Support for new nuclear power plants in Minnesota

[GuloGulo]

Hello,

I do not know much about your industry, but I am looking for experienced input regarding the common political roadblocks/arguments one would encounter in advancing a resolution to the people that we invest further in nuclear power.  Thus far, I have managed to get my political party recommendation (in Minnesota) through to the state congressional level, but I have gotten off easy, it was unopposed and no one debated.  The next level is where the debate really begins.

So far, in conversation, I have had 3-mile island thrown in my face, along with Chernobyl, with little more than a casual "what-if?" tacked onto it.  I didn't have a great answer for either, since I really didn't know much about them, but I did indicate that one was from 30 years ago, and the other was in a politically unstable country with financial problems.  I guess I need to know "what went wrong" for each, enough to squelch the casual questions with a well-informed response.  What worries me the most is questions/arguments for which I am not prepared.

Everything I have read, from the new nuclear power initiatives from President Bush, to financial statistics, suggests that nuclear power is as cheap as coal but better for the environment. 

Thank you for any time you spend in response.

Best Regards,

Joe Solinsky

[Roll Tide]

I do not know much about your industry,

The way the news works, most people that don't know much about the nuclear power industry are against it. Thanks for your support, and we appreciate you taking the time to get more informed prior to the next level.

If you are advocating new construction, you have to advocate the new designs, not the old ones. Nevertheless, you will have to answer the TMI and Chernobyl questions. TMI and Chernobyl were  both "worst-case" accidents for their design. The difference: TMI had a containment structure in place (like all operating US nukes) while Chernobyl's was built after the fact (the "Sarcaphogus" in the documentaries).

Browse this site, and then check out these links.


http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

This shows relative risks



http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

This gives details of new designs



Let us know if there are other specific areas you need detailed.

[LaFeet]

You have the correct attitude concerning your responses.  Your opponents will/ may not apply facts to suport their claims, but you must.  Sure, there have been two major nuke ooopses...., but there have been oooh soo many more chemical, coal and other power plant ooopses throuhout our history.

Roll Tide has the basis for a great start, do your reseach and be prepared.  But above all, do not be afraid to state "I am unsure" or "I do not know the answer to that. I will get back to you."  Always follow through and try to keep a positive demeanor......

The addage "... easier to catch flies with honey than viegar.." comes to mind.  You got to use the honey approach because your opponents will definitely use the vinegar.


Good luck - LaFeet

[thenuttyneutron]

I hate when people compare Chernobyl and TMI-2.  TMI-2 was very bad, but no where near as bad as Chernobyl. 

Chernobyl was the result of very bad design and operator error.  US designed reactors do not have this bad design fault.  Chernobyl was basically a reactor that became a bomb due to what is called a positive reactivity coefficient.  What this means is the reactor gets in a feed back loop where as the temperature increases, the power level increases.  This increase in power level raises the temperature more and the problem gets worst.  US power reactors can't do this.  The designs of US reactors all have negative reactivity coefficients.

TMI-2 was a combination of poor training for the operators and past operating experience not being shared with the other plants.  The events that lead to TMI-2s destruction also occurred at a sister plant.  The operators there however found the problem and fixed it.  Had this been told to the other plants it is possible TMI-2 would still be online today.  We now have INPO, an organization formed to share information and standardize training in the nuclear industry.

TMI-2 suffered severe fuel damage when the core lost its coolant.  The safety systems tried to save the plant but operators prevented them from functioning.  This was due to poor training that lead them to take the wrong actions.  Nobody got hurt and a very small amount of radiation was released.  The amount of radiation you get by flying from LAX to JFK far exceeds the dose you would have received from TMI-2.

Also I love this fact.  Coal burning power plants put more radioactive stuff in the air than nuclear plants.  Thorium 232 is found naturally in the coal and gets spit out the smoke stack.  If people are scared of nuclear power and like coal because it releases less radioactive material, remind them of this.

