Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves Modular Generation III+ Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor — but the Problem of Waste Storage Remains a Critical Societal Obstacle to Its Widespread Use — a Problem that Our Failing Political System Is Unlikely to Overcome

© 2011 Peter Free

 

24 December 2011

 

 

A general proposition — nuclear power continues to be a worthy undertaking, BUT . . .

 

The economic and environmental virtues of nuclear power arguably outweigh its perceived safety negatives.

 

BUT — as I have written before — it often appears that we humans are too stupid and too greedy to properly design, regulate, and supervise nuclear power production to achieve the levels of safety that are politically necessary.

 

The earthquake-tsunami originated Fukushima Daiichi radioactivity release in Japan in March 2011 is an example of corporate avarice and political regulatory pusillanimity overcoming even the most basic common sense.  The disaster resulted in a heightened prejudice against nuclear power generation around the world.

 

 

American regulatory sanity may be a step forward

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved Westinghouse’s modular AP1000 reactor for use in the United States.  In my view, this is a welcome injection of (partial) sanity into the energy-production conundrum.

 

On the positive side, technology journalist, Jason Mick, wrote that:

 

[T]he U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is doing its best to restore some sanity to the power market, making one of its biggest moves in recent years, unanimously approving . . . a new reactor design and setting in a new faster, streamlined approval process.

 

The approval puts the U.S. on the fast track to catching up with China, who is already deploying four of the cheap, safe AP1000 reactors.

 

China paid $8B USD to Westinghouse and The Shaw Group (SHAW) to build the four reactors, indicating an average cost of around $2B USD per reactor.  Given an average life of 60 years [source] and a power output of around 1000 MW, the plants could each generate around 525.95 billion kWh over their lifetime.

 

Even factoring in the typical cost of operation (around $0.01 USD/kWh) and fuel (around $0.0035 USD/kWh) [source], the generated power should cost about $0.02 USD/kWh, making it likely cheaper than coal.

 

Even assuming the cost of the plant doubles due to overruns, that would still place it at $0.0265 USD/kWh -- still cheaper than coal power.

 

© 2011 Jason Mick, U.S. is Only 3 Years Behind China in Nuclear Reactors Courtesy of New Approval, DailyTech (23 December 2011) (paragraph split)

 

Westinghouse proved to the NRC’s satisfaction that the AP1000 would survive Fukushima’s combination of natural disasters, as well as a direct hit by a terrorist airplane strike.

 

If true, that’s good.  But waste disposal remains a dominating and politicized safety problem.

 

 

Does writer Mick underestimate the politicized insanity that continues to govern nuclear waste disposal?

 

Waste disposal has been nuclear power’s biggest bugaboo.  It’s insane to keep radioactive waste in scattered cans, tanks, or pools around the country.  This distribution pattern merely complicates safety, anti-terrorist planning, and waste-disposal supervision.

 

Citing industry sources, Jason Mick estimates that the AP1000 will generate about 141 cubic meters of “low-level dry waste,” that can be compacted down to 30 to 40 cubic meters.  Which, he admits, is not much of an improvement over older reactor designs.

 

However, arguably more difficult to contain liquid waste has been reduced from about 250 cubic meters to only 21.6 m3.

 

Mick says:

 

Both the wet and dry waste can be safe stored in tanks on site, with 95 percent of the radioactive material decaying within 100 years and almost complete decay within 500 years [source].

 

And concludes that:

 

While waste costs are the subject of controversy and debate, it seems unlikely they will be that extravagant.  Thus modular nuclear power is likely the cheapest viable form of alternative energy.

 

© 2011 Jason Mick, U.S. is Only 3 Years Behind China in Nuclear Reactors Courtesy of New Approval, DailyTech (23 December 2011)

 

The problem with Mick’s reasoning is that it is rationally economic and not subject to the inflated fears that characterize public perceptions regarding safety risks.

 

His “on site” storage assumption runs counter to the “not in my backyard” political phenomenon.

 

Rational economic considerations typically do not enter equations in which people simply refuse to allow something to be built or done in their community.

 

Though people with abstract scientific minds may think that 100 to 500 years is a short time (planetarily speaking), it’s a darn long time when compared to a human being’s life span.  No one wants themselves or their children exposed to the perceived risks posed by radiating masses a comparatively short distance from their home.

 

My guess is that American nuclear power generation is going to continue to be sporadic, until Congress and the states come up with a sensibly-sited waste storage facility.

 

The decade drawn-out failure of the national repository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada) to come to fruition does not augur well in this.

 

 

The moral? — a regulatory step forward by the NRC for national energy production, but nothing at all to support it from Congress or the President

 

Dysfunctional politics have become the bane of rational governance.