5 Easy Steps to Nuclear Power Plant Tear-Down

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,634
Popular Science has a quick and easy guide to removing your local nuclear power plant should you find that the process is needed for bidding a job, or possibly wanton vandalism associated with local activists. I would suggest you turn off your Apple iPhone before getting to step 3 however.


1. Cool it. 2. Entomb it. 3. Rip it. 4. Ship it. 5. Bury it.
 
Well, part of it is an early gen 1 PWR, which should go, since the design is from the 1950's - 1960's.

I agree we should be building more gen4 reactors, however.
 
California is closing it's last one down.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story...ornia-will-close-its-last-nuclear-power-plant

But oh noes they be taking away my capitalism.

Thats+the+definition+of+damn+near+every+capitalist+country+in+_e9b560032ebb1549160caf49d871afb4.gif

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
xrealm20 said:
Well, part of it is an early gen 1 PWR, which should go, since the design is from the 1950's - 1960's.

I agree we should be building more gen4 reactors, however.
Click to expand...
Unit 1 was built in the 60s (Shut down 92) but Units 2 and 3 were both from the 80s and had major upgrades in the 00s.

Just because the design is old is slightly irrelevant. I’ve worked at 3 different Nuclear plants. (2 PWR and 1BWR) the cleanest one with the lowest dose I’ve been too was R.E. Ginna in Ontario, New York commissioned 1970. It doesn’t produce as much power as a newer design maybe, but the whole damn plant is also tiny. So I don’t think it’s that much more inefficient.

More do need built though. This natural gas thing is going to burst. Prices won’t stay this low forever. Personally hoping for Fermi 3 to ever get approved. It’s only been 20 years or so since they planned it.
 
Interesting that California's solution to disposing of the non-radioactive debris is shipping it out of state. What about all that carbon being used to ship it far away? Keep it local California!
 
niconx said:
Renewable power can't handle the load, here's a detailed explanation:
Click to expand...


Most users of renewable energy realize you need more than one source of power - Solar has cloudy, snowy days, Hydro has winter & ice or droughts, Wind has no wind or too much wind energy (ironicly). As far as nuclear goes, it's mostly just a hydro plan using heated rods to supply the energy using a light water reactor.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Unit 1 was built in the 60s (Shut down 92) but Units 2 and 3 were both from the 80s and had major upgrades in the 00s.

Just because the design is old is slightly irrelevant. I’ve worked at 3 different Nuclear plants. (2 PWR and 1BWR) the cleanest one with the lowest dose I’ve been too was R.E. Ginna in Ontario, New York commissioned 1970. It doesn’t produce as much power as a newer design maybe, but the whole damn plant is also tiny. So I don’t think it’s that much more inefficient.

More do need built though. This natural gas thing is going to burst. Prices won’t stay this low forever. Personally hoping for Fermi 3 to ever get approved. It’s only been 20 years or so since they planned it.
Click to expand...

Inefficiencies wasn't specifically what I was referencing. I agree with your thoughts on the PWRs, as they seem to have a better track record (considering every nuclear vessel is a PWR) than BWRs. My comment was based around the fact that most of the new reactors have enhanced safety mechanisms in comparison to the early designs.
 
xrealm20 said:
Inefficiencies wasn't specifically what I was referencing. I agree with your thoughts on the PWRs, as they seem to have a better track record (considering every nuclear vessel is a PWR) than BWRs. My comment was based around the fact that most of the new reactors have enhanced safety mechanisms in comparison to the early designs.
Click to expand...
Well funny thing about all that. The other PWR I’ve been to is Davis Bessie. Who ran for years and years with a fucking hole in the reactor head. It was about the size of a football and the whole containment area was extremely dirty. Boric acid is a bitch haha.

It’s much cleaner now though. Fixed that all up a decade ago or so.
 
