Dismantling a Nuclear Reactor 102
AmiMoJo sends in a BBC story about the hardware used to decommission a nuclear reactor:
"The device cost £20m to design and build and will operate in highly radioactive conditions inside Dounreay's landmark Dome. Its detachable tool bits cost £100,000 each and weigh between 37-93kg. They will cut and grab 977 metal rods once used to 'breed' plutonium from uranium. ... Once in place, the device will operate in highly radioactive conditions and in a nitrogen atmosphere. Nitrogen prevents any residue of the liquid metal from reacting. Exposure to water or oxygen would cause the metal to catch fire. ... Up to three tool bits will be in use at any one time and can be replaced by another three carried in a special tool box without the need to remove the tool itself from the reactor. The rest of the tool bits will be stored above the reactor and would be fitted into place during service and maintenance breaks."
Obligatory: (Score:2, Funny)
In this thread... (Score:3)
Next week, Bricklayers wonder about space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is much worse when space scientists wonder about bricklaying. For while humanity may be better off with space scientists left to do their job, it needs bricklayers to be left to do theirs.
Metal? What Metal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
DFR, the reactor they're talking about in this case, used a liquid sodium potassium alloy for coolant.
Re:Metal? What Metal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, yes. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], this reactor is cooled by liquid sodium-potassium metal. The BBC mentions it several times as "liquid metal", but never by name, likely because "liquid metal" is a much cooler name than "sodium-potassium." Or because the less scientific might think "Sodium and potassium? You mean salt and the stuff in bananas?" This is BBC, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. Sadly, its also probably what most people would think. Never mind liquid sodium-potassium [wikipedia.org] is flammable in air, and the idea of radioactive NaK burning gives me the heeblie-jeeblies, as much as I like nuclear power.
Long story short: bad nuclear reactor design, should never be done again. Also, its been being decommissioned since 1977. So, yeah, lets not do that again.
Re:Metal? What Metal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Long story short: bad nuclear reactor design, should never be done again.
Hi! You must be new here. Let me introduce you to the Slashdot resident "sodium cooled fast breeder reactors are way cool, we should build loads more of them and solve all the world's ecological problems!" contingent.
Re: (Score:2)
"sodium cooled fast breeder reactors are way cool, we should build loads more of them and solve all the world's ecological problems!"
You've converted to that? Way cool.
I was beginning to lose hope for you.
Re:Metal? What Metal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, don't get me wrong: I do still think FBRs are really cool. While I was reading about this reactor, my inner nerd was going "Holy shit, using NaK as a coolant is awesome and kinda badass!" even while it was also going "Holy shit, using a material that can spontaneously explode in air as coolant for nuclear material is a really bad idea!". Many bad ideas are also really cool. Doesn't mean they aren't still bad ideas. Can't even imagine what would happen if the public found out about it. Or if, God forbid, one of these things actually exploded.
Now, something like a Molten Salt Reactor [wikipedia.org], on the other hand, is both cool and (probably) not a bad idea. And could possibly solve most of the world's ecological problems.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia MSRE page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment [wikipedia.org] ):
The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization.
Re: (Score:2)
if i remember correctly one of the reasons it was so challenging to decommission was because they let it sit for nearly 20 years before doing it
Re: (Score:2)
UF4 at 800C.. what could possibly go wrong? ;)
Still, might be worth it as a stopgap before fusion.
I would also like to complain about <sub> not working on slashdot, of all places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Metal? What Metal? (Score:5, Informative)
In all seriousness, newer technology is generally safer than old technology, and several proposed reactor designs reduce nuclear waste, which is the biggest issue with nuclear power.
Most people these days are advocating molten salt reactors, which do not use dangerous liquid metals. Salts are much safer than anything currently used to generate power. There's no risk of the coolant or fuel igniting, for example, which is a risk even with water cooled plants. Fukushima is a practical example: the loss of coolant water allowed Zirconium fuel element cladding to become exposed to air and catch fire. That kind of thing just can't happen with a salt. Meltdown isn't a risk either in a reactor designed to operate in a molten state to begin with!
