|
Even if INL can persuade energy companies to sign on, long construction times guarantee that the nuclear renaissance will be gradual. “These new reactors won’t come into broad use until the second half of the century. So for the next 50 years, we are going to be relying on the current generation,” Richter says.
Maintaining today’s nuclear plants will require finding a practical, safe, and politically palatable way to dispose of waste. “As to spent fuel, love it or hate it, we have it,” Richter says. “We have 60,000 tons of spent fuel from reactors that are now running.” A refined SFR design could eventually mitigate the waste issue because of the reactor’s ability to burn spent fuel, but even in a best-case scenario, the reused fuel would retain unsafe levels of radioactivity for several centuries. The nuclear industry will also have to address widespread fears about the reactors themselves. Insiders claim that today’s nuclear plants are far safer than many people realize.
George W. Bush was supportive of INL’s nuclear research, but so far it is not clear if the Obama administration shares that enthusiasm, McCarthy says. Still, the threat of climate change has once-skeptical environmentalists like Greenspirit’s Patrick Moore—along with environmental icons like Stewart Brand and James Lovelock—throwing their support behind nuclear energy. “I think the environmental movement made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons,” Moore says. “It’s clear to me that no technology will do more than nuclear to reduce our use of fossil fuels.”
Going Nuclear
In its efforts to develop safer, cheaper, and more efficient nuclear reactors, the Idaho National Laboratory has researched half a dozen next-generation reactor designs; these two (the sodium-cooled fast reactor and the very-high-temperature reactor) are the most promising. Both are configured to exploit the laws of nuclear physics to make a meltdown impossible, even in the face of an engineering failure or operator error. Whether or not either design is practical is still unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * *
Nuclear proponents in Thailand acknowledge there have been problems with a few of the other countries nuclear power plants in the past. However, if mentioned at all, it is a brief reference – then on to cheerier news.
|
Here’s a quote from Mr. Kopr Kritayakirana, who is described as “an expert adviser with the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office (NPPDO).” The following paragraph was gleaned from a written debate the front Business page of the Bangkok Post newspaper on March 3rd, 2008. bangkokpost.com/Business/03Mar2008_biz22.php
|
|
“Of the 440 reactors operating worldwide, there has been one significant accident at the Three Mile Island plant in the US. Nobody died. There has also been one catastrophe at Chernobyl in what was then known as the USSR. The Chernobyl reactor was not running in the regulated commercial mode.”
|
[comment] The radioactive cloud emitted by Chernobyl meltdown effected territory as distant as 1400 Km away. From the destroyed power plant in what is now Ukraine, a NNW wind blew the cloud of radioactivity across hundreds of square Kms of cities and farmland, and contaminated bovine milk production in far away Sweden. If a Thai reactor suffered a similar fate, winds could take the radioactivity to any part of Thailand. Just as sobering, airborne radioactivity could blow in to parts of Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Burma, and Southern China. Even some border areas of India, Bangladesh, Singapore, and the Indonesian Island of Sumatra are within reach of a Chernobyl-type contamination - depending on which way and how hard the wind was blowing during a worst-case-scenario.
Of course, authorities tell us that a meltdown is all but impossible with today's safeguards Yet those are the same words that officials were using pre-Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Technology may improve over time, but it will never be infallible.
Similarly, we're told computer operating systems are always improving, yet we know that glitches happen with even the most modern software. Indeed, much of what keeps a nuclear reactor safe is its software. All of Thailand's nuclear plant software will be imported and, after the foreign trainers leave, it will be in the hands of Thai technicians. Indeed, if a serious glitch is discovered (hopefully not too late), it's likely that foreign experts will be called upon to come and straighten things out. Case in point; in late 2007, nearly-new security software for the SUV airport broke down. Passengers were backed up badly, and nothing was diagnosed or fixed until outside experts were able to jet over to Thailand to fix the problems.