Yeah, that one is scary. Could have been a lot worse. 2500psi being contained with around 3/8 inch of steel, when the head was what, 6 inches thick?
 
xrealm20 said:
Yeah, that one is scary. Could have been a lot worse. 2500psi being contained with around 3/8 inch of steel, when the head was what, 6 inches thick?
Click to expand...
Yep. It was about the size of a football. I’m an insulator, and it was before I got in the trade but I’ve talked to other guys, they looked right at that hole multiple times. Management knew and didn’t care basically. That’s the scary part, the human element.
 
A nuke industry shill article, step 6, pollute ground water for 1 million years, while avoiding all the diluted tritium and other radiation released during operation as per NRC guidelines.
People cheering reactors on have no idea of how polluting and dangerous they are. Probably read too much (((popular science))). The same group that tried to convince people wtc7 was a natural collapse due to fires.
 
N4CR said:
A nuke industry shill article, step 6, pollute ground water for 1 million years, while avoiding all the diluted tritium and other radiation released during operation as per NRC guidelines.
People cheering reactors on have no idea of how polluting and dangerous they are. Probably read too much (((popular science))). The same group that tried to convince people wtc7 was a natural collapse due to fires.
Click to expand...
if you had any idea how much coal ash pollutes ground water ..... ill take my chances with the tritium thanks
 
N4CR said:
A nuke industry shill article, step 6, pollute ground water for 1 million years, while avoiding all the diluted tritium and other radiation released during operation as per NRC guidelines.
People cheering reactors on have no idea of how polluting and dangerous they are. Probably read too much (((popular science))). The same group that tried to convince people wtc7 was a natural collapse due to fires.
Click to expand...
Going back to personal experience of having worked at 3 different sites, and having also worked Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil, Nukes are pretty fucking clean.

They carry a higher inherent risk if something goes wrong (see Chernobyl or Fukushima) But they’re hardly more dangerous and polluting than those other places.

And just did some reading on Tritium, it’s a beta partical. It’s radiation can’t even penetrate through skin. Ingestion is the only risk and it’s half life when bonded to water is 7-14 days. It’s a nonstarter as a real risk.
The radiation you’re so scared of, they go great lengths at keeping it inside their facilities. I’m talking 8’ or thicker concrete walls.
 
Build in orbit solar collectors, microwave the energy down to base stations, Enjoy the free cooked bird in the vicinity of said base station.

Or as usual, fusion or GTFO
 
N4CR said:
A nuke industry shill article, step 6, pollute ground water for 1 million years, while avoiding all the diluted tritium and other radiation released during operation as per NRC guidelines.
People cheering reactors on have no idea of how polluting and dangerous they are. Probably read too much (((popular science))). The same group that tried to convince people wtc7 was a natural collapse due to fires.
Click to expand...

As usual, another naysayer with no real knowledge. I'm sure you're about to say that I'm just full of it too. Funny thing is I'm a nuclear operator at a very large plant, multi units. I have worked in significant airborne particulate contamination, high levels of tritium, etc. And I can say that with how light water reactors work I probably have more tritium in my urine right now than will ever leak from a pwr or bwr reactor.

But I'm sure you know better. It's only my job to be a systems expert after all, no biggie.
 
I don't understand why we don't have LFTR or other molten salt reactors running by this point. By design the things cannot go critical if there is a disaster or lose power. And you can feed them nuclear waste for fuel.

Oh wait... I forgot about money for a moment. And stupid politicians. *sighs*
 
Massachusetts energy costs are completely fucked through the roof. Stupid liberal assholes keep shutting down coal and nuclear. They won't even build new natural gas pipelines because a few liberal freaks in the woods have a problem.

Can't wait for my $300 electric bill this month.
 
RogueTadhg said:
Most users of renewable energy realize you need more than one source of power - Solar has cloudy, snowy days, Hydro has winter & ice or droughts, Wind has no wind or too much wind energy (ironicly). As far as nuclear goes, it's mostly just a hydro plan using heated rods to supply the energy using a light water reactor.
Click to expand...

