Suggested Answers To Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
Disclaimer = “Yours truly” would like to disclose, for what it’s worth, that the Three-Mile-Island nuclear accident occurred while his son was in utero (to be born 9/7/79) while my former wife-of-33-years and I were enjoying a three-week “last hurrah” in Spain-Morocco-Portugal. Since NYC is only 200 miles or so downwind from Harrisburg PA, we decided to stay in Europe until it was clear that it was absolutely safe for my son-to-be to return. “Yours truly” would also like to disclose that with prevailing winds anywhere in the world coming from the west, he occasionally thinks about how SLC is fewer than 700 miles downwind from California’s earthquake zones which contain nuclear plants.

Question 1

How big are nuclear-power reactors?

Answer 1

The reason for this question is that in March 2007 shortly after winning his Nobel prize, Al Gore testified before a U.S. Senate Committee that nuclear reactors “come in only one size – extra large.” It would appear that Al Gore was merely voicing the common misperception.

The first nuclear reactor built in the U.S. was for the Nautilus nuclear-powered submarine which was launched in 1954. All of our submarines since 1954 and all of our aircraft carriers built in the last 4 decades have been powered solely by on-board nuclear reactors.

These reactors, of course, are tiny compared to the typical land-based nuclear power reactors. The reason, of course, is that large reactors are more economical, but U.S. Naval submarines and aircraft carriers do not have the option of using larger reactors.

Incidentally, you might be amused to know that virtually all land-based nuclear power plants are staffed by retired U.S. Navy nuclear-power personnel.

Question 2

How much fuel is required for a nuclear-power reactor?

Answer 2

A 1,000 megawatt coal-fired electrical-generating plant requires 110 railroad cars of coal EVERY DAY.

A 1,000 megawatt nuclear-powered electrical-generating plant requires only ONE 18-wheel tractor-trailer truck delivering new fuel rods EVERY 18 MONTHS.

Question 3

How much power is produced by the nuclear fission of one uranium atom, compared to the power produced in burning (aka oxidizing) the carbon in a single fossil-fuel molecule such as comprises coal, oil, gas, etc.?

Answer 3

2 million times as much.

Question 4

How much greenhouse gas is produced by a nuclear electrical-generation plant? By a coal-fired electrical generation plant?

Answer 4

Nuclear – none.

Coal-fired – you don’t even want to think about it!!!

Question 5

How much electricity is generated in the U.S. from nuclear power? Coal-fired plants? Hydro? Other?

Answer 5

Per the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the sources for electricity generation in the U.S. in 2010 =

Coal – 56.1%
Nuclear – 17.3%
Natural Gas – 15.5%
Hydro – 9.4%
Other – 1.7%

Question 6

How much electricity is generated in France from nuclear power?

Answer 6

According to the International Energy Agency, 77.1% of France’s electricity was produced by nuclear-power plants in 2010. According to http://www.CIA.gov, this enabled France to export to other countries 11.0% of the electricity it produced.

Question 7

Is the earth's core or the surface of the sun hotter? Why?

Answer 7

The earth’s core is 7,000ºF. This is hotter than the surface of the sun.

Scientists estimate that 60% - 90% of the heat in the earth’s core is produced by nuclear power as uranium and thorium in the earth’s core comprise the earth’s largest nuclear reactor!!!

No wonder that molten lava billows out of any fissure in the earth’s surface!!!

Question 8

When was the first nuclear electrical-generation plant built in the United States? The last?

Answer 8

The first was in 1969. The last was in 1979 – coinciding with the Hollywood movie “China Syndrome” (Jane Fonda & Michael Douglas) which was released two weeks before the Three-Mile-Island accident and eerily resembled what happened at Three-Mile-Island.

Question 9

How many nuclear electrical-generation plants are currently awaiting federal government approval, including those under construction in anticipation of approval?

Answer 9

As of 2011, the U.S. has 104 commercial nuclear reactors at 65 sites – as noted in Answer No. 8, none have come on line since 1979.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responsibility for licensing nuclear-power plants in the U.S. There are many different kinds of permits that the NRC issues at different stages, for example, early site permits, design certifications, limited work authorizations, operating permits, etc., etc.

The NRC’s web site does not disclose the number of applications for the various types of permits. However, media reports describing a “nuclear renaissance” beginning in the Bush Administration, indicate that there are more than 100 applications for the various types of permits and that two projects are under construction (presumably pursuant to “limited work authorizations”).

Question 10

How many nuclear electrical-generation plants are being constructed in China? In India?

