Group items tagged

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made available to the public the combined license (COL) application for a new reactor at the Nine Mile Point site near Oswego, N.Y. The applicant, UniStar, submitted the application and associated information Sept. 30. The application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.html. The UniStar application seeks approval to build and operate an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at the site, approximately six miles northeast of Oswego. The EPR is an Areva-designed pressurized water reactor, with a nominal output of approximately 1,600 megawatts of electricity. Areva filed its application to certify the design on Dec. 11, 2007. A version of the EPR is currently under construction at the Olkiluoto site in Finland and at Flamanville, France. The EPR application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/epr.html.

Article Highlights * With the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain seemingly dead, reprocessing again is being proffered as a way to deal with U.S. nuclear waste. * But the reality is that reprocessing neither solves the waste problem nor reduces safety risks. * Research should continue into next-generation reactors that can burn spent fuel, but until then, dry casks and repositories must be pursued. There are 104 commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States, which supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. These are light water reactors (LWR) fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing initially about 5 percent of the fissile isotope uranium 235. Each nuclear plant receives about 25 tons of LEU fuel annually, in the form of long pencil-thin rods of uranium oxide ceramic enclosed in thin metal "cladding", that are bundled together (in bunches of 300) to form fuel elements. Each year, nearly the same amount of spent fuel is removed from each reactor, but it's now intensely hot, both thermally and radiologically. In fact, even after five years of cooling in the "swimming pool" associated with each reactor, a fuel element would soon glow red-hot in the atmosphere because of the continuing radioactive decay of the products of nuclear fission. At this point, spent-fuel elements can be loaded into dry casks and stored at reactor sites on outdoor concrete pads with two casks added each year per reactor.

Article Highlights * With the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain seemingly dead, reprocessing again is being proffered as a way to deal with U.S. nuclear waste. * But the reality is that reprocessing neither solves the waste problem nor reduces safety risks. * Research should continue into next-generation reactors that can burn spent fuel, but until then, dry casks and repositories must be pursued. There are 104 commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States, which supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. These are light water reactors (LWR) fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing initially about 5 percent of the fissile isotope uranium 235. Each nuclear plant receives about 25 tons of LEU fuel annually, in the form of long pencil-thin rods of uranium oxide ceramic enclosed in thin metal "cladding", that are bundled together (in bunches of 300) to form fuel elements. Each year, nearly the same amount of spent fuel is removed from each reactor, but it's now intensely hot, both thermally and radiologically. In fact, even after five years of cooling in the "swimming pool" associated with each reactor, a fuel element would soon glow red-hot in the atmosphere because of the continuing radioactive decay of the products of nuclear fission. At this point, spent-fuel elements can be loaded into dry casks and stored at reactor sites on outdoor concrete pads with two casks added each year per reactor.

"If you want to understand why the U.S. hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three decades, the Vogtle power plant outside Atlanta is an excellent reminder of the insanity of nuclear economics. The plant's original cost estimate was less than $1 billion for four reactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 was nearly $9 billion, for only two reactors. But now there's widespread chatter about a nuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co. is finally trying to build the other two reactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14 billion. And you can be sure that number is way too low, because nuclear cost estimates are always way too low. That's why no Wall Street moneyman in his right mind would finance a new reactor. But President Obama has located an alternative financier: you. On Tuesday he announced an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for the new Vogtle reactors, the first step in the Administration's push to jump-start the nuclear construction industry. Obama also urged Congress to set aside political differences and triple the budget for nuclear loan guarantees. "

"Ongoing problems with nuclear waste might resurrect plans for reactors that would leave less of it dry-cask-for-nuclear-waste NUCLEAR WASTE: Will fast breeder reactors solve the issue of nuclear waste? On February 16, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees totaling more than $8 billion for two new light-water reactors in Georgia, part of an initiative to restart the nuclear power industry in the U.S. Just three weeks earlier, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu had announced the formation of a Blue-Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to resolve what to do with the waste produced by those future reactors-as well as the 2,000 metric tons a year produced by the 104 reactors currently in operation in the U.S. After all, the Obama administration has halted plans to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada-a geologic repository that never opened.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

The Senate is considering two bills that are meant to help small and modular nuclear reactor development. Unfortunately, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act (S. 2052) and the Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 2812) would have the opposite impact. Together (or individually), these bills would smother the private-sector initiative and free-enterprise spirit that has driven small and modular reactor development in recent years. Instead of embracing this new and innovative approach to nuclear energy development, these bills would subject the small and modular reactor business to the same government-depressed trajectory that plagues traditional reactors.