Re: (Score:1)
"Fukushima is a practical example: the loss of coolant water allowed Zirconium fuel element cladding to become exposed to air and catch fire."
No. The red-hot zirconium alloy cladding for the fuel reacted with steam at the very high temperatures, which then dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escaped, and then ignited outside the reactor. The zircalloy cladding isn't particularly prone to burn all by itself, unlike some of the liquid metal coolant used in some reactor designs, such as the N
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I have three words for you "positive temperature co-efficient". Someone care to define why this is not desirable in a nuclear reactor? c'mon anyone? I will give you a hint, it involves reactivity and temperature. OK TIMES UP. The answer is : Think back to Chernoblyl. It used a liquid sodium moderator. When the termperature goes up the reactivity goes up. This makes things a little difficult to stop a runaway reaction. PWR's and BWR's have a negative co-efficient meaning that if you overheat t
Re: (Score:2)
As my AC sibling states, the RMBK design used in chernobyl uses graphite as a moderator, and the crippling design flaw wasnt a positive temperature co-efficient, but a positive void co-efficient. Granted, voids are generally caused by high temperatures, but arent the only factor.
Re: (Score:1)
Chernobyl - also begins a discussion of "Xenon Poisoning'
You may find this article interesting.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html [physorg.com]
Bad Design - Not Really (Score:2, Informative)
To be fair the Dounreay FBR was not a bad design, it has been a very successful prototype and operated for many years. It can survive complete external cooling failure because of natural convection and many new designs are copying this idea. Although I do agree a liquid Sodium-Potassium mix is not a nice compound, and the newer designs are using better mediums.
While it has been theoretically in the process of decommissioning since 1977, it has started and paused many times, mainly for good reasons like allo
Re: (Score:2)
There are some quite interesting videos from Dounreay Site Restoration showing some of their work - feeding cameras deep into the reactor and through bits of pipework to check if there are traces of the coolant left etc.
http://www.dounreay.com/news-room/dounreay-tv [dounreay.com]
Re:Metal? What Metal? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't happen to know why alkali metals are useful in a fast breeder?
Let me see:
Alkali metals don't corrode the structural materials in the reactor, unlike superheated water, salt or lead.
The coolant doesn't need to be pressurised, greatly reducing the risk of a leak.
The heat conductivity is superior to any other coolant, making it much easier to design a passive cooling system
The coolant is compatible with metal fuel. Metal fuel has much better heat conductivity than
the helium-ceramic type of fuel bundles used in most reactors, which aids in cooling. Metal fuel
is also MUCH easier to reprocess ( necessary for a breeding cycle ).
Unlike salt and lead, sodium alloys are liquid close to room temperature, making service, repair and standby operations much simpler.
Unlike salt and water, alkali coolants don't undergo radiolysis at any temperature.
The electrical conductivity in sodium is good enough that you can make electromagnetic pumps with no moving parts ( less risk of pump failure ).
The neutron spectrum with alkali coolants is quite hard, giving such a reactor excellent breeding and actinide burning potential.
So basically while the fire hazard is an issue for these reactors, there are numerous advantages with alkali metals that actually give a lot of safety advantages. Also, while a sodium fire would be bad, it's not exactly as if rupture of a pipe carrying superheated steam would be very benign either.
Re: (Score:2)
> Unlike salt and lead, sodium alloys are liquid close to room temperature
Minor correction: Many sodium allows have a much higher melting point and are solid at room temperature. NaK, the alloy used in this case, is liquid at temperatures quite a bit below normal room temperature. The melting point is only 12 degrees Farenheit.
Re: (Score:2)
"The electrical conductivity in sodium is good enough that you can make electromagnetic pumps with no moving parts"
I'd never heard of liquid metal pumps before. I salute you good sir for introducing me to something fascinating.
any idea if they work on other liquids? does the liquid simply have to be conductive or what?
