This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nuclear Reactor Design Chosen - Not Because It Was Safe - But Because It Worked On Navy Submarines
Virtually all
of the nuclear reactors in the U.S. are of the same archaic design as
those at Fukushima (Indeed, MSNBC notes that there are 23 U.S. reactors
which are more or less identical to those at Fukushima.)
Called "light-water reactors", this design was not chosen for safety reasons. Rather, it was chosen because it worked in Navy submarines.
Specifically, as the Atlantic reported in March:
In the early years of atomic power, as recounted by Alvin Weinberg, head of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in his book The First Nuclear Era, there was intense competition to come up with the cheapest, safest, best nuclear reactor design.
Every
variable in building an immensely complex industrial plant was up for
grabs: the nature of the radioactive fuel and other substances that
form the reactor's core, the safety systems, the containment buildings,
the construction substances, and everything else that might go into
building an immensely complex industrial plant. The light water reactor
became the technological victor, but no one is quite sure whether that
was a good idea.
Few of these alternatives were seriously
investigated after light water reactors were selected for Navy
submarines by Admiral Hyman Rickover. Once light water reactors gained
government backing and the many advantages that conferred, other
designs could not break into the market, even though commercial nuclear
power wouldn't explode for years after Rickover's decision. "There
were lots and lots of ideas floating around, and they essentially lost
when light water came to dominate," University of Strasbourg professor
Robin Cowan told the Boston Globe in an excellent article on "technological lock-in" in the nuclear industry.
As
it turned out, there were real political and corporate imperatives to
commercialize nuclear power with whatever designs were already to hand.
It was geopolitically useful for the United States to show they could
offer civilian nuclear facilities to its allies and the companies who
built the plants (mainly GE and Westinghouse) did not want to lose the
competitive advantage they'd gained as the contractors on the Manhattan
Project. Those companies stood to make much more money on nuclear
plants than traditional fossil fuel-based plants, and they had less
competitors. The invention and use of the atomic bomb weighed heavily
on the minds of nuclear scientists. Widespread nuclear power was about
the only thing that could redeem their role in the creation of the
first weapon with which it was possible to destroy life on earth. In
other words, the most powerful interest groups surrounding the nuclear
question all wanted to settle on a power plant design and start
building.
***
President Lyndon Johnson and his
administration sent the message that we were going to use nuclear
power, and it would be largely through the reactor designs that already
existed, regardless of whether they had the best safety
characteristics that could be imagined. We learned in later years that
boiling water reactors like Fukushima are subject to certain types of
failure under very unusual circumstances, but we probably would have
discovered such problems if we'd explored the technical designs for
longer before trying to start building large numbers of nuclear plants.
The Atomic Energy Commission's first general manager - MIT professor Carroll Wilson - confirmed in 1979:
The
pressurized water reactor was peculiarly suitable and necessary for a
submarine power plant where limitations of space and wieght were
extreme. So as interest in the civilian use of nuclear power began to
grow, it was natural to consider a system that had already proven
reliable in submarines. This was further encouraged by the fact that
the Atomic Energy Commission provided funds to build the first civilian
nuclear power plant ... using essentially the same system as the
submarine power plant. Thus it was that a pressurized light water
system became the standard model for the world. Although other kinds of
reactors were under development in different countries, there was a
rapid scale-up of of the pressurized water reactor and a variant called
the boiling water reactor developed by General Electric. These became
the standard types for civilian power plants. in the United States and
were licensed to be built in France, Germany, Japan and elsewhere.If
one had started to design a civilian electric power plant without the
constraints of weight and space as required by the submarine, quite
different criteria would apply.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that there was another reason why all safer alternative designs - including thorium reactors - were abandoned:
The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs.
As Boing Boing notes:
Reactors
like this [are] flawed in some ways that would be almost comical, were
it not for the risk those flaws impart. Maybe you've wondered over the
past couple of weeks why anyone would design a nuclear reactor that
relied on external generators to power the pumps for it's emergency
cooling system. In a real emergency, isn't there a decent chance that
the backup generators would be compromised, as well?
