Nuclear Renaissance–Nuclear Requiem

, director, Nuclear Safety Project | August 25, 2016, 6:00 am EDT
Bookmark and Share

There was considerable discussion a decade or so ago about the purported Nuclear Renaissance. New reactors were proposed almost everywhere but Delaware: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Time turned renaissance into requiem. Owners permanently shut down five reactors since 2013 and have informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of plans to close several other reactors over the next three years.

Whether you celebrated or mourned the five reactor closures, it’s worth reflecting on what each accomplished during its lifetime.

i

Crystal River Unit 3 (Florida) first achieved criticality of the reactor core on January 15, 1977. It shut down in September 2009 for a refueling outage during which the steam generators were to be replaced. The containment structure was severely damaged by the hole cut through it to allow replacement of the steam generators. Attempts to repair the damage failed, leading the owner to announce in February 2013 that the reactor would not be restarted.

Crystal River Unit 3 generated 167,517,655 megawatt-hours of electricity during the 27.54 operating years it accumulated. It would have required 556,002,179,473 cubic feet of natural gas, or 58,258,102,181 pounds of coal, or 81,272,814 barrels of oil, or 5,594,496,878 gallons of propane to replace the electricity generated by this reactor during its lifetime.

Requiem - KewauneeKewaunee (Wisconsin) first achieved criticality of the reactor core on March 7, 1974. It shut down permanently on May 7, 2013, due largely to economic pressure from natural gas generators.

Kewaunee generated 149,754,450 megawatt-hours of electricity during the 29.75 operating years it accumulated. It would have required 497,044,925,486 cubic feet of natural gas, or 52,080,540,557 pounds of coal, or 81,272,814 barrels of oil, or 5,594,496,878 gallons of propane to replace the electricity generated by this reactor during its lifetime.

Requiem - SONGS 2San Onofre Unit 2 (California) first achieved criticality of the reactor core on July 26, 1982. It shut down on January 9, 2012, for a refueling outage. Workers identified abnormally high wear and tear of the tubes in the recently replaced steam generators. Plans to remedy the damage proved futile, leading the owner to announce in June 2013 that the reactor would not be restarted.

San Onofre Unit 2 generated 217,796,740 megawatt-hours of electricity during the 27.24 operating years it accumulated. It would have required 772,881,785,952 cubic feet of natural gas, or 75,743,805,520 pounds of coal, or 118,199,853 barrels of oil, or 8,136,407,169 gallons of propane to replace the electricity generated by this reactor during its lifetime.

Requiem - SONGS 3San Onofre Unit 3 (California) first achieved criticality of the reactor core on August 29, 1983. It shut down on January 31, 2012, after a tube in one of the replacement steam generators ruptured. Workers identified abnormally high wear and tear of many other tubes in the recently replaced steam generators. Plans to remedy the damage proved futile, leading the owner to announce in June 2013 that the reactor would not be restarted.

San Onofre Unit 3 generated 214,004,380 megawatt-hours of electricity during the 26.5 operating years it accumulated. It would have required 710,294,693,849 cubic feet of natural gas, or 74,424,925,622 pounds of coal, or 116,141,712 barrels of oil, or 7,994,732,958 gallons of propane to replace the electricity generated by this reactor during its lifetime.

Requiem - Vermont YankeeVermont Yankee (Vermont) first achieved criticality of the reactor core on March 24 1972. It shut down permanently on December 29, 2014, due largely to economic pressure from natural gas generators.

Vermont Yankee generated 163,353,335 megawatt-hours of electricity during the 30.54 operating years it accumulated. It would have required 542,180,693,339 cubic feet of natural gas, or 56,809,864,338 pounds of coal, or 88,653,027 barrels of oil, or 6,102,521,312 gallons of propane to replace the electricity generated by this reactor during its lifetime.

5 Reactors, 0 Meltdowns, 1 Near Miss (nearly)

According to the NRC’s Accident Sequence Precursor program, Kewaunee experienced the most serious safety event among these five reactors. Resin beads leaking from a mixed-bed demineralizer unit in the makeup water system collected in the condensate storage tank. The three auxiliary feedwater pumps transfer water from the condensate storage tank to the steam generators to assist in removing decay heat generated by the reactor core. On November 5, 1975, the motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pumps 1A and 1B failed when resin beds clogged the strainers installed in the piping before the pumps. Turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump 1C also failed when resin beads clogged its suction strainer. Fortunately, the feedwater pumps that normally transfer water from the condenser hotwell to the steam generators were unaffected by this problem and remained operable throughout this event.