The Senate is considering two bills that are meant to help small and modular nuclear reactor development. Unfortunately, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act (S. 2052) and the Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 2812) would have the opposite impact. Together (or individually), these bills would smother the private-sector initiative and free-enterprise spirit that has driven small and modular reactor development in recent years. Instead of embracing this new and innovative approach to nuclear energy development, these bills would subject the small and modular reactor business to the same government-depressed trajectory that plagues traditional reactors.

The University of Wisconsin Research Reactor and Neutron Radiography Reactor at INL have been converted from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has now converted or verified the shutdown of a total of 67 HEU research reactors around the world. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in cooperation with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the University of Wisconsin, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy recently completed the conversion of the two research reactors through NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).

The University of Wisconsin Research Reactor and Neutron Radiography Reactor at INL have been converted from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has now converted or verified the shutdown of a total of 67 HEU research reactors around the world. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in cooperation with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the University of Wisconsin, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy recently completed the conversion of the two research reactors through NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).

France's Areva (CEPFi.PA) said on Monday it would modify the design of its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) before the end of the year, following a request by the French, UK and Finnish nuclear safety bodies. The bodies asked in a joint statement that the control and safety systems within the reactor be independent from each other to avoid both systems failing at the same time. "The safety of the EPR is not called into question," a spokeswoman at the world's largest nuclear reactor maker told Reuters.

France's Areva (CEPFi.PA) said on Monday it would modify the design of its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) before the end of the year, following a request by the French, UK and Finnish nuclear safety bodies. The bodies asked in a joint statement that the control and safety systems within the reactor be independent from each other to avoid both systems failing at the same time. "The safety of the EPR is not called into question," a spokeswoman at the world's largest nuclear reactor maker told Reuters.

France's Areva (CEPFi.PA) said on Monday it would modify the design of its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) before the end of the year, following a request by the French, UK and Finnish nuclear safety bodies. The bodies asked in a joint statement that the control and safety systems within the reactor be independent from each other to avoid both systems failing at the same time. "The safety of the EPR is not called into question," a spokeswoman at the world's largest nuclear reactor maker told Reuters.

"New Subsidies for Constructing Reactors Would Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers Massive government subsidies proposed in two pending Senate climate and energy bills would shift the risk of financing and constructing new nuclear reactors from the industry to U.S. taxpayers, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Such subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curbing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming, including energy efficiency programs and renewable energy technologies, the group said. The UCS analysis is the first to quantify the most significant subsidies for the nuclear industry proposed in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). Those subsidies include expanded federal loan guarantees, reduced accelerated depreciation periods, a 10 percent investment tax credit, expanded production tax credits, and expanded federal regulatory risk insurance. Assuming eight new reactors are built over the next 15 years, UCS found those subsidies would amount to approximately $40 billion, or $5 billion per reactor, slightly more than half of what a typical 1,100 megawatt reactor would cost to build today. If the industry is able to secure federal approval to build the 31 new reactors it is expected to request, UCS found that total proposed subsidies could be worth from $65 billion to as much as $147 billion."

"Operators starting up the Millstone Unit 1 reactor in Connecticut on September 1, 1972, had their efforts complicated by a problem with a demineralizer intended to clean up water from the main condenser before sending it to the reactor vessel to be turned into steam. Despite having been only recently placed in service, the demineralizer exhibited signs that its capacity to purify water had been nearly fully consumed. The workers took the troublesome demineralizer out of service and replaced it with another demineralizer. Half an hour later, the second demineralizer exhibited similar signs. The operators began shutting down the reactor. About an hour later, the chloride level of the reactor water increased above maximum allowable limits. The operators scrammed the reactor (i.e., shut it down rapidly). The main condenser was located directly beneath the turbine. Steam entered the main condenser after spinning the turbine blades to rotate the generator and make electricity. The steam is condensed back into water by flowing past thousands of metal tubes containing cool water - in this case, sea water from Long Island Sound."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has docketed, or accepted for review, a combined license (COL) application from Entergy for a new reactor at the River Bend site in Louisiana. Entergy's application, submitted Sept. 25, is the 14th COL request the agency has accepted for review. The application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.html. Entergy seeks approval to build and operate an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) at the site, about 24 miles northwest of Baton Rouge, La. The NRC currently is reviewing the ESBWR design for possible certification. The staff will consider any findings concerning the design during the review of the River Bend application. Information on the ESBWR application is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.html.