[LaFeet]

Here is another link that might help you

http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/chernall.html

[GuloGulo]

RE: TheNuttyNeutron

I'm going to be presenting at a political convention on Saturday, so having the Thorium comment and the air travel comment will be a brilliant gem to the detractors.  For some reason, in my experience, good sound bites of information start people thinking about what they don't know.  Thank you all so much for your input, I've also been working with some gentlemen from the PNNL, through a contact, as to a reactor recommendation (in case someone asks).  It is also worth mentioning that if you help politicians with their re-election (by volunteering), you typically also get an opportunity to speak with them.

Thanks to you fine people for making cost-effective, environmentally responsible energy work in the USA.

One Question for you:

I'm thinking that new power plants create a local demand for highly-skilled, highly-educated workers.  Would you approximate the range of jobs at a nuclear power plant and the typical level education required for each job?


Thank you so much for your input.

-Joe Solinsky

[Roll Tide]

I'm thinking that new power plants create a local demand for highly-skilled, highly-educated workers.  Would you approximate the range of jobs at a nuclear power plant and the typical level education required for each job?

That is a tall order, but I would approximate (based on previous experience at 2-unit sites)

100 operators: 50 non-licensed (A.S. or equivalent) but highly paid (equivalent to a journeyman level craft); 30 licensed (B.S. or equivalent) reactor operators; 20 Senior licensed (B.S. or M.S. or equivalent)

Currently I see NLO (non-licensed operators) making near $30/hour with built in OT pushing the wage above $80K/year. Licensed and Senior Licensed make more than that (varies by company too much for me to make a call, but both are in the 6 figure range)

About 200 skilled craft (electricians, instrument techs, mechanics, etc.) are required, and currently those positions pay near the NLO rate at most plants. These positions are journeyman with B.S. or Engineering degree department heads.

50 Radiological Controls, Chemistry, and other support roles pay similar; B.S. or equivalent.

Training and clerical staff for an operating plant gives another 50 employees (ballpark); instructors get paid in the ballpark what the workers get paid, admin about 60%.

In addition to the 400 listed (which could be 500 at many plants), another 500 are required for an outage (plant shutdown every 18-24 months for new fuel and maintenance). The numbers should be lower for the new generation, but I don't know how much lower.

Entry-level positions require an A.S. at many utilities, then they will take you in and train for the journeyman / operator positions using classroom and on-the-job training methods.

Construction would require a couple of thousand workers; during this time they also hire many of those into the training programs to eventually run the plant.

[Fermi2]

Actually, Chernobyl did have a negative power coefficient over most of it's regime. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the plant design. It was by no means a bad design at all, in fact efficiency wise and under most regimes it's a darn excellent design. Like any reactor US or otherwise if you take it out of it's design envelope it then becomes a bad design. I read the combined INPO/NRC and DOE report on Chernobyl and nowhere do they say it was a bad design.

By our standards a VVER 440 is a bad design yet if I were an Operator in a Loss Of Power event there's no other reactor in the world I'd rather be operating.

You really missed the ball on TMI nuttyneutron. I suggest reading the Rogovin report and the NRC 3 Volume Investigation into the accident.

Davis Besse by the way did not solve their TMI type issue. They merely worked around it for years until poor plant design shut therm down for 3 years in the Mid 80s.

The Isotope of concern in a Smokestack of a dirt burner is Polinium. It causes FAR worse physical effects than Thorium.

Mike

[Roll Tide]

By our standards a VVER 440 is a bad design yet if I were an Operator in a Loss Of Power event there's no other reactor in the world I'd rather be operating.

For any accident, I would prefer a design with a containment structure rated to withstand the worst internal accident.

Chernobyl was graphite moderated; it is considered poor form to have a flammable moderator for Western reactors. We use water in PWRs and BWRs.

While I don't like most comparisons between Chernobyl and TMI, I stand by the one that I used: both were worst case for their respective designs.

