Monday, May 23, 2011
This Time I Can Pronounce It
Unlike the last one, I can pronounce Grímsvötn, which is the volcano currently erupting in Iceland.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Generation Next
A few posts back I mentioned that the United States Department of Energy had come up with the concept of "generations" of nuclear reactors in order to help explain its current strategy. The DOE is attempting to move forward on two different tracks: building Generation III reactors, which are supposedly improved designs of the light water reactors that were built in the 1970s and 1980s, and conducting research and development into what are hoped to be substantially better reactors to be built starting in the 2020s. The progress on new Gen-III reactors was slow even before the Fukushima Dai-ichi crisis, mostly due to rapid cost escalation. Reactor licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency (from the DoE, but perhaps not from the nuclear industry), has also been slower than expected. The crisis in Japan is likely to delay new Gen-III reactors further, and possibly derail the whole program.
Unlike the Gen-III effort, which is concerned mostly with domestic issues of implementation, the Generation IV program is an international effort. Right now it's too early to say whether or not the Gen-IV program is on track - despite having been around for over a decade by now - because a lot of what participants are doing is basic materials research. The effort is also somewhat diffuse, as countries are really coordinating work more than they are working together. That's probably natural, as funding for the research is still being provided by member countries. And finally, it's hard to talk about the status of the effort as the latest GIF annual report hasn't been issued, and the DoE's status page is simply out of date.
The most important achievement of the GIF so far has been to select six conceptual designs for further research. (Note: most of the early GIF documents are no longer available from government websites, but some have been mirrored here.) At least 94 different concepts were submitted for review in early 2001. A number of meetings were then held to classify and evaluate the concepts. The result was a report which laid out the rational for selecting six proposals to be investigated further. Those concepts are: the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), the molten-salt reactor (MSR), the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the super-critical water-cooled reactor (SCWR), and the very-high temperature reactor (VHTR). If some of those reactor types sound familiar, that's because they've been built before without much success. But the evaluation team evidently though they were worth a second look. Each of the concepts has a few options for implementation outlined in the report.
You may have noticed that three of the reactors have "fast" in their name, which is a reference to the energy of the neutrons that cause the self-sustaining nuclear reaction in a reactor core. The main advantage of fast neutron reactors is that they are able to "breed" large amounts of new fissionable elements during operation, which could potentially eliminate any uranium shortages for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. With some configuration changes, fast reactors are also able to "burn" spent fuel from existing thermal neutron reactors. If successfully implemented on large scale, this feature would drastically reduced the amount of high-level waste that needs to be stored in expensive geological repositories. Of the other three, one is a standard thermal neutron reactor, one is a thermal neutron reactor capable of breeding at a low rate, and the other can be configured either to have either thermal or epithermal neutrons.
Below is my short summary of each concept. There are, of course, better summaries elsewhere, but I've added a bit of editorializing that (ahem) you just can't find elsewhere.
Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor - The SFR concept has been previously implemented the most number of times out of the six concepts. It is a fast neutron reactor that uses liquid sodium as the coolant in the primary and secondary cooling loops. In the past these reactors have been called liquid metal fast reactors (LMFR) or just fast breeder reactors (FBR). To date, a total of 20 SFRs have been built and operated, though only four are operating now. Of those still in use, only one produces electricity. The rest exist for research purposes. In addition to being able to breed more fissile material, the SFR has the advantage of providing high outlet temperature without requiring the high pressures found in LWRs. The main disadvantage is that sodium is flammable when exposed to air, and explosive when in contact with water. Most SFRs have used water in the tertiary coolant loop to generate steam for turbines, and water ingress into the secondary coolant loop has been a major problem. Some newer proposals use carbon dioxide in the tertiary loop to avoid the problem of sodium's volatility. My take on this concept is that it useful mainly for breeding in a nuclear power "ecosystem" that includes lots of non-breeder reactors. The difficulties encountered during implementation so far have made the SFR non-economic for electricity generation when compared to LWRs. I think that further research should be done on this concept, but focused on efficient breeding and ease of loading and unloading the fertile material.
Lead-cooled Fast Reactor - This concept is another liquid metal-cooled fast reactor, like the SFR. To date no LFRs have been built, but a closely related design using lead-bismuth eutectic as a coolant was built by the Soviet Union to power some of its submarines. It was not very successful, though that may have had more to do with the Soviet Union's military culture than the design itself. As with the SFR, the main advantage of this concept is high outlet temperatures at low primary loop pressures. Unlike sodium, liquid lead is not explosive when in contact with water, which eliminates the need for an intermediate loop. However, it is highly corrosive to most steels, and activation products (created when neutrons interact with elements in the coolant) remain radioactive for a long time. It also solidifies at a relatively high temperature, which makes handling difficult. And it is very heavy. The best application of this concept seems to be for very small nuclear reactors, on the order of 20-200 MWt, that can be shipped whole to a site and returned to a factory for processing. I think further research on this concept should be done only for small reactors.