Call it a case of having too many medical eggs in too few baskets. Just over a year ago, in December 2007, a nuclear reactor in Chalk River was in the news because of maintenance issues. The reactor had been shut down for repairs, and Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, would not allow it to restart until safety improvements were made. Problem was, the reactor produced most of the world's medical isotopes - used to test for cancer, heart problems and bone ailments. Faced with a massive diagnostics problem, the federal government passed legislation that allowed the reactor to be restarted, despite the regulatory body's objections. The 50-year-old reactor is crucial to the world supply of medical isotopes. Even though it was supposed to be decommissioned in 2005, it and another reactor in Petten, Netherlands, produce close to 85 per cent of the world's medical isotopes, through a process that involves the nuclear decay of molybdenum-99.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for review the combined license (COL) application for an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at the Bell Bend site near Berwick, Pa. PPL Bell Bend submitted the application and associated information Oct. 13. The application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.html. PPL Bell Bend is seeking approval to build and operate an EPR at the site, approximately seven miles northeast of Berwick. The EPR is an Areva-designed pressurized water reactor, with a nominal output of approximately 1,600 megawatts of electricity. Areva filed its application Dec. 11, 2007, to certify the design. A version of the EPR is currently under construction at the Olkiluoto site in Finland and at Flamanville, France. The EPR application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.html.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has docketed, or accepted for review, a combined license (COL) application for two new reactors at the Victoria County site near Victoria City, Texas. Exelon's application, submitted Sept. 3, is the 11th COL request the agency has accepted for review. The application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.html. Exelon seeks approval to build and operate two Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors (ESBWR) at the site, approximately 13 miles south of Victoria. The NRC currently is reviewing the ESBWR design for possible certification. The staff will consider any findings concerning the design during the review of the Victoria County application. Information on the ESBWR application is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.html.

* India's Department of Atomic Energy plans to build a large fleet of fast breeder nuclear reactors in the coming years. * However, many other countries that have experimented with fast reactors have shut down their programs due to technical and safety difficulties. * The Indian prototype is similarly flawed, inadequately protected against the possibility of a severe accident. India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is planning a large expansion of nuclear power, in which fast breeder reactors play an important role. Fast breeder reactors are attractive to the DAE because they produce (or "breed") more fissile material than they use. The breeder reactor is especially attractive in India, which hopes to develop a large domestic nuclear energy program even though it has primarily poor quality uranium ore that is expensive to mine.

Nuclear reactors in the United States should be phased out, and replaced by technologies that don't threaten public health with the emission of radioactive chemicals, urges the Cancer Prevention Coalition. A recent energy bill sponsored by Congressional Republicans proposed building 100 new nuclear reactors across the United States in the next 20 years. The proposal, which would double the current U.S. total of 104 operating nuclear reactors, would amount to a nuclear renaissance, as no new reactors have been ordered since 1978. Concerns about global warming gave utilities the idea for this revival since reactors don't emit greenhouse gases while generating power, and utilities have stopped closing old reactors while proposing 33 new ones to be sited in New England, throughout the South and Southeast, and in Texas, Utah and Idaho.

The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) plans to deploy the B&W mPowerTM reactor - a scalable, modular, passively safe, advanced light water reactor system. The B&W mPower reactor, with its scalable, modular design, has the capacity to provide 125 MWe to 750 MWe or more for a five-year operating cycle without refueling, and is designed to produce clean, near-zero emission operations. A newly formed entity, B&W Modular Nuclear Energy, LLC, will lead the development, licensing and delivery of B&W mPower reactor projects. Features of the B&W mPower reactor include:

Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency. WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns. Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

The Energy Department is close to naming a blue-ribbon committee to consider new policies for dealing with spent nuclear reactor fuel but has further to go in completing negotiations on loan guarantees for a first group of new nuclear reactors, Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman said. Poneman also said he is interested in the possibilities for development of smaller modular nuclear reactors, calling this a potentially important carbon policy option in the United States and abroad. "I certainly agree with the premise that small, modular reactors are a very interesting path to explore," Poneman said in an interview this week.

The Energy Department is close to naming a blue-ribbon committee to consider new policies for dealing with spent nuclear reactor fuel but has further to go in completing negotiations on loan guarantees for a first group of new nuclear reactors, Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman said. Poneman also said he is interested in the possibilities for development of smaller modular nuclear reactors, calling this a potentially important carbon policy option in the United States and abroad. "I certainly agree with the premise that small, modular reactors are a very interesting path to explore," Poneman said in an interview this week.