I'm confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything worth being impressed by is also worth being afraid of.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything worth being impressed by is also worth being afraid of.
So we should be afraid of the Eiffel tower? Ooo, how about the statues of Moai?
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed, that thing is a giant lightening rod. And apparently without a rubber nub at the top a single lightening strike could fry the earth like a potato.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You laugh now, but you won't be laughing when those Moai heads come to life and reveal they're relics of an ancient alien civilization. The only thing that will save you then is the Vic Viper.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Is this a "Ack, nuclear stuff is expensive and dangerous!" article or a "Wow, large engineering projects are cool!" article. Should I be AFRAID or IMPRESSED? I don't know!
Makes me think - wow, we need a better way to make electricity.
Too expensive (Score:2)
After all, the japanese managed to dismantle a reactor for free.
Too soon?
Re: (Score:1)
Swing and a miss..
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't dismantled, they broke it but it's still standing.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't dismantled, they broke it but it's still standing.
And it's still producing heat energy, too! By burning fuel, no less. Ancient technology... today!
At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Small units, reuse of high grade waste with something like accelerated thorium, and actual containment of the remaining waste are the way to go instead of treating it all as a solved problem fixed by magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cargo cults in the mirror? (Score:3)
Sooo. We implement a technology (thorium breeders) that we have far less engineering experience with than the standard reactors and it will automagically instantly be better?
Uh. Who's doing cargo cult again?
(I favor thorium fueled reactors, but it will not automatically be a solution to all problems without further engineering and experience. Nothings easy.)
Oh, and are we talking about using 70s tech to clean sites up to 70s de facto standards of safe it, lock the place up and monitor it forever?
Or the mass
Criticise what's there not what is in your head (Score:3)
It's very clear to all who take things seriously that the currently running reactors are just not good enough so the "engineering experie
You have a good imagination yourself: (Score:2)
"It's very clear to all who take things seriously"
There's an old joke that when you see a phrase like that in a paper, it means "I think so."
The biggest problem with the currently running reactors in the US is that promises that were made about storing, reprocessing or otherwise dealing with the waste were unfullfilled here.
Purex processing wasn't an ideal solution, but was a possible one. It was made impossible for political/arms control reasons.
Entombment at Yucca Mountain wasn't an ideal solution but was
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to map the phrase "cargo cult" onto the situation you've described and I'm coming up blank. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not thorium breeders are a good idea or not, the only meaning of the phrase "cargo cult" I can divine that might be relevant appears to be the usage of the phrase itself!
On the reactor type issue, though, thorium breeders are the future of energy production - there are orders of magnitude more of it accessible than uranium, although we do have an awful lot of availabl
Right shape and pretend the rest is magic (Score:3)
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Reprocessing hasn't exactly stood still since the 1970's. And, I mean, it's not easy or anything, but AREVA does it every day.
Now, while I agree that waste reuse (and, of course, avoiding the isotopic mess that comes with natural uranium) and thorium breeding are a good idea to develop, I think you may be a little out of your depth on the subject of "accelerated thorium"; the fission-fusion reaction hasn't even demonstrated the ability to reach 10% break-even from the energy used to accelerate the Th beam, and was largely designed to produce high-neutron isotopes of transition elements. It's not geared for power production.
That's a bit ironic, yeah? I mean you basically said, "Don't pretend [older, difficult magic process] will fix everything, but hey, [new, poorly understood magic process]!"
Re: (Score:3)
Really? They started up again after a halt of a few years and are running every day and there has been nothing in the press about it? Saturdays and Sundays as well? Where did you get that from, I'd really be interested in reading something that shows that you didn't just make that up.
I know that reprocessing has been done in the past but implying that it is an everyday industrial process of little consequence is just a little bit dishonest and misleading don't you think?