Very-High Temperature Reactor - The VHTR is gas-cooled thermal neutron reactor that uses helium in the primary cooling circuit. It has previously been implemented a total of eight times, but only two examples are currently operating. There are also a number of carbon dioxide-cooled reactors operating, but that gas can't meet the requirements of the VHTR program. The main attraction of this type of reactor is a very high outlet temperature, which is useful for generating hydrogen from water and for supplying heat for other industrial processes. The main disadvantage is very high temperatures in the core, which many materials can withstand, but not in combination with high radiation. Another important disadvantage is a once-through fuel cycle, which would leave lots of hot fuel elements that would have to be dealt with for hundreds or thousands of years. Helium is also somewhat tricky to contain, and expensive. My take on this type of reactor is that it was selected when there was still a lot of buzz about using hydrogen to fuel motor vehicles. The reasoning behind the so-called hydrogen economy no longer makes sense, as batteries have improved significantly and people have come to recognize the difficulties of using hydrogen in that way. I think this concept should be dropped. Unfortunately, the DOE has made the VHTR the first Gen-IV reactor it plans to build. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program will start soliciting design proposals from vendors late this year or in 2012.
Gas-cooled Fast Reactor - The GFR is a logical next step from the VHTR, combining both high temperatures and the ability to breed more fissile material. However, it is not as effective at breeding as either the SFR, and it has the same disadvantages as the VHTR. No examples have ever been built. I think this concept should be dropped.
Super-Critical Water Reactor - This concept is the next logical step from existing PWRs and BWRs. It would use light water at pressures above the critical point, beyond which water behaves like both a gas and a liquid. It would have only one coolant loop, like a BWR. The steam handling devices at the top of a BWR pressure vessel would be eliminated, allowing control rods to be inserted from the top as in a PWR. There are coal-fired power plants that use super-critical water already in operation, so the balance-of-plant (BOP) for the SCWR should almost be off-the-shelf. However, it is unknown if a reactor pressure vessel can safely operate at the extreme pressures needed. This concept can either operate as a thermal neutron reactor, or an epithermal neutron reactor. The later has allows for a low level of breeding, but makes loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) potentially more dangerous. Canada is working on a subtype of this reactor that would leverage its experience with heavy water reactors. Because of its high degree of similarity to existing reactors, I think research on this concept should be continued, with a focus on answering questions about the safety of the pressure vessel as soon as possible. *
Molten Salt Reactor - The MSR is a concept quite unlike any of the others above in that it would not use solid fuel elements. Instead, the fissile material would be dissolved in the coolant, which is a mixture of fluoride salts (salt is used here in the technical sense, not in reference to standard table salt). The nuclear chain reaction would only take place in the reactor core, where the combination a large mass of the fuel-salt fluid and a graphite moderator would bring the mixture to criticality. The hot salt would then be cooled by a secondary loop of salt, which would in turn transfer the heat to a gas or water tertiary loop. The concept could operate as a thermal neutron breeder, producing enough new fissile material to fuel itself for years. The concept is another that would provide high outlet temperatures at low pressures. Despite it's exotic nature, an example of this reactor was built and operated briefly in the 1950s, and another was built and operated in the 1960s for several years. The biggest disadvantages of this concept are that the salts are corrosive, and processing the salt to remove certain fission byproducts currently is expensive. I think an increased pace of research into the MSR is warranted, as it has a number of positive aspects not found in any of the other reactor concepts.
There is one hybrid of these concepts to note, the molten salt-cooled reactor. This reactor would use a core similar to the VHTR but use a molten salt in the primary cooling circuit. I think the concept may be useful an intermediate step towards a fluid-fueled MSR, but only as a research reactor, not as a commercial design.
If resources were more plentiful, funding research into all of the six reactor concepts would be worthwhile. There are commonalities between them all, and scientific research is certainly more productive than blowing up wedding parties in Central Asia. But in the current budgetary environment, I think the focus should be on the SFR, SCWR, and MSR concepts, with a limited additional amount directed towards small LFRs.
* Added 2011/05/14: I should add that I think the answer to the question will be no, a safe RPV can't be created for a SCWR.
Unlike the Gen-III effort, which is concerned mostly with domestic issues of implementation, the Generation IV program is an international effort. Right now it's too early to say whether or not the Gen-IV program is on track - despite having been around for over a decade by now - because a lot of what participants are doing is basic materials research. The effort is also somewhat diffuse, as countries are really coordinating work more than they are working together. That's probably natural, as funding for the research is still being provided by member countries. And finally, it's hard to talk about the status of the effort as the latest GIF annual report hasn't been issued, and the DoE's status page is simply out of date.