[thenuttyneutron]

I am a bit confused with your post Mike. 

Are you saying there is no Thorium in coal?  Trace the Thorium 232 decay chain.  When talking to an anti-nuke, you must keep things simple.  Simply stating the fact that coal releases more radiation into the environment is easier than getting technical with what isotope will be the worst.  I am more concerned over Mercury than any of the radioactive materials coming out of a coal plant.

I never said Chernobyl had a positive coefficient of reactivity all the time.  I did say it became a bomb due to the positive coefficient of reactivity it developed. 

The events that led to the TMI event, the PORV sticking, did happen at another sister plant.  I talked to a RO on watch that day, he told me all the things that lead up to it.  This happened about a month before TMI.  I think you are confusing my term "fixed" with "design correction".  The operators did find the problem with the PORV and blocked the PORV shut.  This stopped the coolant leak.  Main Feed water problems may have started these events, but it is not the reason for why things went so wrong later on.  Main Feedwater is important, but not vital to the safety of the plant.  Had TMI not lost its coolant, it would probably be working today.  It is hard to keep a core cool when you don't have enough coolant in the RCS to keep the core covered.

The June 9 event also had the PORV stick but that was not the biggest issue.  When you lose both trains of aux feed pumps, you are in more serious trouble.  It gets even worse when you dry out the steam generators.

[Fermi2]

Your post was misleading

1: You said Chernobyl was a bad design when in fact no one has ever said that. You also never mentioned that under most conditions the Power Coefficient is negative. You also said because of the Power Coefficient being positive that the reactor was a bomb. It was never a bomb and had no potential to be one.

2: The RO at Davis Besse told you a bit of a different story than what actually happened. My cousin was one of the original SROs at Davis Besse and is in fact mentioned in their original FSAR. During their Pre TMI Event the only things that kept them from becoming TMI was A: Only being at 9% Power. B: Shutting the PORV Block Valve because they couldn't think of anything else to do. It had nothing to do with anyone being sharp or taking positive corrective action. It was more along the lines of well let's try this. C: They left their ECCS Pumps on, but mostly because they couldn't think of anything else to do. Again it wasn't a decision based on sound nuclear principles. The fact they didn't damage their core is a wonder in and of itself

3: I'm well aware of the 1985 Incident. I happen to have the NRC Report on it and the investigation done by Davis Besse. While the PORV wasn't the BIGGEST issue it may has well have been classified as Issue 1A. Trust me, Toledo Edison Management was extremely concerned with PORV Response. AS  for Main Feed not being a safety concern, you might want to guess again, due to the low reserve volume in an OTSG the NRC was at one time going to make the Main Feed System in a BW plant safety related. Just because they didn't doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

4: I was merely pointing out that Polonium is an Isotope of bigger concern in a smokestack (and a cigarette for that matter). This is a nuclear forum so I really am not concerned about confusing Non Nukes.


One reason I like the VVER 440. It has a HUGE primary volume and more importantly the largest SG water reserve of any SGs in the world. The SGs are also Horizontally mounted well above the core with no Candy Canes and extremely straight runs of pipe. A VVER 440 can sustain Natural Circ with no operator action for something like 12 hours.

Mike

[thenuttyneutron]

Considering how Chernobyl went prompt super critical, I would say it was a bomb.  They had no control over the reactor.  You can love the design of the SG all you want.  The huge volume of water will not save you if the operators put the plant in a configuration to where it is prompt super critical.  I also would love to meet the reactor engineer who does not dislike the graphite moderated/ water cooled design of Chernobyl.

I can tell you don't like B&W plants.  Lets compare the end result of the 2 accidents that they were both involved in.  I would take a TMI over another Chernobyl.  I know with a light water reactor, I stand a good chance at not blowing it up.

This forum was started by a non-nuke.  Getting in a pissing contest over Thorium and the daughter products in coal is a bit over the top.