Similar scenarios can be expected for the precision hardware needed to safely run a power plant. As with any machinery that is expected to run around the clock, nuclear plant machinery will need to be serviced and parts replaced from time to time. Thailand's engineers do not have a sterling reputation for maintenance. One example: a popular water amusement park for children had some old rusting components fall apart during a particularly busy day in 2007. A structural piece of a water slide broke, and several children tumbled down two meters and were severely injured.
The water slide was low-tech and all the joining parts were readily visible to an inspector at any time prior to that major mishap. In contrast, nuclear power plants are high tech and consist of many parts, such as pumps, fitted pipes, check valves, pressure relief valves (PRV's), on-off cocks, heat sensors, and Geiger counters. Their workings are often not visible. People living near nuclear power plants will have to put their trust in inspectors and technicians doing their jobs professionally – and that parts are maintained and replaced according to schedules.
The hourglass shape that most people associate with nuclear plants doesn't pose a danger. That large structure merely serves as a giant heat exchange. Even if it were bombed by terrorists, it would not cause radiation leaks. The meat of the matter is the smaller containment building. Actually it's about the size of a twelve unit apartment complex, so using the word 'smaller' is misleading.
The containment structure is made from reinforced concrete. One hopes that Thai sub-contractors will not try to save money by using less than top-quality building materials. The legacy of the new airport's concrete runways and turn-around pads does not bode well for confidence - but we can always hope for the best. The concrete for a reactor should also be stressed while curing (drying) in order to add strength. The stressing process might involve long bolts that are tightened with nuts while the concrete is curing. That's one type of 'hardening' method that is used for 'Minutemen' nuclear missile silos and for bomb shelters.
The concrete used for Kuala Lumpur's twin towers had special ingredients (including ground-up electronic chips) added to the mix in order to make it especially strong. Tests were conducted during the construction. One time, about half way up one of the towers, the concrete was found to be 99% of the required strength. The floor had already been poured and had started to harden, yet the inspector required that the entire floor be removed and rebuilt with the mandated 100% strength concrete mix. Could something like that happen in Thailand construction? It's doubtful that if a lone inspector finding something that was 99% in compliance - would require that an already-poured and dried segment be torn up and done again. Anyone familiar with Thai construction would be aghast to see that happen.
USSR's Chernobyl and the USA's Three Mile
Island power plants were run and maintained by two countries which were at the
vanguard of technology at the time.
Yet even those power plants suffered problems.
How much safer will Thai reactors be?
Thailand is not near the top of the list of technologically adept
countries. Even tech-savvy Japan had
radiation leaks at nuclear facilities - which is to say; glitches can happen in
any country. No matter how advanced the safety precautions are said to be,
things can go wrong.
April 19, 2008 article in Nation Newspaper / Bangkok
|
The following article was written by Nophakhun Limsamarnphun for ‘WATCHDOG’ opinion section of the Nation newspaper.
http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/04/19/opinion/opinion_30071051.php
[comment] the text looks like it was taken directly from an EGAT press release.
|
|
Title: Nuclear plan looks sound; political will must follow Subtitle: A government blueprint for Thailand's proposed nuclear power plant (NPP) project shows that it will take 13-14 years from now to actually commission a 4,000-megawatt plant.
Starting last year, the government set a period of three years for pre-project activities, namely: power system planning, a feasibility study and a site survey. By the end of the third year (2010), the government will have to make its final decision on whether to embark on this long-term and capital-intensive scheme.
If it is given the go-ahead by then, there will be no turning back, because project implementation needs a very long lead time of up to a decade before commissioning. For instance, site selection and qualification alone will take about two years, since it is a technically complicated and politically sensitive process.
About four decades ago, Ao Pai, off the eastern province of Chon Buri, was picked as a potential site, but the project was later suspended.
The new NPP blueprint shows that the preparation of project specifications, as well as bidding, will also be completed during the first two years. It will then take one year to evaluate all bids and another year to negotiate the contract, estimated to be worth a combined Bt300 billion.
Other key elements of the project-implementation phase are completing project engineering, applying for local and international licenses and procuring equipment and materials.
Plant construction will take six years to complete, starting in the seventh or eighth year of the project.