The most important achievement of the GIF so far has been to select six conceptual designs for further research. (Note: most of the early GIF documents are no longer available from government websites, but some have been mirrored here.) At least 94 different concepts were submitted for review in early 2001. A number of meetings were then held to classify and evaluate the concepts. The result was a report which laid out the rational for selecting six proposals to be investigated further. Those concepts are: the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), the molten-salt reactor (MSR), the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the super-critical water-cooled reactor (SCWR), and the very-high temperature reactor (VHTR). If some of those reactor types sound familiar, that's because they've been built before without much success. But the evaluation team evidently though they were worth a second look. Each of the concepts has a few options for implementation outlined in the report.
You may have noticed that three of the reactors have "fast" in their name, which is a reference to the energy of the neutrons that cause the self-sustaining nuclear reaction in a reactor core. The main advantage of fast neutron reactors is that they are able to "breed" large amounts of new fissionable elements during operation, which could potentially eliminate any uranium shortages for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. With some configuration changes, fast reactors are also able to "burn" spent fuel from existing thermal neutron reactors. If successfully implemented on large scale, this feature would drastically reduced the amount of high-level waste that needs to be stored in expensive geological repositories. Of the other three, one is a standard thermal neutron reactor, one is a thermal neutron reactor capable of breeding at a low rate, and the other can be configured either to have either thermal or epithermal neutrons.
Below is my short summary of each concept. There are, of course, better summaries elsewhere, but I've added a bit of editorializing that (ahem) you just can't find elsewhere.
Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor - The SFR concept has been previously implemented the most number of times out of the six concepts. It is a fast neutron reactor that uses liquid sodium as the coolant in the primary and secondary cooling loops. In the past these reactors have been called liquid metal fast reactors (LMFR) or just fast breeder reactors (FBR). To date, a total of 20 SFRs have been built and operated, though only four are operating now. Of those still in use, only one produces electricity. The rest exist for research purposes. In addition to being able to breed more fissile material, the SFR has the advantage of providing high outlet temperature without requiring the high pressures found in LWRs. The main disadvantage is that sodium is flammable when exposed to air, and explosive when in contact with water. Most SFRs have used water in the tertiary coolant loop to generate steam for turbines, and water ingress into the secondary coolant loop has been a major problem. Some newer proposals use carbon dioxide in the tertiary loop to avoid the problem of sodium's volatility. My take on this concept is that it useful mainly for breeding in a nuclear power "ecosystem" that includes lots of non-breeder reactors. The difficulties encountered during implementation so far have made the SFR non-economic for electricity generation when compared to LWRs. I think that further research should be done on this concept, but focused on efficient breeding and ease of loading and unloading the fertile material.
Lead-cooled Fast Reactor - This concept is another liquid metal-cooled fast reactor, like the SFR. To date no LFRs have been built, but a closely related design using lead-bismuth eutectic as a coolant was built by the Soviet Union to power some of its submarines. It was not very successful, though that may have had more to do with the Soviet Union's military culture than the design itself. As with the SFR, the main advantage of this concept is high outlet temperatures at low primary loop pressures. Unlike sodium, liquid lead is not explosive when in contact with water, which eliminates the need for an intermediate loop. However, it is highly corrosive to most steels, and activation products (created when neutrons interact with elements in the coolant) remain radioactive for a long time. It also solidifies at a relatively high temperature, which makes handling difficult. And it is very heavy. The best application of this concept seems to be for very small nuclear reactors, on the order of 20-200 MWt, that can be shipped whole to a site and returned to a factory for processing. I think further research on this concept should be done only for small reactors.
Very-High Temperature Reactor - The VHTR is gas-cooled thermal neutron reactor that uses helium in the primary cooling circuit. It has previously been implemented a total of eight times, but only two examples are currently operating. There are also a number of carbon dioxide-cooled reactors operating, but that gas can't meet the requirements of the VHTR program. The main attraction of this type of reactor is a very high outlet temperature, which is useful for generating hydrogen from water and for supplying heat for other industrial processes. The main disadvantage is very high temperatures in the core, which many materials can withstand, but not in combination with high radiation. Another important disadvantage is a once-through fuel cycle, which would leave lots of hot fuel elements that would have to be dealt with for hundreds or thousands of years. Helium is also somewhat tricky to contain, and expensive. My take on this type of reactor is that it was selected when there was still a lot of buzz about using hydrogen to fuel motor vehicles. The reasoning behind the so-called hydrogen economy no longer makes sense, as batteries have improved significantly and people have come to recognize the difficulties of using hydrogen in that way. I think this concept should be dropped. Unfortunately, the DOE has made the VHTR the first Gen-IV reactor it plans to build. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program will start soliciting design proposals from vendors late this year or in 2012.
Gas-cooled Fast Reactor - The GFR is a logical next step from the VHTR, combining both high temperatures and the ability to breed more fissile material. However, it is not as effective at breeding as either the SFR, and it has the same disadvantages as the VHTR. No examples have ever been built. I think this concept should be dropped.