It's a
good question. In fact, modern reactor designs have solved that very
problem, by feeding water through the emergency cooling system using
gravity, rather than powered pumps. Newer designs are much safer, and
more reliable. But we haven't built any of them in the United States
...
Not the Navy's Fault
This is in no way a criticism of the U.S. Navy or its submarine reactors. As a reader comments:
There are some things to know about Navy reactors:
- They don't store thirty years worth of used, spent fuel rods next to the reactor.
- They don't continue to operate a reactor that had a design life of 25 years for 60 years.
- The spent fuel pool is back on land on a base somewhere.
(In
addition, the reactors on subs are much smaller than commercial
reactors, and so have almost no consequences for the civilian population
if they meltdown. And if an accident were to happen on a nuclear sub,
the sub would likely sink or at least flood, presumably keeping the
reactor from melting down in the first place.)
There Are No Independent Regulators and No Real Safety Standards
But at least the government compensates for the
inherently unsafe design of American reactors by requiring high safety
and maintenance standards.
Unfortunately, no ...
As AP notes today:
Federal
regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry
to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards
by repeatedly weakening those standards or simply failing to enforce
them.***
Examples abound. When valves leaked, more
leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant
cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an
easier test of the tubes was devised so plants could meet standards.
***
Records
show a recurring pattern: reactor parts or systems fall out of
compliance with the rules; studies are conducted by the industry and
government; and all agree that existing standards are “unnecessarily
conservative.’’
Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - like all nuclear "agencies" worldwide - is 100% captured and not an independent agency, and the NRC has never denied a request for relicensing old, unsafe nuclear plants.
Indeed, Senator Sanders says that the NRC pressured the Department of Justice to sue the state of Vermont
after the state and its people rejected relicensing of the Vermont
Yankee plant, siding with the nuclear operator instead. The Nation notes:
Aileen
Mioko Smith, director of Green Action Kyoto, met Fukushima plant
and government officials in August 2010. “At the plant they seemed
to dismiss our concerns about spent fuel pools,” said Mioko Smith.
“At the prefecture, they were very worried but had no plan for how
to deal with it.”
Remarkably, that is the norm—both in Japan and
in the United States. Spent fuel pools at Fukushima are not equipped
with backup water-circulation systems or backup generators for the
water-circulation system they do have.
The exact same design flaw is in place at Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant of the same GE design as the Fukushima reactors.
At Fukushima each reactor has between 60 and 83 tons of spent fuel
rods stored next to them. Vermont Yankee has a staggering 690 tons of spent fuel rods on site.
Nuclear
safety activists in the United States have long known of these
problems and have sought repeatedly to have them addressed. At least
get backup generators for the pools, they implored. But at every turn
the industry has pushed back, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) has consistently ruled in favor of plant owners over local
communities.
After 9/11 the issue of spent fuel rods again had
momentary traction. Numerous citizen groups petitioned and pressured
the NRC for enhanced protections of the pools. But the NRC deemed
“the possibility of a terrorist attack...speculative and simply too
far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency
action.” So nothing was done—not even the provision of backup
water-circulation systems or emergency power-generation systems.
As an example of how dangerous American nuclear reactors are, AP noted in a report Friday that 75 percent of all U.S. nuclear sites have leaked radioactive tritium.
Indeed, because of poor design, horrible safety practices, and no real regulation, a U.S. nuclear accident could be a lot worse than Fukushima.
- advertisements -
+1 Excellent post, Richard. You probably got junked for lack of profanity.
This is not a criticism of the Navy. It is a criticism of civilians mindlessly scaling up Navy technology for huge civilian plants, and then not understanding the danger.
duh
Not exactly true, and definitely not to scale. The US Navy has an exemplary record at operation, mebbe the answer is let The Navy take over the Atomic Regulatory Comm. huh?
