INTRODUCTION
Before understanding about decommissioning, we need to understand how Nuclear Power plants get their power to generate electric energy to its clients, us. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) explains it like this, “Simply put, a nuclear reactor is a device, which produces heat. In a nuclear power station, the reactor performs the same work as a boiler in a coal, gas or oil-fired station. Heat is required to turn water into steam. This steam spins large turbines, which in turn drive the generators that produce electricity. There are different kinds of nuclear reactors, but they all operate on the same basic principle. A nuclear reactor produces heat by splitting uranium atoms. This process is called a "nuclear reaction, or fission” - https://canteach.candu.org/Info/Documents/CANDU%20-%20How%20a%20Reactor%20Works.pdf
In the phase of decommissioning, it is just a fancy way of stating the Nuclear power plant is being closed down. In this process there are 3 options, according to the US NRC (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission); “... DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered “delayed DECON,” a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled and the property decontaminated.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are permanently encased on site in structurally sound material such as concrete and appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting restricted release of the property. To date, no NRC-licensed facilities have requested this option.” - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
INTEREST
As a consumer, we are broadly taught about how the nuclear power plants stations give us power and a bit on how they work. I’m really interested in the how and why, decommissioning of a nuclear power plant would be closed down other than a serious problem(s) arising. I have never heard of a Hydro-Electric plant being closed or having serious problems other then the weather cutting off our electricity. Those it’s not the fault of hydro’s damns and more of the cable lines. As I review the topics of choice, when I saw the topic “Nuclear Decommissioning of Old Nuclear Plants” my interest dove into it and want to know more about it.
IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE CLASS
In class, we are taught the details almost everything that is needed know about decommissioning and how they work just without even knowing it. Everything we learnt, dealt with the nucleus and the power inside it, starting by giving us a background of history on how we obtained today’s knowledge. The nucleus of an atom is very interesting topic. There is so much power in there that I didn’t even know. When the nucleus is split (creates fission by bombarding the nucleus with neutrons) or if two light nuclei are mixed (creates fusion by forming a heavier atom), they both release energy. Although fusion create much more energy than fission can. This is your basic start of the formula to create bombs; all you need is the right elements. We can’t forget isotopes. I think this is where it all begins really; they are an element with more neutrons in its nucleus than its stable atom is an isotope of the particular atom. Isotopes are even more reactive than normal atoms. Isotopes of certain elements decay; as they decay they go through a transformation process where they lose some their energy and they do this until they are in a stable state. It sounds like nothing but this violent change is the cause of radioactivity. The radiation comes in 3 forms; alpha and beta not as penetrating and gamma, which is very penetrable. Causing severe illness, cancer and can kills the environment. While these isotopes are going through these intense changes it releases an incredible amount of energy. This energy is hardness and converts to the electricity by none other than these Nuclear Power plants. We also learnt about half-life. This is the rate it takes for a radioactive substance to disintegrate, some from a few seconds to billions of years. This information is important because dealing with decommissioning of nuclear plants they have a lot of nuclear waste and radioactive substances that need to be carefully disposed of in cement containers.
We study how there are advantages, two of which, I will state below and disadvantage, I will also state underneath. After the fuel bundles are in the reactor they are radioactive. We learnt about radioactive things can ionize matter. And have a penetration level. The radioactive substance in the reactors can be covered in concrete since it can penetrate through it after a certain thickness. We learn that eventually they will decay but some have a longer half-life than other elements.
I have discovered that Nuclear Power plants are widely used around the world. These plants are becoming more popular. As popular and safe as these power sources seem. When everything is working fine, everything is great; however, if something does go wrong, more specifically in the reactor, very serious and dangerous consequences that can happen. I ask, is the risk worth it?
ADVANTAGES
Creating jobs and financial growth has always been a plus no matter who you are. If something going to create economic growth it usually makes everyone happy. According to the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), “The nuclear energy industry can play an important role in job creation and economic growth, providing both near-term and lasting employment and economic benefits. The 104 nuclear units in the U.S. generate substantial domestic economic value in electricity sales and revenue - $40-$50 billion each year - with over 100,000 workers contributing to production.
Worldwide, over 150 new nuclear plant projects are in the licensing and advanced planning stage, with 65 plants currently under construction. As a result, the years ahead will see a surge in demand for materials, components and services for the global nuclear industry. The Department of Commerce estimates the global market for nuclear products, services and fuel at $500-$740 billion over the next 10 years.