Super-Critical Water Reactor - This concept is the next logical step from existing PWRs and BWRs. It would use light water at pressures above the critical point, beyond which water behaves like both a gas and a liquid. It would have only one coolant loop, like a BWR. The steam handling devices at the top of a BWR pressure vessel would be eliminated, allowing control rods to be inserted from the top as in a PWR. There are coal-fired power plants that use super-critical water already in operation, so the balance-of-plant (BOP) for the SCWR should almost be off-the-shelf. However, it is unknown if a reactor pressure vessel can safely operate at the extreme pressures needed. This concept can either operate as a thermal neutron reactor, or an epithermal neutron reactor. The later has allows for a low level of breeding, but makes loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) potentially more dangerous. Canada is working on a subtype of this reactor that would leverage its experience with heavy water reactors. Because of its high degree of similarity to existing reactors, I think research on this concept should be continued, with a focus on answering questions about the safety of the pressure vessel as soon as possible. *
Molten Salt Reactor - The MSR is a concept quite unlike any of the others above in that it would not use solid fuel elements. Instead, the fissile material would be dissolved in the coolant, which is a mixture of fluoride salts (salt is used here in the technical sense, not in reference to standard table salt). The nuclear chain reaction would only take place in the reactor core, where the combination a large mass of the fuel-salt fluid and a graphite moderator would bring the mixture to criticality. The hot salt would then be cooled by a secondary loop of salt, which would in turn transfer the heat to a gas or water tertiary loop. The concept could operate as a thermal neutron breeder, producing enough new fissile material to fuel itself for years. The concept is another that would provide high outlet temperatures at low pressures. Despite it's exotic nature, an example of this reactor was built and operated briefly in the 1950s, and another was built and operated in the 1960s for several years. The biggest disadvantages of this concept are that the salts are corrosive, and processing the salt to remove certain fission byproducts currently is expensive. I think an increased pace of research into the MSR is warranted, as it has a number of positive aspects not found in any of the other reactor concepts.
There is one hybrid of these concepts to note, the molten salt-cooled reactor. This reactor would use a core similar to the VHTR but use a molten salt in the primary cooling circuit. I think the concept may be useful an intermediate step towards a fluid-fueled MSR, but only as a research reactor, not as a commercial design.
If resources were more plentiful, funding research into all of the six reactor concepts would be worthwhile. There are commonalities between them all, and scientific research is certainly more productive than blowing up wedding parties in Central Asia. But in the current budgetary environment, I think the focus should be on the SFR, SCWR, and MSR concepts, with a limited additional amount directed towards small LFRs.
* Added 2011/05/14: I should add that I think the answer to the question will be no, a safe RPV can't be created for a SCWR.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Don't Ever Believe the Hype
Elsewhere at some point(s) since the start of the Fukushima Dai-ichi crisis, I have made statements indicating that the nuclear regulatory infrastructure of Japan and France were something this country should emulate. I was wrong, and very wrong in the case of Japan. Stoneleigh, one of the semi-pseudonymous proprietors of The Automatic Earth, a doomer-ish economy-oriented blog, has put together an excellent, detailed post on the culture of the Japanese nuclear industry. It is not flattering. And, in retrospect, it is not surprising, either. Japan's yin-yang of cohesiveness and crushing conformity are well know, as are the troubles at the MONJU experimental sodium-cooled fast reactor. Some of the other incidents I was not aware of, but I nonetheless should have been more cynical about Japan's nuclear industry.
As with Japan, the French nuclear industry doesn't look so wonderful when examined in detail. Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant on nuclear policy, has authored a report entitled Nuclear Power in France: Beyond the Myth. In it he details the opaque and undemocratic nature of the nuclear power establishment in France. Fortunately for France and its neighbors, this has not resulted in a catastrophic accident like Fukushima, perhaps because the flip side of the arrogance of the elites that run the French program is in internal culture of technocratic excellence. But the lack of clear information does make monitoring the program difficult. The information deficit also makes an accurate tally of subsidies and costs impossible. While I disagree with some of Schneider's energy accounting, he does make a good argument that EdF, the monopoly electricity generator, has overbuilt nuclear generating capacity. This has distorted electricity pricing in France and neighboring countries.
If forced to pick between the two, given the available information, I would definitely choose the French nuclear power program over the Japanese one. I would also choose the American program over the Japanese. In a comparison between the American program and the French one, I think I would favor the French one... slightly. The US is more open than France, but the profit motive drives the numerous operators to a far greater degree than in France, which has led to a number of close calls. Ominously, the US regulatory structure is looking more and more like the Japanese one, with private companies able to dominate the relevant government agencies. This is a disturbing development. Of course, no regulatory framework is perfect, just as no nuclear plant is foolproof. The technology requires constant vigilance. The open question in the US is whether the NRC can re-assert itself to make sure safety is put before profit.
As with Japan, the French nuclear industry doesn't look so wonderful when examined in detail. Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant on nuclear policy, has authored a report entitled Nuclear Power in France: Beyond the Myth. In it he details the opaque and undemocratic nature of the nuclear power establishment in France. Fortunately for France and its neighbors, this has not resulted in a catastrophic accident like Fukushima, perhaps because the flip side of the arrogance of the elites that run the French program is in internal culture of technocratic excellence. But the lack of clear information does make monitoring the program difficult. The information deficit also makes an accurate tally of subsidies and costs impossible. While I disagree with some of Schneider's energy accounting, he does make a good argument that EdF, the monopoly electricity generator, has overbuilt nuclear generating capacity. This has distorted electricity pricing in France and neighboring countries.