Answer 10

As of 2011, China has 13 nuclear reactors spread among 4 sites, and 27 reactors under construction. Its goal is to raise the percentage of China’s electricity generated from nuclear power from 1% to 6%.

As of 2010, India had 20 nuclear reactors spread among 6 sites, and 5 new sites under construction that will increase capacity by 57%. India’s goal is to raise nuclear capacity rapidly from 4,780 MW in 2010 (about 3% of total electricity generation) to 64,000 MW by the year 2032.

Question 11

What do the answers to Questions 9 and 10 say about the economic viability of nuclear power?

Answer 11

They imply that both countries are tossing out “an anchor to windward” – (1) that coal-fired electrical-generation plants are still the backbone of their electrical-generation industries because they have sufficient domestic coal production, but (2) that there are probably some geographical areas that cannot be served economically by coal, and accordingly (3) that they anticipate the cost of oil will increase as they and other emerging economies around the world grow, so increasing nuclear capacity to curb imports of an increasingly-expensive commodity makes sense.

Question 12

What do the U.S. Department of Energy statistics say about the economic viability of nuclear power?

Answer 12

Cost/kW for NEW PROJECTS – per Table 8.13 of DOE’s March 2009 NEMS EMM Report (which had been released annually each March, but appears to have been discontinued by the Obama Administration) =

$634 = Adv Comb Turbine
$670 = Conv Comb Turbine
$948 = Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC)
$962 = Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle
$1,370 = Distributed Generation – Base
$1,645 = Distributed Generation – Peak
$1,711 = Geothermal
$1,890 = Adv CC with carbon sequestration
$1,923 = Wind Onshore
$2,058 = Scrubbed Coal New
$2,242 = Conventional Hydropower
$2,378 = Integrated Coal-Gasification Comb
$2,543 = MSW - Landfill Gas
----------------------------
$3,318 = Adv Nuclear
----------------------------
$3,496 = IGCC with carbon sequestration
$3,766 = Biomass
$3,851 = Wind Offshore
$5,021 = Solar Thermal
$5,360 = Fuel Cells
$6,038 = Photovoltaic

A few points to ponder =

1. Many of the power sources are supply limited – for example, it is difficult to build new dams for hydroelectric power.

2. If “dirty” sources (particularly greenhouse-gas generators) are eliminated from the list, nuclear would probably win the energy derby on the basis of cheapest source that can be taken to the scale required.

3. If we do nothing, either “dirty” coal (“dirty” no matter how much “scrubbed”) or natural gas obtained using the new technique of fracturing geological formations (natural gas also produces greenhouse gas) appear likely to win the energy derby. After all, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and the Saudi Arabia of fractured-formation natural gas.

Question 13

How important is President Obama's nuclear-industry insurance program for economic viability?

Answer 13

It’s difficult to say.

Sometimes groups lobby for the U.S. government to provide subsidized insurance because they don’t want to pay commercial rates. For example, there are many areas of the country where citizens insist on living in flood plains and, when the floods occur, expect the U.S. government to provide disaster relief. Flood insurance for such homes, of course, often has prohibitively-high premiums because the flood risk is so great – which simply means that citizens really shouldn’t be living there. But that doesn’t prevent them from lobbying the U.S. government to provide them with flood insurance at premiums that are insanely low considering the risk.

However, there are times that insurance is not available commercially because the risks are unknown. To illustrate, let’s assume that the earth is being destroyed imminently and all of humanity that can be saved will fly to Mars to, hopefully, continue to live. In such a situation, do you think for a moment that it would be prudent for insurance companies to renew the health-insurance policies of the people headed to Mars??? Of course not!!! Since no human beings have ever lived on Mars before, the health risks of living there are unknown, so renewing the health-insurance policies for living on Mars at earth-premium rates (or indeed any rates) is not prudent.

There are also times that insurance is not available commercially because the risk cannot be spread. To illustrate, let’s assume that a Middle-East oil Sheikh walks into a Las Vegas casino and wants to make a one-time bet of a trillion dollars [since, after all, insurance companies are the equivalent of Las Vegas casinos accepting premiums (aka bets) on various risks (aka probabilities)]. The casino can’t afford to cover the trillion-dollar bet because losing, no matter how favorable the house odds, would mean bankruptcy.

I am guessing that the government insurance for the nuclear industry really isn’t necessary because, after all, the industry has been operating for 4 decades so the risks should be known and there are hundreds of commercial nuclear reactors around the world so it should be possible to spread the risks.