Site preparation and excavation will take about six months, while construction of the reactor building and containment facilities will take about four years.
Construction of auxiliary buildings will follow, while installation of primary systems will be done during the 10th and 13th years of the project. During this period, there will also be construction of turbine and generator buildings.
In terms of manpower, the blueprint shows that 800-1,000 qualified personnel will be needed to complete the 4,000-megawatt plant.
Dr Somporn Chongkum, executive director of the Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology, said about 200 physicists and 500 engineers would be needed. A significant number of these personnel should have advanced degrees (masters and PhDs) in their respective fields.
Somporn said an open invitation is expected to attract a large pool of qualified personnel if the salaries are competitive.
At present, a bachelor's-degree holder will get around Bt15,000-Bt30,000 a month while a master's degree holder will receive Bt20,000-Bt50,000 depending on experience.
As for PhD holders, the salary range is Bt40,000-Bt100,000 per month, depending on experience.
According to the blueprint, the project will need power-plant, electrical and other engineers with 10-15 years of experience, with special training in nuclear physics and power-plant operation. In addition, personnel with advanced degrees in economics and law, with similar special training, will be in demand.
In general, manpower will be sought from the power and industrial sectors, for special technical training, as well as from educational institutes where personnel are already trained in these areas. [italics added]
All in all, the blueprint appears sound. But the big question is whether the government will have the political will to get the project off the ground come 2010.
- - - - - end of article - - - - - |
[comments regarding the Nation’s ‘opinion’ article above]: That last sentence; “All in all, the blueprint appears sound. But the big question is whether the government will have the political will to get the project off the ground come 2010” is suspect. It could be better phrased by turning it around to read; “All in all, the blueprint appears unsound. But there’s no question the government has the political will to get the project off the ground come 2010.”
The Nation article lacks any mention of EGAT or of alternatives, (or insurance, or dealing with waste, or exorbitant price of uranium fuel), though perhaps it’s not fair to fault an article for what it omits to mention.
However, seven of the final eight paragraphs talk about the many high paying jobs that will be created. Talking about creating hundreds of jobs is one of the biggest lures that Thai government agencies will use – to try to sway support for their nuclear plans.
A solar power plant will also create jobs, though not nearly as many engineers (or security personnel) will be needed for solar - as will be needed for nuclear. The reason is simple: Solar plants are simpler technology and, with less hired personnel (professional and others) the overall costs for solar are lower. Additionally, costs for planning and constructing a solar facility are considerably less than nuclear costs, but you already knew that.
* * * * * *
American futurist Ray Kurzweil accurately predicted that a computer would beat a man at chess, and that a worldwide communications network (the internet) would emerge by the 1990s. He made those predictions years before they came to pass - and years before others perceived of those possibilities.
Kurzweil was recently part of a panel convened by the National Association of Engineers and, together with Google co-founder Larry Page and billionaire investor T. Boone Pickens, concluded that solar energy technology is improving at such a rate that it will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear. Here is what Kurzweil said about solar's future:
"One of my primary theses is that information technologies grow exponentially in capability and power and bandwidth. If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half that cost. That is happening with solar energy — it is doubling every two years. Every two years we have twice as much solar energy in the world.
Solar costs are coming down rapidly — we are only a few years away from parity. And then it's going to keep coming down, and more people will be gravitating towards solar. Even those who don't care about environmental issues will go with solar, just because it makes economic sense.
Right now, solar is at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a hundred percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. People say we're running out of energy. That's only true if we stick with archaic thinking. We are awash in energy from the sun."
* * * * * *
22. Conservation and Breathable Air
Conservation of energy and resources should be the first goal of Thailand electricity policy. Every baht not spent on an electric bill, is a baht that can be put in the bank, or spent on other things. Every watt not used through conservation, lessens the burden of building ever-bigger power stations.