If forced to pick between the two, given the available information, I would definitely choose the French nuclear power program over the Japanese one. I would also choose the American program over the Japanese. In a comparison between the American program and the French one, I think I would favor the French one... slightly. The US is more open than France, but the profit motive drives the numerous operators to a far greater degree than in France, which has led to a number of close calls. Ominously, the US regulatory structure is looking more and more like the Japanese one, with private companies able to dominate the relevant government agencies. This is a disturbing development. Of course, no regulatory framework is perfect, just as no nuclear plant is foolproof. The technology requires constant vigilance. The open question in the US is whether the NRC can re-assert itself to make sure safety is put before profit.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money
The NYT has a good article on the NRC up. Here's a passage that I want to highlight:
Why did Duke try to stop further inspections? Because shutdowns might have been required (and ultimately were). A reactor that is shut down doesn't make money, and making money is the sole purpose of private corporations in the US. The senior management of a profitable company gets rewarded on a yearly basis, which is a much shorter time scale from when corner-cutting might result in an accident large or small. But the impact of a large accident at a nuclear power plant is potentially very large, which means safety has to be pursued aggressively at all times. That sets up a conflict between the plant owner/operator and the regulatory agency, and in today's (legally) corrupt politics, the regulator ends up backing down.
In 2008, for example, workers at the Oconee plant in South Carolina discovered that a crucial line in the cooling system at Reactor Unit 1 was blocked by a broken gasket. The workers fixed it and the reactor was restarted.
But the two N.R.C. inspectors assigned full time to Oconee quickly began asking why Duke Energy, the operator, wasn’t also inspecting corresponding valves and lines at the plant’s other two reactors. Duke said the clogging was isolated and a blocked line could be bypassed in a pinch.
In February 2010, when the company finally agreed to look at the other two reactors, it discovered that the lines there had the same problem and that the bypass option would never have worked.I think this is a good illustration of why the current ownership model of nuclear power plants is problematic. In this situation, the NRC identified a safety issue in one reactor that could have been generic to all three of the B&W L-loop PWRs at Oconee Nuclear Station. (It also could have been generic to all L-loop plants, of which there are seven operating. Were the other four inspected?) But the owner of the power plant successfully fought off inspection of the other two reactors for two years.
Why did Duke try to stop further inspections? Because shutdowns might have been required (and ultimately were). A reactor that is shut down doesn't make money, and making money is the sole purpose of private corporations in the US. The senior management of a profitable company gets rewarded on a yearly basis, which is a much shorter time scale from when corner-cutting might result in an accident large or small. But the impact of a large accident at a nuclear power plant is potentially very large, which means safety has to be pursued aggressively at all times. That sets up a conflict between the plant owner/operator and the regulatory agency, and in today's (legally) corrupt politics, the regulator ends up backing down.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Open Letter: Vermont Legislature
Greetings Senators and Representatives,
I am writing you today in regard to a number of subjects. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel it is important to briefly explain why I stand where I do on the subjects below. If you aren't inclined to read the letter, please at least review the summary on the other side. Otherwise, read on.
I am disappointed in Governor Shumlin's sudden adoption of Republican language with regard to the budget now that he has been inaugurated. Concerns about "competitiveness" are usually a dishonest cover for more cuts aimed at the poor. There are states that are considered more "competitive" than Vermont that nonetheless have higher unemployment rates and/or lower median incomes than this state. And there is no evidence that business that are free to choose where operations are located do so on the basis of top marginal income tax rates. In addition, budget cuts are counterproductive when the economy is weak. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government is in the process of completing significant reductions in government spending, and as predicted, the changes have caused the previously weak economy to shrink at an annual rate of 2.4% during the 4th quarter of last year. Shumlin's proposed cuts are not as severe, but they will come on top of ones at the federal level. The effect of the two together will certainly reduce growth in this state, and thus employment. I feel that instead of cutting more, a temporary surtax should be implemented for high income residents. Revenues from other taxes has not recovered fully from the recession yet, but they should by early 2013. At that time the surtax should be removed.
I have heard several reports that the Legislature is considering some kind of tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Clearly, obesity is a major problem in this country. But an entirely new tax strikes me as overkill, because the drinks don't have the same direct deadliness as cigarettes or alcohol. I think that simply re-classifying soda and sugary drinks as not-food, and thus no longer exempt from state or local sales taxes, would be a better solution. That smaller step would do less to discourage people from buying soda, but it would be easier for retailers to implement. In addition, I think candy should also be classified as not-food. However, there may be so many borderline products that addressing that group of sugary items would result in endless battles with producers and retailers, and thus not be worthwhile.
