AW: SV: AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal siteforused nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.

Tue Jun 9 11:50:12 CDT 2009

Franz:

      I wouldn't know about differences between Austrian
and Swedish attitudes, but what you say about the
political importance of facts is unfortunately all too true
  -- and not only in Sweden or Austria.

      Maybe the Greens would do better at the polls if they
could see realistically where the best chances for
environmental preservation lie.  It would be nice to think
so, anyway.

      Thanks again to Mattias Olsson for his valuable insights.

         Best regards,

         -- George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 11:23 AM 6/9/2009, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
Hej,

Your comment is right on topic!!!! We have to live in Europe with all the
political restraints. Scientific arguments are "bogus" compared with
political green or other arguments. European parties need votes -whether
they come from their own members or from "greens". Each party positions
itself as "greener than green", just to catch a small, but decisive fraction
of votes. This is best demonstrated by last weekends election to the
European parliament -leaving the greens with terrible losses.

However I think that there is a fundamental difference between the attitude
of Scandinavians and Austrians..... I can send you details on the later
comment.....

Med vänlig hälsning

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Olsson Mattias :MSO
Gesendet: Dienstag, 09. Juni 2009 17:15
An: George Stanford
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: SV: SV: AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal
siteforused nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.

Hi,

Of course, decision makers can't grasp the finer details that you mention
below, but in this case facts do not matter. Since there has been a death
sentence on nuclear power in Sweden for many years (until now!), and since
both the main government alternatives rely on support from their respective
"green" anti nuclear parties, it has been politically impossible to even
consider reprocessing. For a long time the plan was to close the last
Swedish reactor in 2010. That date has been disbanded now, of course.

Last year the used fuel from Sweden's very first experimental reactor was
taken to Sellafield for reprocessing. That was an exception, and there was
some agony and Greenpeace protests involved. That exception was done because
that particular fuel was metallic uranium which has no place in the Swedish
waste concept.

Skb.se has a vast library of reports on the waste handling concept that can
be downloaded. Over the years SKB has spent many millions of euros on
research at universities. Good thing, or the nuclear oriented university
departments would have had an even more difficult time to survive.

Best regards,
Mattias Olsson

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: George Stanford [mailto:gstanford at aya.yale.edu]
Skickat: den 5 juni 2009 19:27
Till: Olsson Mattias :MSO
Kopia: radsafe at radlab.nl
Ämne: Re: SV: AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal sitefor
used nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.

Mr. Olsson:

          Thanks for your clarifying
comments.  Regarding your statement that the
decision-makers ARE informed, I have a few questions:

1.  What was the decision-makers' definition of
"reprocessing"?  Was it PUREX and MOX only (which
certainly has limitations and disadvantages), or
did it include fast reactors with pyroprocessing?

2.  Was the fact recognized that thermal reactors
(once-through or not) have to struggle to use
even one percent of the energy in the uranium that is mined?

3.  Did the decision-makers recognize the ability
of fast reactors to deal with the waste, making
unnecessary any plans for 100,000-year isolation?

4.  Did the decision-makers recognize the ability
of fast reactors to utilize 99% of the mined uranium's energy?

5.  Is ease of retrievability one of the design
criteria?  Or is it just that the possibility
exists to treat the repository as a uranium mine sometime in the future?

          If you can't answer these questions,
perhaps you could refer them to someone who can.

          Thanks in advance for any additional information you can provide.

          Best wishes,

          -- George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 04:40 AM 6/5/2009, Olsson Mattias :MSO wrote:
Hi,

Swedish decision makers ARE informed. A political
decision has been taken that says that Sweden is
to follow the once-through concept regarding fuel
usage. No reprocessing. It has also been decided
that the industry must supply a long-term
solution to the spent fuel (and other waste)
issue. Nuclear power in general has been a hot
potato since the 70s. It's only lately that
things are getting slightly more sensible.

Also, I wonder if Forsmark will really be first.
Finland has taken the same concept as Sweden has
been developing, and as so often, Finland are
more swift with decisions. See POSIVA's web site:
http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal

With this concept it will be possible to retrieve
the spent fuel in the future. The same can not be
said about the "deep drilled holes" concept that
has been discarded as unsafe for many years due
to several fundamental flaws, but the
environmental movement now has it as their thing
that it has not been investigated enough.

When the Oskarshamn and Forsmark sites were
compared, the rock quality was a very important
issue. The Forsmark rock generally has a much
more suitable quality. You can suspect as much
just from looking at drill samples by eye.
Massive data has been collected as well, for
example on diffusion behaviour and adsorption of numerous nuclides.

Best regards,
Mattias Olsson, Forsmark NPP

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] För George Stanford
Skickat: den 5 juni 2009 01:46
Till: radsafe at radlab.nl
Ämne: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first
permanent disposal sitefor used nuclear fuel will
be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.

Franz & All:

        Thanks to Bjorn Cederval for the additional
info.  At one of the sites
(<http://www.thelocal.se/19824>)
there is this:

  >"The Swedish technique consists of storing
  >two tonnes of spent fuel in copper-coated
  >canisters that weigh 25 tonnes each.
  >
  >"Each canister is welded shut using a special
  >technique and then mechanically deposited in
  >a tunnel in the repository.
  >
  >"A buffer of bentonite clay, a volcanic ash that
  >when mixed with water swells to provide a
  >watertight barrier and protect against
  >earthquakes, is then injected to fill the hole in
  >the rock.
  >
  >"'The canisters are buried several metres apart
  >so he rock can absorb the heat generated by the
  >radioactive materials in each copper canister.'
  >Engholm explains.
  >
  >"Once a tunnel in the repository is full, the tunnel is  >filled in with a
mixture of bentonite and rock."