For farang visiting Thailand for the first time, one of their most noticeable observations is how many spaces are so cold. Most farang who come to visit, do so to get away from their frigid home countries in North America and Europe. That’s why it’s a warped joke to finally get to a tropical country and be subject to chilly temperatures when entering buildings or AC buses. It would be just a quirky observation were it not for the knowledge that it’s sucking much electricity unnecessarily. Some of the coldest places are movie theaters. To go to a Thai movie without added clothing is to risk being uncomfortably chilled. Never mind that the theater is as big as a basketball stadium and there may only be three or four viewers, the place must be refrigerator cold.
Ubiquitous Seven Eleven stores also rate high in over-loading on AC, as do banks, government buildings, and VIP buses. Whether or not outdoor temperatures are pleasantly cool and/or it’s raining, managers of such places deem that air conditioners must be on full bore. The manager of one small Seven Eleven said her electric bill was 12,000 baht per month. Besides full-blast AC units, there were refrigeration units and 54 one-meter long fluorescent lamps on all the time. That’s just one small shop in a small town. Imagine the amounts of kilowatts unnecessarily used in shops and homes throughout Thailand – it’s staggering! There are also low-tech ways to bring in natural light (hint; windows and mirrors), but then we’ll go charging off on yet another tangent.
Ironically, there are clinics in Japanese cities that charge high rates for sunshine. As with any big city, Tokyo’s tall buildings block out much of the sun. However, entrepreneurs have designed a way to use fiber optics to channel the sun’s rays down from a rooftop – on in to their ‘clinic.’ The rays are not magnified. In the clinic, well-heeled customers lay back in cushioned reclining chairs – while ‘technicians’ use a 2 centimeter diameter flexible optic tube to apply the sun to their clients’ skin.
People can buy bottled water, and on some NYC sidewalks there are dispensers selling oxygen for relief from smog. Now, Tokyo is at the vanguard of selling sunshine in clinics. Water, air, sunshine; that’s some pretty basic stuff. What’s next, gravity for sale? – for people who are too spaced out to keep their feet on the ground?
The number one way to lessen electricity usage in Thailand is to try to impress upon people that a cool ambient temperature is ok, and that cold is unnecessary. There are several low-tech ways to posit a modicum of sanity to the situation. Tinted and shaded windows can help, as well as shading from trees. Strategic placement of small fans near ceilings would help considerably. Solar powered DC fans would be preferable to electrically driven fans. When outdoor temperatures are reasonably cool, such fans could be used to blow air in (with paper or cloth filters if need be). Conversely, the same fans (or others) could be used to blow warm air out when need be.
One of the main reasons Thailand needs nuclear reactors – is to keep millions of cubic meters of Bangkok building interiors unnecessarily cold.
Some people have a ‘perfect’ temperature in mind. Two degrees below is ‘too cold’ and two degrees above that ideal temperature is deemed ‘hot.’ It might seem cute to complain about such barely perceptible changes in temperature, but it has consequences. For example, if a person thinks the temperature is too hot (when it’s not), that person may nonchalantly flick on an air-conditioning unit which may churn away for hours trying to keep a large space cold. The AC’d person might wear added long-sleeved shirts or even a jacket, and may leave doors and windows open – thereby negating the power usage, and cooling the great outdoors.
The folks at EGAT might not mind, because they’re in the business of selling electricity, but whomever is paying the high electric bills should think about the ramifications of such actions. On a deeper level, every bit of electricity we use, has to get generated – usually at some harm to environment. That’s not to say we should all become hermit tree-huggers and quit using electricity – but rather it’s good to gain an awareness of the consequences of our actions – big and small.
If, for example, the million or so office workers in Bangkok decided to turn their air-conditioners on when it’s only a tiny bit warmer than their ideal temperature – then that’s one heck of a large electricity load on the grid. That’s millions of cubic meters being cooled – where a few well placed fans and a few less over-shirts would preclude those AC units having to chug away. AC units also release warm air outside, so alley ways in particular get heated. Along with smog coming out of internal combustion engines, the waste heat from a million AC units may add one or two degrees to Bangkok’s year ‘round warm temperature. And add to that the heat