This is not a criticism of the Navy. What are you talking about?
Few things..it appears GE sure has alot at stake here, funny how intimate they are with the current administration,how much sway in getting new designs to the market
Re;WTF-247...the event you refer to was the New Madrid Earthquake, along the New Madrid fault in Mid America...an old rift zone. Massive quaking event. It sure would put the hurt on nukes along any rupture there.
Lastly, Jim in MN why no discussion of thorium as an alternative. If you have some references for me to read via the negative, please list me some good ones.
You don't need Wikipedia to know which way the wind blows.
Negatives, well there are a lot of factors, but just to boil it down so to speak:
1. Highly toxic, radiological hazards. Comparing these systems to 'worse' nuclear designs is a red herring. Thorium reactors are still nuclear power plants.
2. The required 'bridge' via reprocessing of conventional nuclear waste. That is one of the most dangerous industrial activities ever devised. Thorium is, as a rule, a cover for waste reprocessing/extending the above-ground nuclear waste cycle in a political economic sense.
3. Expensive. Non-market solution.
4. Uninsurable. Non-market solution.
5. Requires state domination of society. See 1-4 above.
6. Unavailable in a relevant time frame.
Hope that's a good list for starters. Sorry, no links, just reality.
I don't mind discussion, but after hundreds of 'thorium mania' posts here on ZH it's gotten to be a real snake oil show.
Big negative: The Power Elites are in control of the fuel enrichment cycle for uranium fueled reactors. -- not so with thorium. It can be used as-is.
The Power Elites don't like it when their chief method of control over the proles (energy) is compromised. They won't give up easily, you can bet.
There's a point that needs to be made. The number of meltdowns in PWR's run by the USN is zero. These reactors can be run in a responsible manner. It is always possible to design a safer reactor, or car, or airplane. That's a diversion from the real problem at Fukushima - which was, and remains, operational.
DonutBoy--the problem is that the design basis of each unit was (probably, haven't dug into it) more or less independent of the others. Evidence? They were siting two new ABWRs on same site.
Siting criteria, well, didn't include the entire island of Honshu translating like 3 M horizontally and 1 M (down) vertically. Then tsnuami. {now, I grant you, operational effects} I continue to postulate basemat cracks and e.g. cooling water pool vessels cracked after initial safe shutdown.
Did I say the entire island moved?
Have another donut--it is always possible to have a safer stair or cigaret-->go find Rickover on risk, for a start.
- Ned
{GW: I've been critical of your commentary before, but here are fertile areas to look at:
- site source term
- site common mode/cause failure
- emergency response staffing for site vs. unit (different basis)
- you could start for real at threemileisland.org--Kemeny and Rogovin reports pertain
good ludk}
There are some things to know about Navy reactors:
Right - that's my point. These are operational issues, not reactor design. I'm not saying there aren't better reactor designs, but PWR's could be operated safetly.
Not in the existing "socialize the losses - privatize the gains" political climate.
They could be operated safely, but then the sociopaths-seeking-power would shout "Communism!".
+1,000,000,000,000
USN meltdowns are classified. Cooling is also easier when you're UNDERWATER
Two points, spinone.
1. While details of a nuclear accident would be classified, you'd know that there was one when your sailors don't come home. We don't know exactly what happened to the Scorpion, which was entirely lost at sea, but photos of the wreckage don't indicate any problem with the reactor or propulsion system. The Thresher was lost due to a variety of sea valve failures, and not related to its reactor.
2. A submarine's cooling system is quite complex, since sea water must be pumped through the system, as you don't have a more passive gravity system.
Being 300 feet uderwater and under 9 atmospheres of pressure in a steel tube is not an easy environment.