Indeed, commercial insurance would presumably be preferable because private insurance companies would have the financial incentive to police the companies it insures to be certain that safety procedures are being followed and personnel are properly trained.

Accordingly, I am guessing that the nuclear industry asked for governmentally-provided insurance just like everyone else lobbies the federal government. After all, it doesn’t hurt to ask!!!

Question 14

Of the three well-publicized nuclear-power accidents in the 50-plus years of nuclear electrical-power generation, what was the problem at Three-Mile-Island in Pennsylvania in 1979?

Answer 14

Human error. If humans had not intervened, the accident probably would not have happened.

A relief valve stuck open, draining cooling water from the core. Despite a hundred blinking lights and wailing sirens, the operators decided that the reactor core was GETTING TOO MUCH WATER when it actually was NOT GETTING ENOUGH. Accordingly, they began draining water. The mistake wasn’t caught in time. One-third of the core melted.

Question 15

What was the problem at Chernobyl Ukraine in 1986?

Answer 15

(1) Soviet engineers were so over-confident, they did NOT build containment chambers around their reactors; and (2) graphite was substituted for some of the water as the coolant in order to speed the process, but this is dangerous because graphite creates a positive feedback loop and because graphite, since it is pure carbon, is flammable at high temperatures.

On 4/26/1986, two teams of operators were struggling with each other to use the plant for two contradictory purposes – one team supplying power to the grid and the other team experimenting to determine whether the momentum in the turbines would be enough to power the cooling system during an accidental shutdown. During the tussle, the water in the cooling system stopped circulating causing the water to overheat and send a burst of steam through the turbines. This revved up the power, overheating the core even more. The fuel rods melted, dropping right into the remaining coolant, causing a steam explosion which ignited the graphite.

All this produced a plume of radioactive smoke and debris stretching 3,000 feet into the air since there was no containment chamber. [Containment chambers are required elsewhere in the world constructed of steel and concrete and designed, at least in the U.S., to withstand a direct hit by an airliner.]

Question 16

What appear to have been the problems at Fukushima Daiichi?

Answer 16

Please see Answer No. 18.

Question 17

How much more powerful was the Japanese earthquake which registered 9.0 on the Richter scale, than the most-powerful earthquakes that California has experienced in the last 110 years?

Answer 17

According to the U.S. Government Geological Survey, the largest earthquake in California since USGGS began keeping records in 1769 (which includes California from 1769 even though California was not ceded by Mexico to the U.S. until the end of the Mexican-American War nearly a century later) was the Great 1906 Earthquake that destroyed much of San Francisco. It measured 8.25 on the Richter scale.

Of the 124 earthquakes in California since the Great 1906 Earthquake, only 14 have registered 7.0 or greater on the Richter scale, with only the 7.7 Kern County earthquake in 1952 registering more than 7.3.

The Richter scale measures horizontal or shaking amplitude.

The Richter scale is LOGARITHMIC – which means that the 9.0 Japanese earthquake was 10 times as powerful as an 8.0 earthquake, and 100 times as powerful as a 7.0 earthquake.

Therefore –

The 9.0 Japanese earthquake was 2.63 times as powerful as Cal’s 8.25 Great 1906 Earthquake;

The 9.0 Japanese earthquake was 16.99 times as powerful as the 7.7 biggest Cal quake since 1906; and

The 9.0 Japanese earthquake was 34.48 times as powerful as the 7.3 second-biggest Cal quake since 1906.

Question 18

Did either the Japanese earthquake or the resulting 43-foot-high tsunami that followed breach the integrity of the containment chambers for the reactor cores at Fukushima Daiichi?

Answer 18

Apparently not, though the answer is not certain yet.

The media is almost invariably guilty of alarming the public with the use of the term “melt down” which the public generally assumes means the release of radiation – which might or might not be true.

In simple terms, the fuel rods in the reactor core are located in a containment chamber constructed of steel and concrete and designed, at least in the U.S., to withstand a direct hit by an airliner.

If the integrity of the containment chamber is NOT breached, then any radiation from the fuel rods, no matter how badly they melt, can only become a threat to the outside world if (1) gases in the containment chamber are vented, or (2) water in the containment chamber circulates through pipes outside the chamber and leaks from the pipes.

From media reports, it appears that several, if not all, of the six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi experienced partial or total “melt downs” of their fuel rods because the plant design included electrical pumps for circulating the water for cooling the fuel rods and (1) the earthquake and/or tsunami knocked out the region’s electrical grid, (2) the tsunami flooded the basement(s) where Fukushima Daiichi’s back-up diesel generators were located, and (3) the tsunami washed away the diesel fuel tanks which were located on ground level.