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise 24 percent by 2035, about 1 percent each year. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity to meet rising demand and replace aging infrastructure. Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can provide emission-free, affordable baseload electricity...” - http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/whitepaper/jobs
Another great advantages to is how much more energy it provides than other types of power plants. Here is a statement by the OPG (Ontario Power Generation), “One of these half-metre fuel bundles can provide enough electricity to power 100 homes for a year ... Nuclear power stations are able to produce tremendous amounts of electricity from a very small amount of fuel. A single 2.5 centimetre nuclear fuel pellet can produce the same amount of energy as 807 kilograms of coal, 677 litres of oil, or 476 cubic metres of natural gas.” - http://www.opg.com/education/kits/grade9student.pdf
DISADVANTAGES
As there are advantages, there are also disadvantages. This first one is a double whammy, Not only is a Nuclear Reactor core only have a life span of 30 to 40 years, but there are countries wanting to extend that 40 years to 60 years. Do I smell a problem in this that decision?
In an article from “Thomson Reuters is the world’s largest international multimedia new agency ...,” states, “By the end of 2022, 22 out the 58 reactors in France, the world's most nuclear-reliant country, will have been in operation for 40 years. In the absence of investment decisions, an implicit decision has already been made that commits France either to prolong the reactors' lifespan beyond 40 years or to quickly change the energy mix, which implies more investment," said the report on the costs of the French nuclear power sector.
By the end of 2022, 22 out the 58 reactors in France, the world's most nuclear-reliant country, will have been in operation for 40 years.
The report, published on Tuesday, said that if the reactors' lifespan was limited to 40 years, this would mean having to build 11 new-generation reactors by 2022.
"Putting in place such an investment programme in the short term is highly unlikely, even impossible," it said.” – Articles named “UPDATE 1-France must extend nuclear reactor lifespan-audit`
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/nuclear-france-report-idUSL5E8CV46820120131
As my second disadvantage is, although it doesn’t cause chemical waste, it does cause serious nuclear waste. There are 3 categories of waste, “Almost all manufacturing and industrial activities produce “waste”. The use of nuclear energy is no different, except that the amount of waste is small and, while potentially hazardous, it is very well managed. Radioactive waste is generally divided into three categories: low, intermediate and high, depending on the level of radioactivity. Low-level waste includes slightly contaminated clothing and items that could come from various activities, such as hospital departments of nuclear medicine, research laboratories, as well as nuclear power plants. Most nuclear waste falls in this category. Intermediate-level waste is typically items such as ion exchange columns from the cooling system of a nuclear power plant, which contain a higher level of radioactivity. High-level waste contains a large amount of radioactive material. The term is often used for spent fuel from a nuclear reactor. This is somewhat of a misnomer since the spent fuel has considerable potential energy, which many countries recognize by reprocessing the fuel from their nuclear power plants to be used again.” – says CNA (Canadian Nuclear Association) http://www.cna.ca/english/nuclear_facts/management/nuclear_waste.html
“The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily handled with great care. This "high level waste" will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced
in the natural habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is one billion years. If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. ... The much larger volume of much less radioactive (low level) waste from nuclear plants will be buried at shallow depths (typically 20 feet) in soil. If we assume that this material immediately becomes dispersed through the soil between the surface and ground water depth (despite elaborate measures to maintain waste package integrity) and behaves like the same materials that are present naturally in soil (there is extensive evidence confirming such behavior), the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.” - Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D (Professor at the University of Pittsburgh) states in his articles RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
CONCLUSION
My position in all this is, I’m fore Hydro-Quebec and its safe, renewable, expensive ways versus nuclear power and its potential hazardous ways. All Nuclear Reactors have an expiry date. At some point in time each reactor core will have to be decommissioned and they will have to find new places to build newer power plants and eventually run out of space to build their plants and store their waste.
In today day in age, everyone is use to all the electrical gadgets that help make our lives easier and a way of making things be done faster in our fast pacing lives (example vacuuming carpets and floors versus sweeping). I doubt that people will be able to live happier using less energy especially since we have adjusted to our current way of life. I personally think that we (as a society) should either find better sources of power. For example: making solar panelling cheaper and available. I heard that in Ontario, that farmers are building solar panelling farms and that some residential people have solar panels. “Some farmers seem to be switching crops. Instead of growing wheat or corn, they're installing solar panels and windmills on their barns or even whole fields, creating "wind farms" and "solar farms", cashing in on the 6 cents per kW/hour that Ontario Hydro now pays. Some people are also supporting the idea of a new law that will make all new homes and new buildings required to have solar panels on them. These solar panels could provide extra power to the electrical grid, emergency power for the owners, and decrease the electrity shortage.” Stated on the website http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/environmental/The-Solar-Powered-Myth.html
They make a point not to use too much to be able to store the rest and give it to Ontario Power Generation Power Company and get a return in profit eventually paying back their investment.