502 error
hahahahahah luv'ed that my kind of sarcasm, bitter and smooth. subtle.
call me a cynic but,
Safe/Safety = $$$ signs = profits
anytime you hear it is for your safety or to keep you safe or it is safe or safer, think PROFITS.
that's it. That's all there is.
homo sapiens psychopathicus is large and in charge.
if this is evolution, then we are a dead end, a mistake, which evolution itself will remedy in due time.
Complexity and complex systems are finite processes and are infinite only in theory, at least in our hands.
complexity will reach an equilibrium not a singularity.
but that maybe my cognitive bias showing.
what would godel say about this? re nuclear power. probably that we're logarithmically wrong. he wouldnt say anything either for or against nuclear power generation itself. just our certainty and knowledge - usage - of it.
he would say that our knowledge of what we think we know is incomplete.
axiomatic you would think right?
right.
I do not know what to think of your avatar. Part of me wants to punch you in the nose, part of me wants to laugh my ass off, and lastly part of me might see that its makes a good point.
absurd isnt it?
i will absolutely take that as a compliment. and no kidding, that sequence seems natural to me. it's what i would do. = )
and thanks for understanding, what you stated is what I hope for.
it is really a comment on yourself. I 'm really glad. I could not ask for any more.
not for me to say at all, but in my limited experience, youre 1 in a 1000s
Lol, nicely stated.
fantastic, yum.
so bodyscanners aren't sterilization chambers?
what are you some kind of knowitall commie extremist islamofascistsss islamist???
consider yourself reported. reported. reported!!!
so bodyscanners aren't sterilization chambers?
so bodyscanners aren't sterilization chambers?
"It's for your safety." - Transportation Security Administration
"We'll safe the shit out of you." - Dept. of Homeland Security
"That farm food's not safe enough for you!" - Food & Drug Administration
"It's safe and healthy too!" - Dept. of Soilent Green Deployment
Steak Made from Human Excrement: Is It Safe?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110618/sc_livescience/steakmadefro...
my point is, you would think that would give the people playing god some pause, any pause....
hubris is my bread and butter. mine is yours, as yours is mine.
let me switch tracks a bit and close with one of my favorite lines from the bard,
which I hope the zh gga crowd will certainly appreciate,
if not necessarily in the same way as my favorite zh Belgian, Sudden Debt.
Hamlet:
"....If it be now, ’tis not to come.
If it be not to come, it will be now.
If it be not now, yet it will come—
the readiness is all..."
1st weapon to destroy mankind?
How about facts, not innuendo.
Has France ever had a serious nuclear incident?
yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Laurent_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Seems good compared to most other countries. What was Fukashima, Chernobyl, and TMI, they were all well over a 4 I believe.
Well, any technology has it's inherent problems. Cancer causing pollution, carbon release, fire, radiation, you name it. Problem is people are not willing to go back to living in the stone ages, so whats the solution? I sure don't know.
IMHO anything is better than being wiped out (off the face of the planet).
My understanding is that the safety issue is really about scale. Naval sub/ship sized reactors are down in the 50-200MW or so range. The containment and cooling is easier and you don’t have an unmanageable amount of nuclear fuel in worst case situations. Over fifty years of naval performance has been pretty decent.
Scale up beyond 250MW or more and the safety issues become dramatically more critical, not to mention the large amount fuel and spent fuel to manage and the large piles of nuclear goo to deal with if the SHTF.
Cooling is also easier when you're UNDERWATER
Superphénix almost was a disaster that would have made Chernobyl a walk in the park. Superphénix was a fast breeder reactor with plutonium and liquid sodium as the coolant.
From a French description of a Chinese advanced reactor project:
The main goals of the project are two-fold. Firstly, the economic competitiveness of commercial HTR-PM plants shall be demonstrated. Secondly, it shall be shown that HTR-PM plants do not need accident management procedures and will not require any need for offsite emergency measures.
