RE: stupid question re: Energy Policy and Nuclear FissionEnergy

As Al pointed out correctly, nuclear power plants are designed to operate
for about 30 years. Part of this limited design life is due to the neutron
bombardment of the guts of the nuclear reactor that may lead to a
deterioration of the materials in the reactor.

If you think about it, there have been a lot of improvement in electronics
over the last 30 years and the control and instrumentation of a nuclear
power plant needs to be update periodically. It is possible to upgrade the
controls and instrumentation of a nuclear power plant but it is also
possible to refurbish or overhaul a nuclear power plant and extend the life
of the plant. Refurbishing of the CANDU power plant in New Brunswick is
planned and that will extend the life of the plant probably another 30
years. Refurbishing of nuclear power plants in Ontario is also underway.
There is no real need to return a nuclear reactor site to "green field"
conditions. Rather, the site can be retained for successive nuclear power
plants. It should be cheaper and simpler than to license a new site, partly
because the citizenry at an established nuclear power site will have learned
to live with nuclear power and, more likely than not, have accepted nuclear
power and the benefits of well-paying jobs this industry provides.

Eventually, nuclear power plants may have to be decommissioned but the same
applies to any power plant, hydro dam, windmill, or solar panel. It's just
that, in the nuclear industry, we have recognized that this task needs to be
faced eventually. I would like to see the decommissioning costs of any
facility be factored into the total costs and sufficient funds set aside for
future generations to deal with the excesses of previous generations. In
fact, it would even be better if we could factor in all the costs, economic,
personal (think of the miners that lost their life in the recent coal mine
accident in West Virginia and the loss of the people on the drill rigs off
the coast of Newfoundland some years ago), and environmental in assessing
the real cost of the energy we use. We might be in for some surprises!
Again this is an area where Christian stewardship has a role to play.

It may be prudent to wait as long as possible to decommission nuclear power
plants because the radioactive components decay over time (radioactive waste
is different from heavy elements like mercury and cadmium in that
radioactive waste decays over time). Thus, if we wait 30 years to take a
nuclear power plant apart, the Co-60 inventory will have decayed over ~6
half lives, for example.

Finally, I want to make a few comments on disposal of radioactive wastes.
This topic has been researched for close to 40 years now. Deep geological
disposal is the preferred option and enough research has been done to
suggest that it can be done safely without an unacceptable risk to future
generations. However, there appears to be no great rush to dispose of the
wastes and critics have the luxury to argue against geological disposal.

Chuck Vandergraaf

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Al Koop
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:24 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; rogero@saintjoe.edu
Subject: Re: stupid question re: Energy Policy and Nuclear FissionEnergy

RO: If nuclear fission is a necessary source of electrical energy in the
next century, why should "decommissioning" costs be factored into the
cost/benefit analysis?

AK: It just depends on how much you wish to saddle future generations with I
guess. You can read about it here. I think this site may be a bit
optimistic, but maybe not.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip13.htm

From that site:

 All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it
is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, nuclear
plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though some have proved
capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40
to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it
needs to be decommissioned and demolished so that the site is made available
for other uses. For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all
clean-up of radioactivity and progressive demolition of the plant.

DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS

The International Atomic Energy Agency has defined three options for
decommissioning, the definitions of which have been internationally adopted:
        . Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/Decon in the
US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory
control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated
activities. Usually, the final dismantling or decontamination activities
begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following
removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use.
        . Safe Enclosure (or Safestor(e)): This option postpones the
final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to
60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the
eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur.
        . Entombment: This option entails placing the facility into a
condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to
remain on-site without the requirement of ever removing it totally. This
option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive
material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure
such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the
remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.

There is no right or wrong approach, each having its benefits and
disadvantages. National policy determines which approach is adopted. In the
case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for
the decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience
and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the
decommissioning program. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or safestor(e))
allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing
radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements
in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and
also costs.

RO: More particularily, I'm not sure what you mean by "decommissioning".
Would the updating/upgrading of an exisiting plant contribute to this cost?

AK: I would not include updating or upgrading in such costs.
Received on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:21:26 -0600