[ RadSafe ] A Nuclear Power Renaissance

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

A Nuclear Power Renaissance 
4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned
Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster
===========================

A Nuclear Power Renaissance 
 
With concerns about global warming and energy security on the rise, 
countries the world over are taking a new look at nuclear energy. 
Some are building new reactors as fast as they can. 

They are coming from everywhere in Australia; shirt-sleeved workers 
from every corner of the continent heading to a remote stretch of the 
South Australian desert. There is no water, and not much of anything 
else either. But the Olympic Dam mine is located here. And the mine 
is hiring. 

The company currently employs about 700 miners, who have already dug 
several kilometers of tunnels under the desert. The area is so bone 
dry that drinking water must be pumped through a system of pipes from 
a distant spring. Recently, there has even been talk of building a 
desalination plant. After all, uranium mining requires water -- lots 
of it -- and Australia wants to remain the world's second largest 
supplier after Canada. 

The explanation for the government's enthusiasm for nuclear power can 
be found in a report by nuclear physicist and former IT manger Ziggy 
Switkowski. As if on cue, he enthuses about the need for more nuclear 
power plants: Australia must start building reactors so that the 
first one can be completed in 2020. If a concerted effort is made, 
another 25 could be online by mid-century. On the one hand, this 
would help the country improve its poor record of carbon dioxide 
emissions. On the other, it would allow Australia to tap an almost 
inexhaustible source of energy; the country possesses more than 38 
percent of the world's accessible uranium reserves. 

The international atomic energy lobby loves such talk. Almost 21 
years after the Chernobyl disaster, and just a couple months after 
the most recent breakdown at Sweden's Forsmark reactor last July, the 
risks associated with nuclear power are largely fading into the 
background. So too are questions about the disposal of spent nuclear 
fuel and atomic weapons. The industry, in short, is preparing for a 
new boom. 

Plans for more nuclear plants 

Currently there are 435 atomic reactors generating electricity in 31 
countries across the globe. They fill 6.5 percent of the world's 
total energy demand and use close to 70,000 tons of enriched uranium 
per year. Atomic plants produce one-sixth of the total electricity 
supply -- roughly on par with hydropower. 

That number may soon rocket upwards. At present, 29 nuclear power 
plants are under construction and there are concrete plans to build 
another 64. Another 158 are under consideration. On the other end of 
the equation, only six are slowly being shut down in preparation for 
decommissioning. In response to the growing demand, the price for 
uranium has increased seven-fold since 2002 and now sells for $72 per 
pound (454 grams). The fact that no final storage place exists for 
highly radioactive waste is considered to be but a secondary problem. 
Indeed, the only terminal repository apparently free from political 
opposition is that in Finland's Eurajoki where such a site is now 
under construction. There, nuclear waste will be stored at a maximum 
depth of 520 meters in shafts bored deep into the granite bedrock. 

The main obstacle to the construction of nuclear power plants is no 
longer the anti-nuclear power lobby, but the huge costs of building 
them. Whereas in 1970 a brand new reactor cost $400 million, a plant 
now runs as much as 10 times higher. In the last three decades the 
nuclear power industry has received subsidies of about $1 billion -- 
the electricity generated may be clean from a global warming point of 
view, but it's not cheap. 

Nonetheless, power plant construction companies are hoping for a 
renaissance. E.on has applied to build a new plant in Romania's 
Cernavoda and Siemens expects orders to triple in the next five 
years. General Electric too expects a number of new reactors to be 
built within the next decade, says Ferdinando Beccalli-Falco, a GE 
manager. 

Indeed, a lots of companies stand to benefit. The industry is 
celebrating the "strategic shift" and preparing for a boom with 
mergers en vogue. Japan's Toshiba has acquired US-based Westinghouse, 
General Electric is working together with Hitachi and Mitsubishi 
Heavy is flirting with the Franco-German global market leader Areva 
NP, in which Siemens holds a stake.

Until now, France has been virtually alone in its reliance on nuclear 
technology: Eighty percent of its domestically produced power comes 
from nuclear plants. The 59 plants allow the country to be mostly 
self-sufficient, and now this strategy is once again being held up as 
an example. 

Lithuania, for example, urgently wants to replace its aging Ignalina 
nuclear reactor. Doing so would allow the country to decrease its 
dependence on Russia, but the price tag is some EUR3 billion. Ukraine 
also wants to build more nuclear power plants in order to increase 
its self-sufficiency, despite the trauma of Chernobyl. Bulgaria and 
the Czech Republic are both discussing building two new nuclear 
reactors each.  

Poland is considering building a nuclear plant after 2020 since its 
domestic coal-fired power plants could soon run afoul of EU 
regulations. Next year the EU wants to tighten the emissions 
requirements for such polluters. Sites under consideration include 
Gryfino and Klempicz near Posnan, both of which are close to the 
German border. 

Britain's Labour government wants to prepare the way for new atomic 
power plants by easing the approval process; many of its aging coal-
fired power plants will have to close as a result of new EU 
standards. Gas-fired plants could help to close the gap, but Europe's 
two most important suppliers, Russia's Gazprom and Algeria's state-
owned Sonatrach, in August signed an agreement that has aroused 
suspicions in London and Brussels that they will create a cartel 
similar to OPEC. 

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso adroitly side-stepped the 
issue last Wednesday when announcing the EU's new energy strategy. 
Germany is joined by a number of other EU countries in their 
skepticism toward nuclear power. But he did not conceal his 
committee's sympathy for atomic power, citing both environmental 
reasons and issues related to securing Europe's energy supply. Canada 
and Australia, the two most significant uranium suppliers, are 
reliable partners. Other suppliers include Kazakhstan, Russia, 
Uzbekistan, Namibia and Niger. Kazakhstan wants to surpass Canada as 
the world's leading uranium supplier by 2010, which explains why 
French, Chinese and Japanese companies are racing to invest there. 