For fun, I had checked out some YouTube videos about some ideas made by people that have many advantages and use the power behind the Hydro. Some that looked good was “Scale Wave – Power Station,” - http://youtu.be/fet4bCYvmLw claims that is “The world's first commercial-scale wave-power station has gone live off the coast of Portugal. This footage shows how the 140m-long snake-like devices work.” Another one is which my favourite the “Hybrid Bridge” is. “Hybrid Bridge produces energy from wind, waves and ocean currents. Different concept of including a floating bridge. Boats may pass over the bridge. The cars are running in an underwater tunnel.” - by http://youtu.be/TkaPjhYuPtQ These are just a few of the ideas, there are several others using the current under water to the power of the wave.
My position in relation to the ADVANTAGES is that I’m glad that it creates jobs and that a small amount of nuclear energy makes more electric energy, there are several other power station ideas out there that will still create jobs and make it a less dangerous environment for these workers to work under. I came up with at least 3 ideas where these workers can potential work. As for the amount of energy these naturally powerful sources of Mother Nature are much safer.
My position in relation to the DISAVANTAGES is that at some point in the life span of the Nuclear Power Plant it will have to be decommissioned. The costs of decommissioning are in the billions and although the ones in Canada save part of their profits to put towards it, but France don’t seem to have thought about that. In the Reuter articles from the website (
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/nuclear-france-report-idUSL5E8CV46820120131 articles called “UPDATE 1-France must extend nuclear reactor lifespans-audit” ) is also states – “Greenpeace said the failure to make any investment decisions in the past is resulting at higher financial costs and putting the population at risk.” Which although it may have been a good cheap source they will have to find some deep pockets to help with the decommissioning if the EDF audits the process of letting them use the reactor till it is 60. With that said, why use a source of power that we have to relocate every couple of decades? When there are sources that can stay put. Regardless of the nuclear waste, we will eventually run out of space to put it. Use something that renewable and creates less waste like Hydro Electric or solar panelling.
I meant although there have only been 5 disasters, “Chernobyl, Soviet Union, Kyshtym, Soviet Union, Windscale Fire, Great Britain, Three Mile Island, United States, Tokaimura, Japan states http://news.discovery.com/tech/top-five-nuclear-disasters.html,” And now we have 6, with the Fukushima Disaster to add to it. How many more will there be until the point it finally looked at? Or maybe a better way to state this question is, how much damage needs to be caused before, it’s thought of as a dangerous source of energy?
I will admit that they make good power stations, by to me; it’s not worth the potential risk they can offer.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1 - https://canteach.candu.org/Info/Documents/CANDU%20-%20How%20a%20Reactor%20Works.pdf
Simple form of how we get power from a Nuclear reactor
2 - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
3 ways to decommission a Nuclear Power Plant
3 - http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/whitepaper/jobs
Financial aspect of nuclear power plants. Creating jobs and amount of money it brings in.
4 - http://www.opg.com/education/kits/grade9student.pdf
Provides the amount of power in a small amount used versus other power sources.
5 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/nuclear-france-report-idUSL5E8CV46820120131
France having problems with decommission because they don’t have the money for it and they want to expand the life of the reactor. And now they want to extend the life from 40 to 60.
6 - http://www.cna.ca/english/nuclear_facts/management/nuclear_waste.html
Various types of nuclear waste and how it must be “disposed” of
7 - http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
ON radioactive waste
8 - http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/environmental/The-Solar-Powered-Myth.html
Farmers farm electric sources now like solar panelling and wind mills
9 - http://youtu.be/fet4bCYvmLw ideas of other types of power station – Scale Wave – Power Station
10 - http://youtu.be/TkaPjhYuPtQ ideas of other types of power station – Hybrid Bridge
11 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/nuclear-france-report-idUSL5E8CV46820120131
France did not set money aside to decommission their nuclear power plant when the reactor life span is up.
12 - http://news.discovery.com/tech/top-five-nuclear-disasters.html
Top 5 disasters not including the Fukushima Disaster
No comments:
Post a Comment