Japan taps industry to build safer, more secure nuclear energy future Japan is about to change course on energy policy following the Fukushima disaster in 2011 with a focus on developing safer nuclear reactors. The country put a stop to the construction of new nuclear plants after a tsunami hit the eastern prefecture, home to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in the most …
The focus is on improving the control-rod drive mechanism, responsible for adjusting nuclear reaction, to halve output or bring the reactor back online in 17 minutes, about a quarter of the time it takes existing reactors.
The problem with rapidly dropping output and then bringing it back up in a hurry is neutron poisoning by Xe135. Finer control of of the control rods might help in burning it off a bit faster, but there's one hell of a risk of instability.
Beneath the containment vessel, a "core catcher" will be installed to prevent molten fuel escaping in the event of a meltdown. I believe this is to both catch and quench, the catcher being constructed of lead. Like a dead mans brake.
That idea is not new, it just has been waiting to be implemented. To recap the Fukushima disaster, reactor no 1 was damaged, and a decision needed to be made whether or not to pump seawater into it to cool it down - which as a side effect would write-off the reactor due to the salt water corrosion. Seawater cooling was started, then HQ (the board of TEPCO, about 50km from the site) decided almost immediately to stop it, hoping to later repair the reactor, while the on-site manager, suspecting a melt down, quietly disobeyed orders and started the seawater cooling up again, unknown to HQ.
Months later, it was discovered that reactor number 1 had actually melted down (through the bottom of the reactor), and was also discovered that the on-site manager had continued the cooling - and his decision had been the right one in terms of safety - possibly preventing a far worse Chernobyl type disaster. He got a reprimand from HQ, while HQ eventually got an even bigger reprimand and criminal charges from an investigative panel later on. Meanwhile, the leaked meltdown is looking to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over several decades.
Human error, war, natural disasters - shit happens and a fail safe is needed. Of course it will be more expensive to construct, but a lot cheaper in the long run.
At the core of the Fukushima disaster were issues with the corporate culture at TEPCO and in the goverment.
The attempts at face saving politics in the face of disaster were core in all of the worst reactor incidents. Japan is even more susceptible to them then the Russians. Without an onsite, independent, and authoritative team that can make the calls that need to be made, operating a reactor that can't be shut off like a switch is a dicey prospect no matter how many other safety features it has.
If Japan is going to restart it nuclear industry safely, it will need to build something it has never really had except on paper. Everyone above the control room level was more concerned about getting permission from people with less information, less training, and even more conflicts of interest then they had.
The plant literally got hit by a massive tsunami. At the point the backup generators had been offline for more than a few minutes after an emergency scram, the onsite team was justified to consider doing a borate kill. Instead they waited for approval from Tokyo, in the wake of the massive regional disruption of the Earthquake and tsunami.
Because of the cultural factors I'd outsource the onsite safety team to a bunch of Germans with a very strict contract and broad onsite authority. That way there are as few incentives to hold back on making the hard decisions that will hit the operators or insurers bottom line.
You said The plant literally got hit by a massive tsunami. and that was exactly TEPCO's (failed) defense: nobody could have predicted it. But actually TEPCO had been informed of the risk by multiple sources, including their own employees.
Japan has suffered 195 tsunamis since 400, according to Japan's Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, which produced a report on tsunami threats to nuclear plants on the opposite coast to Dai-Ichi in July 2008. Three in the past three decades had waves of more than 10 meters.
A 7.6-magnitude quake in 1896 off the east coast of Japan created waves as high as 38 meters, while an 8.6- magnitude temblor in 1933 led to a surge as high as 29 meters, according to the US Geological Survey.
There probably won't be another tsunami like that (39 meters) in Fukushima for 1000 years. So for a 40 extended to 70 yr plant, there is only a 1 in 14 chance of getting hit. Multiplied by 20 plants located at various points on the coastline around the country ...
Live and learn. They seem to have learned.
Sure wish more countries, like, say, the US would recognize that the time to go all-in on nuclear has arrived. A few thorium breeders scattered around would supply the power that solar and wind never will, and we can start eliminating all that nuclear waste people keep whining about. Plus we can make more than enough electricity for those electric cars they want. If the green weenies were serious about ditching fossil fuels for carbon neutral power they'd be backing nuclear.
Sometimes I think the green weenie end goal is Logan's Run.
Somebody close the barn door!
Solar, wind and geothermal are mature technologies already undercutting nuclear, and they're becoming more economical by the day. Tidal power generation has a lot of promise, too. I realize there are some places in the world where these technologies aren't well suited, but Japan being an island nation along tectonic fault lines can probably put all of these technologies to good use. There are also an increasingly large number of grid scale energy storage options, which are also falling in price, reducing the need for peak or baseload power plants as well.
The idea that anyone would dump money into years of R&D for new nuclear power design right now, is akin to developing better CRT televisions. By the time they could be built and start producing energy, the renewable options will have driven the prices of wholesale electricity much lower. There will be no hope of selling electricity at a profit, and in fact early decommissioning seems quite likely. There's a small market for new nuclear power plants *right now*, but wait a few years for new designs and that market will have vanished.
-- they're becoming more economical by the day --
REMEMBER wind is free
--Solar, wind and geothermal are mature technologies--
BUT still want subsidies (under a different name of course)
PLUS the amount of land onshore wind turbines require over the equivalent space for a nuclear plant and the massive concrete beds they sleep in which is great for run off
FINALLY remember intermittency.
PLUS the amount of land onshore wind turbines require over the equivalent space for a nuclear plant and the massive concrete beds they sleep in which is great for run off
I suggest you look at this article from Our World in Data on land use per energy source. Total directly impacted land use for onshore wind is similar to nukes (0.4 m²/MWh vs 0.3 m²/MWh). You can use the land between the turbine bases for other things like farming. For maximum power generation, put agrivoltaics round the turbine bases plus some storage batteries.
The idea that anyone would dump money into years of R&D for new nuclear power design right now, is akin to developing better CRT televisions.
And yet much money is being dumped into R&D for electric vehicles, which pre-dated (and were made temporarily obsolete by) internal combustion powered ones. Researching alternatives when the technology has advanced is A Good Thing.
"Solar, wind and geothermal are mature technologies already undercutting nuclear" except at night on a still day, on sedimentary rock.
At those times, the price of electricity rises to the point where nuclear is the cheapest (or only) source.
What to do? Have nukes too, but only throttle them up at night when wind forecast is also low. During other times, reduce the power to conserve the fuel.
Solar, wind and geothermal are mature technologies already undercutting nuclear, and they're becoming more economical by the day.
OK, get back to me when you have costings for solar and wind which include catering for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining. The reason they are cheap, while other sources have become more expensive, is because they have externalised the costs of intermittency to "someone else".
To put it in perspective. Realistically, you will need storage for more or less maximum demand for a couple of weeks - Europe wide.
Near me, they built a battery storage facility. I haven't seen a figure as the many millions included other things - but "£ millions" bought a storage system that has the capacity of a rounding error compared to typical grid loads, for just 1/2 hour.
Before you call male bovine manure, just cast your mind back to the end of 2010. In Dec 2010 we had a prolonged static high pressure system that meant cold days and even colder nights - people like British Gas offering boiler maintenance contracts couldn't cope with the problems caused by frozen condensate drains. While we had bright days, it was low sun so not really a good angle for a lot of production, and days were short anyway. But we also had no wind.
OK, we don't have such widespread calm spells all that often, but we do get them. Unless you plan for them, then the plan is fairly simple - when the wind and solar aren't working, the lights go out and people freeze to death. If you thought "smart" meters were to improve management of the network, you are only half right - the primary function is to control demand, firstly by pricing the poor offline, and if that's not enough, by implementing rolling blackouts like we had in the 70s. Of course, back in the 70s we still (mostly) had a clue how to carry on without lecky - these days there's so much that doesn't work without lecky that I think most people would struggle.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