[thenuttyneutron]

One more thing the VVER 440 is not what Chernobyl was.  Chernobyl was the RBMK-1000.

[GuloGulo]

I am not a total non-nuke, guys.  My father is a nuclear physicist who has worked for the PNNL, LLNL, and Sandia over a 35-year career, and got his PhD from the University of Minnesota.  We have had many delightful discussions over the dinner table of my childhood about nuclear physics, although admittedly, very little of it was about power plants.  He mostly built bombs, but did some work on the Yucca Mountain project, related to the vitrification and storage techniques.

To resolve the coal plant environmental impact, please visit this link:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

12.8 tons of Thorium / yr and 5.2 tons of Uranium / yr ( a percentage of which is U235)

for a 1000 MW coal plant.

Tomorrow is the first big day for me with this.  I find it mildly ironic/well-timed that it is also Earth Day.

[Roll Tide]

In regards to staffing, it looks like Browns Ferry has over 900 people now, adding another 150 with the restart of the third unit.


http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business/114664845473850.xml&coll=2

[alphadude]

The PORV issue was identified during the early days of ONS, long before the examples provided.  The TMI event hinged on the lack of understanding basic steam tables, feed water swing,  and the design of a 2 or 3 foot section of the PORV piping. (All the information was there.)  You must remember that during those days utilities were dealing with an NRC that was still thinking of promoting nuclear power and not regulating it, so LOTS of things were done to save money (training) and feed the coffers of the stock holder.

The B&W plants were designed as load followers, very responsive and easy to operate, had superheat regions, and considered advanced systems when compared to Westinghouse and CE.

[atomicarcheologist]

The Isotope of concern in a Smokestack of a dirt burner is Polinium. It causes FAR worse physical effects than Thorium.

Wouldn't there be a significant physical effect from the Radium content of the effluent?  I believe there is also a Radon component involved also and this is a known crowd pleaser.

[GuloGulo]

For those of you who are interested in the updates to my pro-nuclear agenda, the resolution I proposed in my political party was passed in senate district 46, as well as congressional district 3, and will now be going to the State of Minnesota convention before the state resolutions committee.  Sadly, one of the typical party guidelines is that if a resolution is not proposed and passed by multiple (5 of eight) congressional districts, it tends to not get added to the party plank.  Poor planning on my part.

When a resolution gets added to the party plank, the candidates for this political party need to choose sides on the matter as an issue.  It will require candidates to respond to the topic and, I hope, learn about it.

Minnesota enjoys the power generated by three nuclear reactors on two different sites, and we are a very environmentally-oriented state.  I have a friend at Great River Energy (also known as the "other" power company), and my hope is to extend interest through them, by way of competition to Excel Energy, which is also our utility company.

Edit: eight) makes if not spelled out; clarification

[Roll Tide]

Gulo,
It sounds like you have learned a lot this time. Be ready to make the most of what you have learned next time. Perhaps endorsement by a major candidate (Governor or US Senate) can still make an end run around the 5/8 district tendency. It can't hurt to contact those people most likely to be nominated for those positions.

[atomicarcheologist]

For those of you who are interested in the updates to my pro-nuclear agenda, the resolution I proposed in my political party was passed in senate district 46, as well as congressional district 3, and will now be going to the State of Minnesota convention before the state resolutions committee.  Sadly, one of the typical party guidelines is that if a resolution is not proposed and passed by multiple (5 of eight) congressional districts, it tends to not get added to the party plank. 

This sounds like the challenge of the springtime.  To garner party support in the other congressional districts to hear te resolution at the party convention resoulutions committee.  Perhaps, with a little bit of good old American hard work, elbow grease, glad handing, emailing, et al, you can find enough sympathetic ears in the other districts to vote pro and plank this resolution.  It's not easy, but it is politics. 