I'm not sure even a horrific accident inside the U.S. would actually change things. For example, look at what's happened with the "BP Blowout" in the Gulf; it's apparent to me we've been lied to, but whether it's Nukes, Oil spills, Air safety, Weak levys & dams, Frankenfoods, what have you; Money talks and bullshit walks.
This country needs a good enema!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKtUmmpzxJo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3SHms0m9uQ
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/05/exelon_forced_to_clean_up_t...
VHS Betamax
Rain in Colorado along the Front Range today... around 2.5x background radioactivity according to my geiger counter.
TPOG
Radiation is always higher after a rain fall because of Radon.
one thing that people need to consider is this. Radiation counters work on a zeroed out principle like an electric scale for weighing things.
I am prior active military from 2002-2010, when I was active part of my job was to wear rad monitors while out on patrol. We had to be trained on how to properly use them as part of carrying them. The main point that we were trained in was that they had to be turned on and zeroed out prior to leaving base because if you turn one on in the presence of radiation it will mistakenly identify that level of radiation as zero with increases being miniscule higher.
Most people buying geiger (rad) monitors for consumer use aren't able to zero them out effectively if we are already in the presence of radiation from Fukushima, thus the actual radiation could be significantly higher and no one would know except those whove been monitoring prior to the incident to begin with and keeping their machines on.
There is not one person in our entire bureaucratic system who can say, "This is totally unacceptable, I want it dealt with immediately and thoroughly". We have a vicious, deadly enemy at the gates that is being repelled by water pumps.
Granting life extensions to 60 years for many of these plants, as the NRC has done, is nothing less than criminal. The engineers designed the plants for 30 year operational lifespans. Now we have largely financial people and lawyers deciding that the plants are good for 60 years? This is the definition of insanity!
Nuclear power plant workers are also notoriously underpaid relative to the jobs they perform. For instance, control room operators only get $100k typically, which, incidentally, is the pay of a first year investment banking new graduate, not an engineer with many years of experience and literally the lives of millions of people on the line. Underwater nuclear divers apparently start at $30k/year, for doing underwater welding in those spent fuel pools. Practically the entire industry pays its workers like sh*t, and as a result, probably isn't getting the best talent available to tackle the issues that exist, nevermind people who are financially secure enough that they can speak out about problems without fearing the loss of their income and careers.
Spent fuel storage is another huge issue -- after 5 years of underwater cooling, spent fuel should be moved to open-air storage with special storage cannisters, but for some reason, some plants have literally decades worth of fuel sitting underwater for no good reason other than sheer laziness and efforts at cost control amongst the reactor operators. Those pools were only designed for *short term* storage of fuel.
Finally, the government is reducing the burden of regulation on corporations, so they can flourish and provide us all with jobs!
As for the pay, well, if those corporations have trouble finding people for the low salaries, they can always bring in H1B Visa workers. I'm sure they'll do a great job! BOOM! Ha ha ha
Granting life extensions to 60 years for many of these plants, as the NRC has done, is nothing less than criminal. The engineers designed the plants for 30 year operational lifespans. Now we have largely financial people and lawyers deciding that the plants are good for 60 years? This is the definition of insanity!
Nuclear power plant workers are also notoriously underpaid relative to the jobs they perform. For instance, control room operators only get $100k typically, which, incidentally, is the pay of a first year investment banking new graduate, not an engineer with many years of experience and literally the lives of millions of people on the line. Underwater nuclear divers apparently start at $30k/year, for doing underwater welding in those spent fuel pools. Practically the entire industry pays its workers like sh*t, and as a result, probably isn't getting the best talent available to tackle the issues that exist, nevermind people who are financially secure enough that they can speak out about problems without fearing the loss of their income and careers.
Spent fuel storage is another huge issue -- after 5 years of underwater cooling, spent fuel should be moved to open-air storage with special storage cannisters, but for some reason, some plants have literally decades worth of fuel sitting underwater for no good reason other than sheer laziness and efforts at cost control amongst the reactor operators. Those pools were only designed for *short term* storage of fuel.