Nuclear energy is *effectively* renewable if we werent stupid idiots and buried the "waste" and just reprocessed it like we should. Even without that there is enough Uranium to fuel us for about 1000 years. Given how clean it is (barring any major accident) and how we can control the impact of the "waste" it is a MUCH more viable solution than other renewable sources.

Nolan7689 said:
Going back to personal experience of having worked at 3 different sites, and having also worked Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil, Nukes are pretty fucking clean.

They carry a higher inherent risk if something goes wrong (see Chernobyl or Fukushima) But they’re hardly more dangerous and polluting than those other places.

And just did some reading on Tritium, it’s a beta partical. It’s radiation can’t even penetrate through skin. Ingestion is the only risk and it’s half life when bonded to water is 7-14 days. It’s a nonstarter as a real risk.
The radiation you’re so scared of, they go great lengths at keeping it inside their facilities. I’m talking 8’ or thicker concrete walls.
Click to expand...

I agree with you except for your wording with inherent risk. I would say higher consequences if an accident occurs but lower risk overall. The risk of such an accident itself is actually MUCH lower than all of the other power types combined. If you say higher inherent risk all most people will hear is "higher risk...it must be bad".
 
kju1 said:
I agree with you except for your wording with inherent risk. I would say higher consequences if an accident occurs but lower risk overall. The risk of such an accident itself is actually MUCH lower than all of the other power types combined. If you say higher inherent risk all most people will hear is "higher risk...it must be bad".
Click to expand...

Ah yes consequences is what I meant. Things typically don’t go wrong without human error but when they do they can be devastating.
 
Burticus said:
I don't understand why we don't have LFTR or other molten salt reactors running by this point. By design the things cannot go critical if there is a disaster or lose power. And you can feed them nuclear waste for fuel.

Oh wait... I forgot about money for a moment. And stupid politicians. *sighs*
Click to expand...

Basically the market's been so poisoned against nuclear that all the regulatory bodies and politicians have been made into barriers for new development.
 
niconx said:
Renewable power can't handle the load, here's a detailed explanation:
Click to expand...

I like how these guys have done math that's totally different than what Elon Musk has said. Better yet they're promoted Thorium Energy. They've completely ignored using batteries like Elon Musk would.

 
Has the US finally decided what to do with their spent fuel rods?

Part of what made Fukushima so bad, was they kept their spent fuel on site, rather than elsewhere.
 
MrDeaf said:
Has the US finally decided what to do with their spent fuel rods?

Part of what made Fukushima so bad, was they kept their spent fuel on site, rather than elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This isn't a Fukushima exclusive problem. Spent fuel must be kept on site for most plants around the world. Once spent fuel is removed from the reactor, it's simply too hot. It must be kept cooled for about 10 years before it can be put into dry storage containers. That means a cooled pool. The Fukushima stupidity is the pool was at the top of the reactor building.....
 
Burticus said:
I don't understand why we don't have LFTR or other molten salt reactors running by this point. By design the things cannot go critical if there is a disaster or lose power. And you can feed them nuclear waste for fuel.

Oh wait... I forgot about money for a moment. And stupid politicians. *sighs*
Click to expand...

several reasons, yes politics is the biggest. That and human stupidity.

These things require more research, they're not quite ready and nobody wants to sink the money into it unfortunately.

One problem is with molten salt it's hard on the metals. When there's a leak, liquid sodium tends to catch fire....

Thorium is great stuff but also produces more radiation while being burned. We're not sure how to deal with that yet.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
Yea but is it cost effective? Part of the problem with Thorium is that it's expensive to get it going. How much would reprocessing the waste cost? Where as renewable energy is going to be cheaper by 2020 than fossil fuel.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ange-global-warming-report-irea-a8160051.html
Click to expand...