        It does not appear that ease of retrievability is
one of the design requirements.

           -- George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 01:39 PM 6/4/2009, George Stanford wrote:
Franz:

        If the decision makers in Sweden were aware
of the points that I listed, they would not be
emulating the mistake the US has made with Yucca
Mountain.  They would instead, in my opinion, be
going with temporary surface storage (the route
the US now seems to be taking in its bumbling
efforts to accommodate ill-informed political
pressures), pending the implementation of fast
reactors.

        I don't agree that lack of awareness of fast-
reactor capability makes people "idiots."  It
merely means that they are uninformed (and it's our
fault).  But IF the used fuel will indeed be
easily retrievable, that would be at least a
partial vindication.  All I know is what the
article said: "buried in clay," "isolated for
100,000 years." You seem to be just assuming that
"surely they would not be so dumb as to make it
inaccessible." I hope you are right.  Can you
refer us to any official confirmation that your supposition is correct?

        And your remarks about the sad US record are
indeed to the point  But at least the stuff to be
stored at Yucca Mountain was intended to be
retrievable for the first 100 years.  Now this
country has reverted to surface storage -- which
is probably good,  as the awareness slowly spreads
that fast reactors hold the solution, and that
Yucca Mountain has been money largely wasted.
Sweden could postpone the repository decision, and
save a lot of money.

        The important thing, from my perspective, is
that we in the nuclear-power profession have been
far too reticent in letting the rest of the world
know that, properly managed, uranium can power
civilization from here on out -- safely,
affordably, and with fewer environmental
consequences than any other energy source.

           -- George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

At 06:52 AM 6/4/2009, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
George and other RADSAFErs,

I cannot take this message to be serious. I
recall your previous comments, which were
directed to my experience of the Chernobyl
accident and tried to ridicule my experience of
far more than ten years on this case. I further
recall your similarly ridiculous comments on my
experience as the head of the IAEA terrestrial
working group on the Mururoa Project. So now you
continue to distribute your ridiculous comments,
using the Forsmark plans for disposal of use nuclear fuel.

A very short answer to your comments (questions),
which imply that Swedish scientists are simply
idiots and do not know anything about the nuclear
fuel cycle. (I am not Swedish, though I know the
language fluently.) How can you dare to put that
forward on an international newsgroup?

How can you dare to put such a question on
RADSAFE, taking into account that the world-wide
signal has been distributed by the US-Carter
administration, backing those anti-nuclear groups
and which was of course used by the so-called
"greens"? One of their most important goals
always was - officially - the breaking of the
nuclear fuel cycle. In the USA they obviously succeeded.

Ask your own US administration and don't blame
anything on the European situation. Reprocessing
is going on in Europe, but since decades it has
been stalled in the USA - blame your own administration.

To all of my information, which might be wrong,
the so called "final repositories" planned in
Europe will allow retrieval of the fuel rods.

Think twice before you again write such a nonsensical message to RADSAFE.

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von George Stanford
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Juni 2009 21:14
An: Cary Renquist
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] The world's first
permanent disposal site forused nuclear fuel will
be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announced today.

         Is there nobody influential in  Sweden who
knows that the used fuel that they're going to
bury in clay -- presumably irretrievably -- still
retains 95% of the energy it started with?

         Nobody who knows that fast reactors can access that energy?

         Nobody who knows that the waste form fast
reactors (such as the IFR) is mainly fission products (one ton per
GWe-year)?

         Nobody who knows that the activity of that
waste becomes too low to worry about within 500 years?

         Nobody who knows that 90% of the ore's
energy remains in the depleted uranium that's
left over from the enrichment process -- energy
that also can be used by fast reactors?

        Nobody who knows that the IFR technology is
ready now for a commercial-scale demonstration?

        We don't seem to be very good at telling
people about what nuclear power can do for the world, do we?

            George Stanford
            Reactor physicist, retired

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 01:43 PM 6/3/2009, Cary Renquist wrote:
Forsmark for Swedish nuclear waste
03 June 2009

The world's first permanent disposal site for
used nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announced today.

The decision was announced by SKB President,
Claes Thegerström today after a board meeting
yesterday. Forsmark, in the municipality of
Östhammar, was selected in favour of Laxemar in
the Oskarshamn municipality after a process of
investigation and engagement that has lasted since 2002.

Site works towards the underground facility could
begin in 2013, with full construction starting in
2015 and operation in 2023. This single facility,
using only 15 hectares above ground, would hold
all of the high-level radioactive waste from the
nuclear power reactors that provide about 45% of
Sweden's electricity. SKB will apply to nuclear
safety regulators for premission to build in around one year's time.

The repository is designed to isolate the wastes
for the 100,000 years it will take until their
levels of radiation return to the original low
levels of natural uranium. Used nuclear fuel
assemblies are to be packed in cast iron baskets
within thick copper canisters and packed in clay
almost 500 metres below gound in a continguous
section of igneous rock. At that level,
groundwater movement is so slow that the wastes
could never affect life at the surface. The
method, known as KBS-3, was selected in 1983.

The competition to host the site was hard fought,
with both communities taking keen interest - both
municipalities already have nuclear facilities.
Forsmark already hosts a nuclear power plant and
the final repository for short-lived radioactive
waste, but its selection for this facility comes
as something of a surprise. The used fuel for
disposition at the CLAB interim store is in the
Oskarshamn municipality near Laxemar, as will be
the encapsulation plant. Also in that region is
the Äspö hard rock laboratory where much of the
practical work to demonstrate the disposal method has taken place

---
Cary Renquist

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list