The NRC calculated a core damage frequency of 2.3E-02 for this incident, solidly among the NRC’s top ten near misses of all time.

(To be fair to Kewaunee’s legacy, the NRC’s estimate was calculated back in the days of the Browns Ferry fire, the Three Mile Island meltdown, and the Chernobyl explosions when risks when risks seemed higher. The Callaway plant (Missouri) also encountered debris in its condensate storage tank that disabled auxiliary feedwater pumps. At the same time, the Callaway plant has a section of plastic tubing in a pipe that disabled one of the emergency service water pumps as well as a component cooling water pump that was broken for three weeks. In November 2004, the NRC estimated the risk from all three of these impairments to be 1.2E-05. Maybe Callaway got the NRC’s volume discount. But the clogged auxiliary feedwater pump failures at Kewaunee in 1982 were more than 150 times riskier to the NRC than the same failures, plus two additional safety component failures, at Callaway in 2004. Which reminds me—why did I begin this sentence with “fair”? Fair and NRC risk assessments are mutually exclusive.)

The Power of Five

These five reactors collectively accumulated 141.6 reactor years of operating time during which they generated 912,426,560 megawatt-hours of electricity.

It would have taken over 3 trillion cubic feet (3,028,404,109,098) of natural gas to generate this much electricity.

It would have taken nearly one-third trillion pounds (317,317,238,218) of coal to generate this much electricity.

It would have taken nearly half a billion barrels (495,180,440) of fuel oil to generate this much electricity.

It would have taken many gallons (34,086,249,484) of propane gas to generate this much electricity.

If you do not like nuclear power, you probably bid “good riddance” to these five reactors.

If you like nuclear power, you probably say “good rides” to these five reactors.

Regardless of your nuclear power stance, if you have an adding machine, calculator or computer spreadsheet, you can continue the ciphering I’ve begun to determine how many mile-long coal trains or supertankers it would have taken to deliver the fuel to the fossil-fired power plants for them to generate as much electricity.

Posted in: Nuclear Power Safety Tags: , , , , , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • WhatTheFlux

    Go nuclear or go extinct.

  • Nicholas Thompson

    “if you have an adding machine, calculator or computer spreadsheet, you can continue the ciphering I’ve begun to determine how many mile-long coal trains…it would have taken to deliver the fuel to the fossil-fired power plants for them to generate as much electricity.”

    Here’s the math: a coal car is 53.1 feet long and carries about 100 tons of coal. The coal train mentioned above would be 15956 miles long, meaning that train is longer than the distance from the surface to the center of the earth. Four times longer.

  • Steve Aplin

    converting natural gas into CO2 via combustion gives me ~161 million metric tons of CO2 avoided by these five reactors.

    But applying a carbon intensity factor of 400 grams per kilowatt-hour to 912,426,560,000 kilowatt-hours (912,426,560 megawatt-hours) gives me roughly 364.9 million tons avoided.

    I suspect your 912,426,560 megawatt-hour figure is the more reliable one. Is it possible your natural gas figure (3 trillion cubic feet) should be higher due to the thermal efficiency “tax” in generating electricity?

  • JohnGreenberg

    If we’re going to make these calculations, there are a few missing figures which need to be included. These plants didn’t build themselves, mine, enrich and fabricate their fuel without considerable amounts of energy from the very same sources (coal, oil, natural gas) discussed here, And they won’t decommission themselves or dispose of their waste without these imputs either.

  • WhatTheFlux

    Thanks, Dave! I imagine you have your fair share of anti-nuclear sentiment to contend with at UCS. Takes guts. And facts. Good on you.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    Too bad Lochbaum has taken so long to get over whatever past nuclear-plant management issues piqued him into misrepresenting facts that even President Kennedy took time to understand, and that Ansel Adams understood, and that even the head of the sierra Club understood, when its motto wisely was: “Atoms no dams”. http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

    The book he and Lyman authored about Fukushima was a study in hiding nuclear realities & benefits, so when we met in SF a few years back, I gave him a new cover jacket for their corrected edition, should they ever choose to cease misleading us all.

    Wonder if UCS will atone for the years of nuclear scare tactics that served some of their combustion & ‘renewables’ business interests so long & so well?

    Call if you need ideas for constructive actions, David.

    Dr. A. Cannara
    650-400-3071