Also from media reports, it appears that (1) shortly after the earthquake/tsunami, there was limited venting from some of the containment chambers to insure that the build-up in pressure did not itself burst any of the containment chambers, and (2) recently it has been discovered that water from the containment chambers had been leaking, apparently from pipes outside the containment chambers.

Question 19

Would the Japanese tsunami's knocking out the emergency generators that were designed to provide back-up electricity for the reactor cores' cooling system at Fukushima Daiichi, a 40-year-old Generation II plant with a 25-year-rated useful life, have done the same at Generation III nuclear plants?

Answer 19

No.

Generation III nuclear plants do not include any pumps in their design. The water for cooling circulates because of convection. Accordingly, if the containment chamber is not breached, the fuel rods will continue to receive the normal amount of cooling and no threat is posed.

Question 20

Why did Fukushima Daiichi also have problems with spent fuel rods that were stored on site in pools of water designed to keep them cool?

Answer 20

Whether spent fuel rods are stored on site in what are essentially home swimming pools, is a matter of choice.

Storing them on a site that is in an earthquake zone proved to be bad judgment because the pools of water in which they were stored apparently did not have the same integrity as the containment chambers for the reactor cores (or perhaps all the water was shaken out of what, in effect, are home swimming pools by the earthquake).

Question 21

What are the U.S. plans to deal with spent fuel rods?

Answer 21

The Obama Administration has reaffirmed the U.S. policy of banning re-processing because of the traditional American fear of creating weapons-grade uranium that might be stolen by terrorist groups.

The U.S. government has, from the beginning of the nuclear industry, imposed a tax on nuclear-power generation of 1/10-cent per kWh to cover the cost of proper waste disposal, in return for which the spent fuel rods are the responsibility of the U.S. government.

However, the U.S. government has stored the spent fuel rods at the various sites that created them in pools of cooling water similarly to what was done at Fukushima Daiichi.

It is recognized that the safest policy would be to store them permanently in a deep underground cavern which, of course, is not in an earthquake zone, etc. Finally, in the 1990’s, the U.S. government identified and began developing such a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

However, in 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the Yucca Mountain project because the U.S. government had only shown that the repository would be absolutely safe for 10,000 years. The Court said that the government could ask Congress for approval of the 10,000-year standard or they could prove that the project would be absolutely safe for a much longer period (my recollection is that news reports at the time specified 1 million years).

The Obama Administration decided on 1/29/2010 to abandon the Yucca Mountain project – at the request of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (at least according to his re-election-campaign rhetoric). This prompted a lawsuit by South Carolina and Washington State, among others, to challenge the decision.

On 3/22/2011, a 3-judge-panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided that the lawsuit was premature because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not yet accepted or rejected the Department of Energy’s 1/29/2010 request to “withdraw with prejudice” its application to construct the Yucca Mountain project. The plaintiffs will probably request a rehearing en banc by a much larger panel because the 3-judge-panel, in saying that the plaintiffs could re-file once the NRC has acted, failed to address the possibility that the NRC may never act and, in the meantime, the DOE has ended agreements with contractors, closed the site, and abandoned any funding for the program. This after 15 years and $9 billion spent on the Yucca Mountain project.

Obviously, the U.S. government has NO plans to deal with spent fuel rods until a future President has the guts to follow the French example of re-processing spent fuel rods (please see Answer No. 22) and to provide the kind of security for any weapons-grade uranium generated by the re-processing that our military routinely provides for its nuclear weapons.

Question 22

Why do the French NOT have spent fuel rods?

Answer 22

The French re-process their spent fuel rods so that they can be re-used.

The U.S. long ago decided NOT to re-process, because re-processing enriches the uranium being used so that eventually it becomes weapons grade. The reason for the decision was a fear that the uranium might be stolen by terrorists once it reaches weapons grade.

Question 23

Is any form of energy risk-free?

Answer 23

Coal mines often produce fatalities, hydroelectric dams become old and burst, etc., etc. Though solar and wind do not seem inherently dangerous, though perhaps that’s a misperception.

Nuclear power has not produced any deaths or injury in the United States (including its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines) or in France which generates most of its electricity with nuclear power.

Indeed, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency reported that the Three-Mile-Island accident caused no deaths or injury to plant workers or members of the nearby community. In particular and by way of example, the NRA reported that the most comprehensive study involving 32,000 people over 13 years found no adverse health effects such as cancers that might be linked to the accident.

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls