HPC

[Joeboy]

Read this article and thought of this thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx6e2x0kdyo

[ecogeorge]

Cant think of many so called clean energys that cost 2 billion a year to look after their waste .... every year,,,,, year on year....

[AE-NMidlands]

Cant think of many so called clean energys that cost 2 billion a year to look after their waste .... every year,,,,, year on year....

... for centuries to come! When I read that article I saw the graphic

storage2.png (107.02 KiB) Viewed 1200 times

and noticed the cooling towers in it! If they have to dump the decay heat, why not put in some heat pumps and a district heating scheme?

[dan_b]

It's happened again - 2nd automatic shutdown in a month

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-09-17/

oh dear oh dear, no way of wrapping this one up pretty, although they do try to........

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ne ... c516&ei=61

An automatic reactor scram is never good event, if a reactor has to be shut down its preferable for the operators to be aware and conducted their own reactor shut down then at least they can be said to be in control. Automatic shut down suggests the instrumentation had to do the task because the control room did not act quickly enough.

Another calamity along the route for this reactor type.

Moxi

[Bugtownboy]

Thought this was the best place for this rather than a new thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8699v4dvexo

[Moxi]

Not sure about the up to 95 years bit, should probably read at least 95 years.

Berkely went of the wires in 1988/89 and is still at least 2 years away from the decay / safe store period of 55 years even then there's no definite plan for core dismantling because they wont know how much actual decay will have actually taken place and how much residual radiation will be attributable to longer decaying daughter products arising in the graphite matrix from fuel can failure's over the years. Its a learning curve and a bit of kicking the contaminated can down the road exercise at the same time.

Going to cost billions too because in the mean time the 64 year old reactor building needs to be kept weather tight until around 2070 to 2080 (based on current estimates for decay). So the original reactor building structure will be around 120 years old before they consider removing the graphite, It will need considerable work to maintain it and then ensure its integrity while they enter the reactor core to remove the internals and graphite - a big engineering job.

The modern reactors should be a bit easier to clean up in fairness - but who knows what will happen until we get close to their decommissioning time ?

Moxi

[AE-NMidlands]

Going to cost billions too because in the mean time the 64 year old reactor building needs to be kept weather tight until around 2070 to 2080 (based on current estimates for decay). So the original reactor building structure will be around 120 years old before they consider removing the graphite, It will need considerable work to maintain it and then ensure its integrity while they enter the reactor core to remove the internals and graphite - a big engineering job.
Moxi

I would hope that (after the ancillary stuff has been removed and scrapped) the actual secure structure won't cost much to manage or maintain, apart from the security. It's not got any moving parts and presumably keeping it weatherproof will be quite straightforward, maybe with modifications where weak points or corrosion problems emerge.

When the final phase comes then I guess it will be very expensive, probably needing a rebuild of the outer containment to facilitate the dismantling and packaging machinery...
Electricity too cheap to meter, eh? Pity the "profits" from the later stations will be going into other pockets rather than funding the clean-up, which will be left to you and me - or our grandchildren.

[Mart]

Makes you want to laugh, cry and check your wallet, all at the same time.

If only we weren't going to repeat this insanity with HPC and maybe(?) SCZ ..... when RE + (RE + storage) is quicker, cheaper and lower CO2(e).

[Moxi]

Going to cost billions too because in the mean time the 64 year old reactor building needs to be kept weather tight until around 2070 to 2080 (based on current estimates for decay). So the original reactor building structure will be around 120 years old before they consider removing the graphite, It will need considerable work to maintain it and then ensure its integrity while they enter the reactor core to remove the internals and graphite - a big engineering job.
Moxi

I would hope that (after the ancillary stuff has been removed and scrapped) the actual secure structure won't cost much to manage or maintain, apart from the security. It's not got any moving parts and presumably keeping it weatherproof will be quite straightforward, maybe with modifications where weak points or corrosion problems emerge.

When the final phase comes then I guess it will be very expensive, probably needing a rebuild of the outer containment to facilitate the dismantling and packaging machinery...
Electricity too cheap to meter, eh? Pity the "profits" from the later stations will be going into other pockets rather than funding the clean-up, which will be left to you and me - or our grandchildren.

Its a few years since I last got embroiled in discussions regards the safety case retention for a decommissioned nuclear reactor but IIRC they still need their routine safety case inspections and surveys - as seismic structures alone they will need to undergo robust assessment periodically to maintain their appropriate safety measures pursuant to the risk potential they pose. It will be cheaper than an operational station but still costly and in the case of an operational station at least it will generate income and power after the exercise is complete, these redundant structures are simply a drain on resource and taxed income.

As an example for an unnamed UK Magnox station we had planned to build a crash deck over the pile caps to allow the upper portions of the building to be puled down for safety and costs but it was decided that the long term maintenance of the building would be a comparable cost, sometime later the long term maintenance cost was revised up to account for revised safety case requirements where a basket of measures was required to meet a risk reduction outcome. the crash deck would have negated the safety case requirement in the first place and removed a large proportion of the inflated long term maintenance.

Its safe to say, the costs will inevitably end up being more than we budgeted for, they were almost right with the original slogan "too cheap to meter" should have been "too costly to consider"

Hindsight.

Moxi

[Mart]

Hi Moxi, I was going to look this up, but suspect you will know better than the random findings I will get on Google.

So I seem to recall that the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Agency) has an annual budget of £3bn to £4bn, the bulk of which goes towards decommissioning, and is expected to operate for ~100yrs.

That's an awful lot of money, though I appreciate we didn't realise the high costs back in the 'old days', so it's unfair of me to use hindsight as a criticism, but still, equivalent to 300 to 400 GW's of RE capacity, perhaps!

Again, I'm laughing and crying.