If you
Re: (Score:2)
Also I think the goalposts are being shifted a bit here since that proposal is to reprocess surplus weapons material and not the far more difficult task of reprocessing expired fuel rods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now do you understand what I'm getting at? No reprocessing anywhere on earth for a few years is a bit different to "every day". Prove me wrong with something about reprocessing being carried out any time this year or last year and I'll concede the "every day" as an honest exaggeration and
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-3024/nuclear-used-fuel-processing-reduction-in-the-volume-of-waste.html [areva.com]
This plant has 2 production lines with a current capacity corresponding to electricity production of 450 tWh per year (1,700 tons of used fuel per year). Almost 929 tons were treated there in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in the nuclear fanboi camp at all - I think there are better, cheaper sources of electrical energy. I'm definitely not siding with whoever your argument is pointed at.
That said, it seems likely that electricity generation was a waste heat recovery operation at this plant. Its true purpose was probably to generate weapons-grade nuclear materials and to help learn about the effects of fission to transmute elements, not to generate power. This makes your comment off point. As abhorrent as the risk
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting notion. Could you provide a link to any articles about either prototype or production units?
Re: (Score:1)
Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power generator on 4 July 1904 in Larderello, Italy. - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
I guess the best reference would be The Geysers [wikipedia.org] in California, generating electricity since 1960. You'll find five countries that (as of 2004) generated more than 15 percent of their electrical power from geothermal energy here. [wikipedia.org]
Typically geothermal plants produce more widely distributed energy than nuclear power. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The closer the generation is to the use the less the transmission losses waste.
You should find sufficient citations in the wikipedia articles to continue yo
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks!
Not yet, if ever (Score:3)
The frustrating thing is that almost every reactor design more complex than a boiling water reactor has had serious problems. Most high-temperature gas-cooled reactors have had major problems, although Peach Bottom continues to generate power profitably. The German AVR reactor [wikipedia.org], which was a pebble-bed design, had a pebble jam and can't be dismantled at all. About a dozen sodium-cooled reactors have been built, with few successes and several sodium fires.
That's why reactors are still BWRs and PWRs. Everyth
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian BN-600 sodium cooled fast reactor has run for more than a couple of decades and is the most reliable power reactor in the Russian fleet. They are building an upgraded version called the BN-800 and China is buying two. Russia has been making a lot of noises lately about fast reactors being their energy future. France has the Astride fast reactor development program which recently received renewed funding. India is bringing it's first power fast reactor on line soon. The EBR-II ran successfully at
Re: (Score:1)
There are 14 gas cooled reactors in the UK. I'm not going to say that they're better than PWRs and BWRs, but AGRs [wikipedia.org] are out there too.
They should hire BP (Score:2)
It would be awesome to see a "top kill" using nucular waste.
(Yeah, nucular)
Re: (Score:3)
Perfect job for industrial robots. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difficult part is that robot electronics are vulnerable to the radiation inside the reactors, that drives the price and engineering difficulties up.
Re:Hidden costs (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean "hidden"? Nobody has ever denied that nuclear reactors eventually have to be dismantled, and, at least in the U.S., afaik, the operators of nuclear plants, BY LAW, are required to set aside funds starting the first day of operation, to decommission the plant when the time comes.
I don't believe decommissioning costs are some secret government subsidy. . .
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're trolling, but then again there's plenty of ignorant nuke haters in the world that can't possibly imagine that nuclear reactors are anything other than disguised nuclear weapons that will explode at any moment regardless of how carefully they're tended to.
Re: (Score:2)
DFR is a fast reactor not a LWR (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell there aren't any LWRs in the UK. We have one PWR reactor (Sizewell B) and a bunch of AGR and Magnox reactors. Sizewell B was apparently supposed to be AGR too originally...
They have a cheaper option in this country (Score:1)
Here they use an illegal alien in lead jockey shorts.
Re: (Score:2)
The illegal aliens from Mercury already have a pretty high radiation tolerance.