I also heard a report that the "bottle bill" may either be expanded or removed soon. On occasion, I pick up trash from the street and from small bits of public land near my home. My admittedly anecdotal evidence is that I rarely find beer or soda cans and bottles. Instead, I find mostly small water bottles without a SKU (presumably from bulk packs), and sports drink bottles. Thus, in my neighborhood, at least, the bill certainly is working for what it covers. The program is probably inconvenient for companies that produce, distribute, or sell beverages (I have no idea where the burden falls on that side), but the deposit fee is good way to price in what is normally an externality for both the companies above, and for individuals - litter. In light of its apparent effectiveness, I think the bill should be renewed and expanded. (I also want it noted that bottle redemption has become a source of income for a number of socially marginal people, mostly middle-aged men with mental health or similar problems. Repeal of the bill should take into consideration the lost income, which may translate into higher government spending if those people seek services that they would not need with the bill in place.)
As you a probably aware, there are a number of efforts under way by newly elected Republican governors to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. For the record, I do not want the same to happen in Vermont, and I will be very disappointed if any such change is proposed. On the other hand, I will admit that I find reports of public employees abusing final salary retirement schemes to be somewhat infuriating. By abusing, I mean employees suddenly working large amounts of overtime in their last few years because the extra pay makes their retirement payments substantially higher. I am not aware of this being possible in the private sector for the few people who still have defined benefit programs to look forward to. Of course, those who only have 401K programs can do nothing of the sort, and a large portion of the population has no retirement plan available at all. If such a practice is possible in Vermont, I would like Vermont's public employees to agree to remove the clauses from future contracts. Doing so would slightly trim Vermont's long-term obligations, but mainly it would make it harder for dishonest politicians to demonize government employees, which has been done to an alarming extent in recent years.
I feel it is time to ban tasers in the State of Vermont. Contrary to common belief, crime is not getting worse all of the time, and in fact has gone down steadily since its peak in 1992 (+/- 1 year depending on the category). Crime rates have fallen by over a third in every major category. Since the decline started before tasers came into use, there is no reason to think that tasers have much of an effect on crime rates. So there is no obvious need for them. The absence of need is important because, despite what the manufacturers claim, tasers are lethal weapons. They just happen to be lethal weapons with low and unpredictable chances of success. In addition, there is also a growing body of video evidence that tasers are being used not just to control suspects who are attempting flight or bodily harm. Instead, they are being used by officers to essentially punish people for what officers feel is insufficient deference. This can be seen most clearly when officers taser suspects already on the ground and under control. Being a police officer is a tremendously stressful job, and I don't envy them one bit. But it should be acknowledged that it is stressful job, and that not every officer is an angel. I think having the ability to inflict pain without doing bodily harm (at least according to the manufacturer) becomes too much of a temptation for some officers who do not find other ways to vent their frustration. I realize that officers want to have the latest and greatest equipment. But without a need, and with the risk of abuse and potential fatalities, I see no reason for law enforcement officials to have tasers.
A summary of my concerns:
I am writing you today in regard to a number of subjects. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel it is important to briefly explain why I stand where I do on the subjects below. If you aren't inclined to read the letter, please at least review the summary on the other side. Otherwise, read on.
I am disappointed in Governor Shumlin's sudden adoption of Republican language with regard to the budget now that he has been inaugurated. Concerns about "competitiveness" are usually a dishonest cover for more cuts aimed at the poor. There are states that are considered more "competitive" than Vermont that nonetheless have higher unemployment rates and/or lower median incomes than this state. And there is no evidence that business that are free to choose where operations are located do so on the basis of top marginal income tax rates. In addition, budget cuts are counterproductive when the economy is weak. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government is in the process of completing significant reductions in government spending, and as predicted, the changes have caused the previously weak economy to shrink at an annual rate of 2.4% during the 4th quarter of last year. Shumlin's proposed cuts are not as severe, but they will come on top of ones at the federal level. The effect of the two together will certainly reduce growth in this state, and thus employment. I feel that instead of cutting more, a temporary surtax should be implemented for high income residents. Revenues from other taxes has not recovered fully from the recession yet, but they should by early 2013. At that time the surtax should be removed.
I have heard several reports that the Legislature is considering some kind of tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Clearly, obesity is a major problem in this country. But an entirely new tax strikes me as overkill, because the drinks don't have the same direct deadliness as cigarettes or alcohol. I think that simply re-classifying soda and sugary drinks as not-food, and thus no longer exempt from state or local sales taxes, would be a better solution. That smaller step would do less to discourage people from buying soda, but it would be easier for retailers to implement. In addition, I think candy should also be classified as not-food. However, there may be so many borderline products that addressing that group of sugary items would result in endless battles with producers and retailers, and thus not be worthwhile.
