulating more toxic shit.
And from that accumulation originates the threat towards all of us:
we're obligated to relief the industry of that burden, or else we are even more in danger.
Honestly, I feel threatened.

[Statistical]

33. Say we do stop. What then? Leave it spread out in 100+ sites all around the country?

Of course not. At a minimum we should place it in a secure storage facility.

There is no reason to. Absolutely none. There is no possible scenario where leaving spent fuel spread out around the country is better than safely storing it in a govt facility.

"we're obligated to relief the industry of that burden, or else we are even more in danger."
What relief. Electric customer have had the cost of such a facility added to their electric bill for 4 decades now. Every kWh of electricity from nuclear power plants includes a fee for spent fuel storage. Money earmarked specifically to build such a facility. The DOE is mandated to build a facility. They simply haven't.

[BeFree]

28. Shamefull, isn't it?

Ya try to reason with some people and they go off on tangents and start making stuff up.

Meanwhile the problem just grows and grows.

[Duende azul]

30. Yep.

But more and more people are not willing to take it any longer.

That's why there are out in force. Maybe the last ditch effort of the nuke industry.

:hi:

[Johonny]

14. The guy simply wants to believe

he always advocates for nuclear power here on DU, nothing will convince him otherwise. I think arguing it will just waste your energy.

As Harry Reid said the other day. Massive transport of our nuclear material to a central location for storage is simply too huge a security risk and too large a target. And as other noted while some countries smaller in scale than US do it. The massive government oversight and infrastructure used to do it simply is unpopular in the US. There are a lot of reasons beyond the Yucca sight itself as to why the idea was abandon. But some people don't want to hear the reasons. Just some no nothing hippy freaks. They want to believe.

[Statistical]

16. So if transportation is a risk an unacceptable one then the spent fuel will never move.

Not 10 years from now, not 100 years from now, not 1000 years now. It will sit the same place it is now. in facilities build under DOE direction for SHORT TERM Storage. It will spend centuries spread out across the country in facilities that were never built for that?

The reality is the fuel HAS to move to a more secure facility. Even if we end nuclear power the fuel STILL needs to be moved. So transportation either now or in a decade or in a century will be a requirement. Ending nuclear power doesn't make the spent fuel issue go away.

1 storage facility (at least an above ground interim faciity) under governmental control, well guarded and monitored continually

vs

spent fuel in hundreds of private power plants all around the country.

Which is better? Please don't just say no nuclear power. Ok fine, you get your wish nuclear power ends. Now what. Which is better? Spent fuel in hundreds of facilities on private property or securely under governmental control?

[MadHound]

34. How about this,

Store the spent fuel rods in several, as in dozens, government facilities, guarded by the government, at the expense of the the nuclear industry.

I agree that I would rather have the rods in government hands, however since it was private industry that foisted this mess on us, private industry needs to at least pay for us cleaning up after them. However storing the spent fuel in one place is akin to keeping all your eggs in one basket. I would rather deal with a smaller problem if something goes wrong than a major or catastrophic problem.

[Duende azul]

7. Your trotting out the same talkingpoint again and again

Don´t expect anyone to trust the same folks who brought us this mess, who brought us Three-Mile-Island, who constructed centrals over geological faultlines.
THAT industry is going to handle the waste disposal responsibly? Really this time they will? How naive can you be?

They have paid for one? How can they claim to have paid for thousands of years in advance?
If the real cost of this technology was up to them instead of socialized , we wouldn't talk about nukes anymore.

[Statistical]

12. No I don't think that. The responsibilty rest the DOE.

You are aware that all spent fuel is the property of the DOE. Utilities pay the govt to store the fuel. The government simply hasn't done anything. Every year utilities (and thus indirectly rate payers) pay the govt for spent fuel storage. The government has failed to meet any of its obligations.

Utilities are prohibited from moving spent fuel without approval from NRC and DOE. Spent fuel can only be moved to a certified storage facility. Only DOE has the authority to authorize and certify an interim or long term storage facility. A very nice catch-22.

Of course you believe the fuel should be stored properly right? So you will support building a DOE run interim storage facility?

[Duende azul]

22. Look, you have it backwards. Nukes are hazardous all the way from mining to wastedisposal.

Let's begin at the start.

Stop uranium mining.
Shut off the plants.
Then we might start to see how to take care of the last step. Disposal of already existing toxic waste.

If you don't show the slightest inclination to give up your nuke habit, why should society and especially the population of one region offer to bring out the waste and take care of it?
Why should they and coming generations take the risk, only to let you stick to the nukes?

Give up the habit, and we might talk.

[Statistical]

23. How about locate the storage facilities on or near the site of an decomisioned nuclear plant?

The spent fuel exists. Not properly storing it doesn't change that. It just makes nuclear less safe.

Nobody wins. There is nobody who is pro nuclear that wants to keep spent fuel for decades or centuries in facilities intended for short term use. The DOE advised utilities to plan on a storage facility to open by 1980. So facilities designed to store spent fuel were based on that timeline.

who wins by keeping spent fuel spread out across hundreds of sites? Properly storing the spent fuel is the right thing regardless if you are pro or anti nuclear energy. Sad that you can't see that.

[Duende azul]

25. This is a HOSTAGE situation.

If we don't help the nuke industry out with disposing of their waste they merely threaten us with even "less safe" nukes.

[Statistical]

29. Your hostaging that unless we end nuclear power we shouldn't do anything about spent fuel.

We know it is potentially dangerous, and puts large amounts of nuclear material near major cities.

There is no good reason to avoid building a government run storage facility. There is no possible scenario where it is better to have cooling ponds next to reactors filled to the max rather than in safe storage under govt monitoring.

You can be anti-nuclear. There are logical reasons to end nuclear power but to block safe storage of spent fuel THAT IS HOSTAGE situation. "Lets make nuclear as dangerous as possible so hopefully public opinion will change".

[Duende azul]

31. Nope. The Hostage situation was given the moment the nuke industry started.

No one could opt out.
From that moment on the industry held all humans hostage. And that extends to future generations.