Learn from the Japanese (Score:4, Informative)
The Japanese have built and used a similar tool for removing fuel from their troubled Monju fast breeder reactor prototype. The latest glitch was that the tool fell into the reactor and got stuck. The senior engineer on the effort committed suicide after this.
The tool was retrieved last month, after much effort.
It would be a shame if the Brits ran into similar problems, so hopefully they are talking to the Japanese and getting some lessons learned.
Re:Learn from the Japanese (Score:5, Insightful)
That is truly a shame, and one of the few things I really dislike about Japanese culture.
You don't learn without making mistakes. Epic mistakes deliver epic lessons. Suicide deprives
Live through it. You'll be better for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How was nothing learned from his mistake?
Its not like the mistake wasn't obvious to others.
The Japanese have a since of honor and pride, the rest of the world would do good to have some of it. America most certainly needs some. We think we deserve to rule the world Because. When we fuck up and kill 10k people ... its the 10k peoples fault they died, not the CEO or Engineers.
Unless this guy was playing around with the robot inside the reactor with no one watching (let me give you a hint, he wasn't, since
Re: (Score:2)
When has the US f'd up and killed 10k people? Are you talking about the wars? Because I don't think that they map very well to reactor design and maintenance programs. I don't think it counts an engineering f-up if you intended to kill people...
Maybe you're talking about our transportation system, which focuses largely on individually-controlled discrete transportation units to offer maximum flexibility to the users of the system? I don't think we're going to reduce road deaths much more than we alread
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
a) I don't think anyone in the US behaves like that
b) I don't see how that's relevant.
"The Japanese have a since of honor and pride, the rest of the world would do good to have some of it....some people actually feel bad when they fuck up"
There is no honor in suicide, and pride, when injured, does not justify giving up. If you feel bad, you help fix the problem. Committing suicide because you don't want
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Brits are taking seppuku lessons?
Re: (Score:1)
You are most likely confusing things.
The senior engineer who comitted suicide was involved in the conver up of a severe incident in the mid 90's - a sodium leak occured. The operator and authorities attempted to cover-up things, and most likely because of being deeply disappointed about the company and yet feeling responsible the guy comitted suicide.
Noone comitted suicide because of the recent incident about the device falling into the reactor.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, that is unfortunately incorrect. There was an earlier disaster, with the cover up of a massive sodium leak leading to a senior executive's suicide, back in Jan 1996.
This is a separate event, involving the plant manager in charge of the fuel section, a hard core engineer, in February of this year.
Cost of decommissioning? any figures? (Score:2)
Anybody know how much it costs to decommission such a reactor (or similar)? I'd heard it's a pretty costly business. A few hippies I know have his theory that the total life cycle cost of commissioning, running, and decomissioning a reactor is more than the value of the electricity produced in its lifetime. But I'd love to get some figures before arguing further with them. Any thoughts? How long / how much does it cost to decommission a reactor of this type (or similar)?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe IEA estimates are 15-20% of the original capital cost. When discounted a fair way into the future, they have a surprisingly small effect on the Levelized Cost of Electricity. The effect on the latter is heavily influenced by assumed discount rate. People sometimes like to confuse matters by equating costs of decommissioning of light water power reactors with the costs for older designs such as UK Magnox reactors or cleaning up some of the mess left from the cold war weapons and dual use facilities
Hmm.. but ok! (Score:1)
Work Experience (Score:1)
When I was in high school, I did a week's work experience in the computing department at Dounreay
We worked on the ground floor of the building that houses the old DFR control room (it was just upstairs from us). We were right in the shadow of the spherical reactor housing (affectionately known as "the Golf Ball".
They had all sorts of old tech in their computing department - DEC VAX systems, racks full of old Gandalf kit, etc. It was 16 years ago now, and I can't remember what else they had in there. Ther
Windmills (Score:2)
Gee for windmills all you need is a wrench