I also heard a report that the "bottle bill" may either be expanded or removed soon. On occasion, I pick up trash from the street and from small bits of public land near my home. My admittedly anecdotal evidence is that I rarely find beer or soda cans and bottles. Instead, I find mostly small water bottles without a SKU (presumably from bulk packs), and sports drink bottles. Thus, in my neighborhood, at least, the bill certainly is working for what it covers. The program is probably inconvenient for companies that produce, distribute, or sell beverages (I have no idea where the burden falls on that side), but the deposit fee is good way to price in what is normally an externality for both the companies above, and for individuals - litter. In light of its apparent effectiveness, I think the bill should be renewed and expanded. (I also want it noted that bottle redemption has become a source of income for a number of socially marginal people, mostly middle-aged men with mental health or similar problems. Repeal of the bill should take into consideration the lost income, which may translate into higher government spending if those people seek services that they would not need with the bill in place.)
As you a probably aware, there are a number of efforts under way by newly elected Republican governors to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. For the record, I do not want the same to happen in Vermont, and I will be very disappointed if any such change is proposed. On the other hand, I will admit that I find reports of public employees abusing final salary retirement schemes to be somewhat infuriating. By abusing, I mean employees suddenly working large amounts of overtime in their last few years because the extra pay makes their retirement payments substantially higher. I am not aware of this being possible in the private sector for the few people who still have defined benefit programs to look forward to. Of course, those who only have 401K programs can do nothing of the sort, and a large portion of the population has no retirement plan available at all. If such a practice is possible in Vermont, I would like Vermont's public employees to agree to remove the clauses from future contracts. Doing so would slightly trim Vermont's long-term obligations, but mainly it would make it harder for dishonest politicians to demonize government employees, which has been done to an alarming extent in recent years.
I feel it is time to ban tasers in the State of Vermont. Contrary to common belief, crime is not getting worse all of the time, and in fact has gone down steadily since its peak in 1992 (+/- 1 year depending on the category). Crime rates have fallen by over a third in every major category. Since the decline started before tasers came into use, there is no reason to think that tasers have much of an effect on crime rates. So there is no obvious need for them. The absence of need is important because, despite what the manufacturers claim, tasers are lethal weapons. They just happen to be lethal weapons with low and unpredictable chances of success. In addition, there is also a growing body of video evidence that tasers are being used not just to control suspects who are attempting flight or bodily harm. Instead, they are being used by officers to essentially punish people for what officers feel is insufficient deference. This can be seen most clearly when officers taser suspects already on the ground and under control. Being a police officer is a tremendously stressful job, and I don't envy them one bit. But it should be acknowledged that it is stressful job, and that not every officer is an angel. I think having the ability to inflict pain without doing bodily harm (at least according to the manufacturer) becomes too much of a temptation for some officers who do not find other ways to vent their frustration. I realize that officers want to have the latest and greatest equipment. But without a need, and with the risk of abuse and potential fatalities, I see no reason for law enforcement officials to have tasers.
A summary of my concerns:
- Don't cut spending more; raise income taxes instead.
- Apply the sales tax to sugary drinks, not a new tax.
- Keep and expand the bottle bill.
- Keep collective bargaining rights in Vermont.
- Ban tasers because they are lethal weapons.
- Decriminalize minor marijuana possession (no room for details on this one!)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Generation What?
Below is a quick rundown of most of the reactors being marketed as of early 2011. I'm using the term "marketed" somewhat loosely here, as not all reactors are being offered in all countries due to intellectual property rights, nationalism, or other considerations. I have ignored a number of small reactor designs that I feel are just vaporware at this point. The resulting list is dominated by large (2850 megawatts thermal) to very large (4590 MWt) pressurized water reactors. The two small PWRs plus the nine others account for exactly half of the 22 models.
An oddity to note is that Westinghouse no longer markets a PWR derived from the ones it created in the 1960s due to a series of corporate mergers. But the basic design lives on in the EPR, APWR, Amtea1 and CPR-1000 designs. Westinghouse, which is 77% owned by Toshiba, now offers reactors derived from Combustion Engineering designs. A minor point to note is that both GE-Hitachi and Toshiba are both marketing the ABWR.
By neutron speed, there are:
* Added 2011/04/6: There's not a commonly accepted accepted acronym for the ACR-1000. Unlike the EC6 and older CANDU designs, the ACR-1000 uses heavy water only in the calandria, which is the vessel where the nuclear reactions take place. In the primary cooling loop it uses regular water, which generates steam in the secondary loop. To be consistent, older CANDU reactors would be HWPHWR and the ACR-1000 would be a HWPLWR. There have been similar heavy water reactors that boil light water in the primary cooling loop built. They have been dubbed SGHWRs (steam generating heavy water reactors), which reverses the order of the coolant and moderator.
An oddity to note is that Westinghouse no longer markets a PWR derived from the ones it created in the 1960s due to a series of corporate mergers. But the basic design lives on in the EPR, APWR, Amtea1 and CPR-1000 designs. Westinghouse, which is 77% owned by Toshiba, now offers reactors derived from Combustion Engineering designs. A minor point to note is that both GE-Hitachi and Toshiba are both marketing the ABWR.