[Beta_effect]

You might find this link intersting:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/fiskelong

Here is the part that is interseting, and by the way, was talked about during a graduate level class (Nuclear Explosives Engineering, unclassified) I took in the late eighties well before this article was written:

"The 1986 explosion and fire at Chernobyl in the then-Soviet Union was much worse than the Three Mile Island accident, but could not occur in a United States reactor. The Chernobyl reactor that melted down did not have the containment features shown in Figure 1 and required and present in all reactors in the United States. These were intentionally omitted in the Soviet design because the reactor's primary purpose was the production of bomb grade materials, with power production as a pleasant side effect.[12] On the night of the accident, the administrators of the plant were running an experiment to test the performance of the reactor at levels at which they knew the core to be unstable, and to facilitate this experiment, intentionally disabled every safety system.[13] The operators were not able to maintain control once the experiment started, and, with the safety systems disabled, were unable to prevent the core from overheating."

The major point here is that the Chernobyl folks were doing experiments to optimize the reactor for weapons material production-had nothing to do with the "pleasant side effect." It is grossly unfair to the nuclear power industry in the US to even compare TMI and Chernobyl not only because of the obvious physical design, but also because of the reasons they were even brought into existence.

[alphadude]

true, since Chernobly was "military" in some manner, don't forget SL1, the Sodium Reactor in California etc. and who knows what at NTS to balance the agenda. 

[GuloGulo]

Fantastic news!

The person in Minnesota who is co-chair for my political party's state resolution committee also happens to be a strong nuclear power proponent, and just today (May 11, 2006) was advocating nuclear power in State Senate sessions today.  It might also be worth pointing out that this individual is Minnesota Senator David Hann. 

In response to the 5/8 rule for resolutions, he said he wasn't sure where that rule was written down.  It may be just a guideline and not really a rule, and he would support adding it to the party.  Seems to me that this will stand a a favorable chance of getting added to the party platform this year.

If any of you are interested in providing messages of encouragement or advocacy to Senator Hann, his home page is:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?district=42&status=active

and it contains his contact information; he was responsive to email.  I know Senator Hann would be especially encouraged to hear from present or past workers at Minnesota's nuclear facilities (including any former workers at the Elk River site).  Likewise, if you have the availability to do so, it is frequent enough to have citizens speak in advocacy on the Senate floor, so please consider volunteering your time to speak before the State Senate.  Such things were done in my recollection for other environmental issues (like a water quality initiative, which turned into a biochemistry discussion rather quickly).

Thank you for your continued support and enthusiasm.

New question: (moved to separate topic) RT

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,8009.msg42532/topicseen.html#new

[GuloGulo]

It just gets better and better!

Apparently, they either bent the resolution guidelines, or the interest in my party's congressional Resolutions Committee was unanimous and they made some special concession for it.  Anyway, the news is that the resolution passed at the party congressional level, and is onto the state convention this Friday.  Since so few resolutions make it out of the congressional level, my friend who is a state delegate tells me that the harder fight was inexplicably successful.  That means it could be on the party platform in time for this year's elections.  If so, I eagerly await the opportunity to start tallying candidates and elected officials for their position on the party platform.

Senator Hann from Eden Prairie, MN was definitely vital.  If any of you good people are from Minnesota, feel free to drop him a note of thanks.  (see earlier post).

Lastly, apparently one of my Dad's friends, who is a civil engineer of some consideration (I think he built the BART tunnels under the SF Bay, I know he has built at least one dam), is very excited about all of this and is going to get involved.

[GuloGulo]

Mere hours ago, the Minnesota Republican Party resolution to support nuclear power as a state energy source passed with a resounding 82% of the vote.  Thank you for your input, offers of help, and expertise.  It gave my group (of two) a lot of confidence and was used to build the basis of some of the print media campaigning.

I plan on contacting Great River Energy and Excel Energy and letting them know.  My understanding is that Excel owns the two reactor campuses in Minnesota.

Our government only works when we get involved, it would seem.