India is considering building 19 new reactors, while China wants to 
construct at least 63 facilities that will be able to supply 50 giga-
watts of power. In emerging market Indonesia a single, very modest, 
nuclear reactor will go online in 2011. In contrast the US is talking 
about building more than 20 new plants after a 20-year construction 
moratorium. Washington is providing tax incentives for power plant 
operators and it also wants to ease the process of obtaining the 
required permits. 

But who is going to pay? 

President George W. Bush already enthuses about a "Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership" to foster the use of nuclear power while also 
monitoring to ensure that the technology is not misused by North 
Korea, Iran or al-Qaida. The US has budgeted $250 million to support 
the partnership, and the Hill & Knowlton public relations company, 
which worked for the government during the first Gulf war, has 
already launched a PR campaign to promote nuclear power. 

The need for advertising seems unavoidable, since even the most 
enthusiastic supporters of the new atomic era cannot deny that it 
brings with it the same old risks. No one can rule out a meltdown. 
And no one can guarantee that civilian nuclear research won't be 
misused. Furthermore, no one knows who is going to pay for all the 
new facilities. 

Moscow wants to build about 30 new reactors, in part because Gazprom 
doesn't want to sell natural gas on the domestic market at low 
prices. The Kremlin speculates that it will be able to obtain $30 
billion from foreign investors to fund their construction, but this 
money is not likely to appear soon. 

President Putin has called for the former superpower to take a "giant 
leap" by expanding its nuclear energy sector, but at present it only 
has one factory capable of manufacturing turbines and reactors. 
Consequently, Russia can only build one new nuclear power plant every 
three years. On the other hand, Russia also wants to sell nuclear 
technology abroad at discount prices, charging roughly 30 percent 
less than France for its reactors. 

Despite the lofty ambitions and impressive figures, the fact remains 
that 1.6 billion people still do not have access to electricity, 
while 2.4 billion are forced to meet their energy needs with wood, 
straw or manure. In this respect, Steve Kidd, the director of 
strategy and research at London's World Nuclear Association, could be 
correct. In the nuclear industry, Kidd says, many such grandiose 
plans often turn out to be delusional.
------------------

4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned
 
MONTICELLO, Minn. - Four Northeast nuclear power plants have been 
alerted to check for potential safety problems following a failure at 
a sister plant here that caused a shutdown. 
 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified managers of the four 
plants because they're similar in age and design to the Xcel Energy's 
Monticello plant, said Jan Strasma, a commission spokesman.

The plants being told to be alert are Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek 
in New Jersey, Nine Mile Point in New York, and Pilgrim in 
Massachusetts.

"Typically when there's a problem at one plant, we look to see if any 
aspects have the potential of applying to other plants," Strasma 
said. "It's a precautionary or prudent notification."

The Monticello plant has been shut down since Jan. 10 when welds 
failed that held in place a 35,000-pound box containing valves that 
control steam pressure. No radiation was released, officials said.
-------------------

Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster Than 
Expected 

New method enlists NMR to test durability of mineral-based waste 
forms

Richland, WA - Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for hundreds 
of thousands of years may be susceptible to structural breakdown 
within 1,400 years, a team from the University of Cambridge and the 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported in the Jan. 11 issue 
of Nature. 

The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, to show that 
the effects of radiation from plutonium incorporated into the mineral 
zircon rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. 

This could lead to swelling, loss of physical strength and possible 
cracking of the mineral as soon as 210 years, well before the 
radioactivity had decayed to safe levels, said lead author and 
Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. 

According to current thinking, highly radioactive substances could be 
rendered less mobile by combining them, before disposal, with glass 
or with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a 
crystal. 

However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements 
for so long. Inside the crystal radioactive decay occurs, and tiny 
atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying 
nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types repeatedly 
blasting the structure until it breaks down. 

This may increase the likelihood for radioactive materials to leak, 
although co-author William J. Weber, a fellow at the Department of 
Energy national laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples 
used in the study, cautioned that this work did not address leakage, 
and researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the 
"amorphous," or structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing 
zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most 
durable materials on earth. 

Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create 
a structure that rebuilds itself after these "alpha events" so that 
it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests 
developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to 
screen different mineral and synthetic forms for durability. 

As well as making the storage of the waste safer, new storage methods 
guided by the NMR technique could offer significant savings for 
nations facing disposal of large amounts of radioactive material. 
Countries including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and 
Japan are all considering burying their nuclear waste stockpiles 
hundreds of meters beneath the earth's surface. Doing so necessitates 
selection of a site with sufficiently stringent geological features 
to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of dollars. 
For example, there is an ongoing debate over the safety of the Yucca 
Mountain site in Nevada. A figure published in Science in 2005 put 
that project's cost at $57 billion. 

"By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to 
engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions 
of dollars worth of savings and improve the overall safety," Farnan 
said. 

"At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how 
materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking 
about. Our new research is a step towards that. 

"We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce 
a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident 
of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and 
before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have 
substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." 

PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman 
Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: "When the samples were made in 
the 1980s, NMR was not in the thinking. NMR has enabled us to 
quantify and look at changes in the crystal structure as the 
radiation damage progresses. 

"This method adds a valuable new perspective to research on 
radioactive waste forms. It has also raised the question: 'How 
adequate is our understanding of the long-term behavior of these 
materials?' Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could 
benefit from this technique." 

The collaboration was funded by Britain's Engineering and Physical 
Sciences Research Council and the U.S. DOE, with support from the 
PNNL-based Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. 

SOURCE: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 
 

Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/