By neutron speed, there are:
- 19 thermal reactors (150 to 4590 MWt)
- 3 fast reactors (30 to 2100 MWt)
- 13 pressurized water reactors (PWR; 150 to 4590 MWt)
- 4 boiling water reactors (BWR; 3370 to 4500 MWt)
- 2 sodium-cooled fast reactors (LMFR; 30 and 2100 MWt)
- 1 pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR; 2080 MWt)
- 1 heavy water-moderated pressurized water reactor (HWPWR; 3200 MWt) *
- 1 lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactor (LMFR; 75 MWt)
- 4 Westinghouse (WH) pressurized water reactors
- 4 Combustion Engineering (CE) pressurized water reactors
- 4 GE boiling water reactors
- 3 VVER pressurized water reactors (Soviet/Russian PWRs evolved separately)
- 2 CANDU heavy water-moderated reactors
- 1 B&W pressurized water reactor (probably derived from US Navy designs, may be new)
- 1 KLT-series pressurized water reactor (evolution of Russian Navy designs)
- 1 BN-series sodium-cooled fast reactor (designed by a state-owned organization in Russia)
- 1 new lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactor (probably a clean sheet design, but may be derived)
- 1 new sodium-cooled fast reactor (probably a new design)
- 12 "Generation III" designs (designs from the 1990s and 2000s with some passive safety features)
- 7 "Generation II+" designs (slight improvements over 1960s designs)
- 3 designs I haven't classified because I lack familiarity with them
| Reactor | Type | Gen. | MWt | MWe | Company | Family | Oper./ Const. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4S | sodium-cooled fast reactor | ? | 30 | 10 | Toshiba Power Systems | new SFR | 0/0 |
| Power Module | lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactor | ? | 75 | 25 | Hyperion Power Generation | new LFR | 0/0 |
| BN-800 | sodium-cooled fast reactor | ? | 2100 | 800 | Atomstroyexport | BN SFR | 0/1 |
| EC6 | pressurized heavy water reactor | II+ | 2080 | 690 | Atomic Energy Canada, LTD | CANDU | 0/0 |
| CPR-1000 | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 3000 | 1000 | China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group | ANP (WH) PWR | 1/11 |
| OPR-1000 | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 2825 | 990 | Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction | DHIC (CE) PWR | 8/5 |
| System 80+ | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 3400 | 1120 | Westinghouse (Toshiba) | CE PWR | 0/0 |
| VVER-1000 | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 3000 | 950 | Atomstroyexport | VVER PWR | 2/5 |
| VVER-1200 | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 3200 | 1170 | Atomstroyexport | VVER PWR | 0/5 |
| KLT-40S | pressurized water reactor | II+ | 150 | 35 | OKBM/Atomstroyexport | SSSR PWR | 0/2 |
| ABWR | boiling water reactor | III | 3900 | 1380 | GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy | GE BWR | 3/2 |
| ABWR | boiling water reactor | III | 3900 | 1350 | Toshiba Power Systems | GE BWR | 2/0 |
| ACR-1000 | heavy water boiling water reactor | III | 3200 | 1000 | Atomic Energy Canada, LTD | CANDU | 0/0 |
| Atmea1 | pressurized water reactor | III | 3150 | 1150 | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-Areva NP | MHI/ANP (WH) PWR | 0/0 |
| AP1000 | pressurized water reactor | III | 3400 | 1120 | Westinghouse (Toshiba) | CE PWR | 0/5 |
| APR1400 | pressurized water reactor | III | 4000 | 1350 | Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction | DHIC (CE) PWR | 0/4 |
| APWR | pressurized water reactor | III | 4450 | 1500 | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries | MHI (WH) PWR | 0/0 |
| EPR | pressurized water reactor | III | 4590 | 1630 | Areva Nuclear Power | ANP (WH) PWR | 0/4 |
| ESBWR | boiling water reactor | III | 4500 | 1600 | GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy | GE BWR | 0/0 |
| Kerena | boiling water reactor | III | 3370 | 1250 | Areva Nuclear Power | KWU (GE) BWR | 0/0 |
| MIR-1200 | pressurized water reactor | III | 3200 | 1170 | Atomstroyexport/Skoda | VVER PWR | 0/0 |
| mPower | pressurized water reactor | III | 400 | 125 | Babcock & Wilcox | USN PWR? | 0/0 |
* Added 2011/04/6: There's not a commonly accepted accepted acronym for the ACR-1000. Unlike the EC6 and older CANDU designs, the ACR-1000 uses heavy water only in the calandria, which is the vessel where the nuclear reactions take place. In the primary cooling loop it uses regular water, which generates steam in the secondary loop. To be consistent, older CANDU reactors would be HWPHWR and the ACR-1000 would be a HWPLWR. There have been similar heavy water reactors that boil light water in the primary cooling loop built. They have been dubbed SGHWRs (steam generating heavy water reactors), which reverses the order of the coolant and moderator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)