Cost inst the only factor, especially since the energy market is not a free market one (prices are set by governments, and regulations *really* confuse things). The CBO estimated reprocessing would be about 6% more, some others have said up to double the cost. Even if its double the cost for of disposal thats only a direct cost it doesnt account for all of the follow on costs other types of energy have. A little extra cost is worth not having to deal with leaking fuel in storage areas..no?

Coal for example has indirect costs associated with health of people (and plants/animals) from the emissions. It also has costs associated with mining and transportation of the coal. Nuclear also has mining and transportation but with reprocessing we will be doing a less mining and being more efficient. Also as we invest in reprocessing we can expect it to improve in efficiency and cost to come down. We will eventually run out of storage space.

Most people fail to take into the impacts manufacturing renewable energy generators have on the environment and only consider the amount of fossil fuels each device itself saves. In order to determine the true TCO we need to know all of it. I remain unconvinced that solar is significantly better for the environment when you take into account the fact that the majority of solar panels are manufactured in countries with little to no regulations protecting the works and/or the environment. For example some panel manufactures have been caught dumping waste into rivers. They use some nasty chemicals in making those panels. Also where do those panels end up when they are dead? The landfill. Oh and dont forget we mine the materials (typically quartz) to make the panels which exposes the miners to lung disease silicosis.

Am I saying renewables are bad? Nope not at all. I am just saying its not as cut and dry as most "green is the way to go!" people would have you believe. They simply dont understand there is a whole chain of events that occurred to produce that and energy was expended along the way. Cost to transport it from oh say China (which produces over half of all cells) to here only increases the "energy payback" time. If it takes 2 years for a cell to generate enough electricity to balance out to zero (and it takes a lot of power to make cells) then how long does it take if you ship it to the US for install? 4? 5?
 
kju1 said:
Coal for example has indirect costs associated with health of people (and plants/animals) from the emissions. It also has costs associated with mining and transportation of the coal. Nuclear also has mining and transportation but with reprocessing we will be doing a less mining and being more efficient. Also as we invest in reprocessing we can expect it to improve in efficiency and cost to come down. We will eventually run out of storage space.
Click to expand...
Most of the Uranium ore is the result of mining for other materials. It's a byproduct. Not sure about Thorium. So we'll probably have unlimited Uranium.

Most people fail to take into the impacts manufacturing renewable energy generators have on the environment and only consider the amount of fossil fuels each device itself saves. In order to determine the true TCO we need to know all of it. I remain unconvinced that solar is significantly better for the environment when you take into account the fact that the majority of solar panels are manufactured in countries with little to no regulations protecting the works and/or the environment. For example some panel manufactures have been caught dumping waste into rivers. They use some nasty chemicals in making those panels. Also where do those panels end up when they are dead? The landfill. Oh and dont forget we mine the materials (typically quartz) to make the panels which exposes the miners to lung disease silicosis.
Click to expand...
The waste produced by solar can be recycled. The waste produced by nuclear power needs to be berried for hundreds or thousands of years. On top of that, nuclear waste needs to be stored at the nuclear plant for 10 years before it can even be put in permanent storage. Just cause some countries have poor regulation on how they deal with solar power waste, doesn't mean this is the norm or has to be the norm. Nuclear waste doesn't change no matter how much your regulate it.
Am I saying renewables are bad? Nope not at all. I am just saying its not as cut and dry as most "green is the way to go!" people would have you believe. They simply dont understand there is a whole chain of events that occurred to produce that and energy was expended along the way. Cost to transport it from oh say China (which produces over half of all cells) to here only increases the "energy payback" time. If it takes 2 years for a cell to generate enough electricity to balance out to zero (and it takes a lot of power to make cells) then how long does it take if you ship it to the US for install? 4? 5?
Click to expand...
It's still the better option. Not long ago the idea of the electric car was stupid, but now it looks like something that makes a lot of sense. In the best and worst case scenario, solar and wind power can be infinitively cleaner than nuclear. The only real problem is the batteries needed to stabilize these sources of power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top