## Entergy Submits Application for Louisiana Nuclear Plant; Third NRC Application This Month with GE Hitachi ESBWR Reactor

##### 27 September 2008
 The GE Hitachi ESBWR Reactor. Click to enlarge.

New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. has submitted a combined construction and operating license (COL) application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), selecting GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s (GEH) next-generation ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor) reactor design.

The nation’s second-largest nuclear plant operator, Entergy is seeking to reserve the option to build a potential new reactor at its River Bend Nuclear Generating Station in Louisiana, located along the Mississippi River in St. Francisville, about 30 miles north of Baton Rouge.

 Projected locations for new light water reactors (LWR) in the US. Some of the projected locations have not yet submitted their COL application. Click to enlarge. Source: NRC

Entergy is the third energy company this month to submit an NRC license application naming GEH’s Generation III+ ESBWR design as its technology choice. In September, Detroit Edison, Michigan’s largest electric utility, submitted a license application for a potential new ESBWR reactor at its existing Fermi 2 Power Plant site. Exelon Corp. submitted an NRC license application to potentially build and operate two ESBWR reactors near Victoria, Texas.

Entergy is among four US utilities that have selected the ESBWR for a total of six potential reactor units. The River Bend license application is Entergy’s second application to the NRC in 2008 for a potential ESBWR project. Earlier this year, in conjunction with the utility consortium NuStart Energy Development, Entergy submitted a separate application for a potential ESBWR unit that would be built at its Grand Gulf Nuclear Station site in Port Gibson, Miss.

By submitting its license application before a federal deadline of 31 December, Entergy remains eligible for tax incentives and loan guarantees offered by the US Energy Policy Act of 2005. The incentives were adopted to help jumpstart the first group of new reactor orders in the United States since the 1970s.

The NRC currently has fifteen combined license applications in hand representing 24 new reactors, including this latest from Entergy.

Combined License Applications, as of September 2008
Proposed new reactor(s) Applicant Technology
Bellefonte Nuclear Station Units 3 and 4 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Westinghouse AP 1000
Callaway Plant Unit 2 AmerenUE Areva US EPR
Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 UniStar Nuclear and Constellation Areva US EPR
Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4 Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant) Mitsubishi US-APWR
Fermi Unit 3 Detroit Edison Company GEH ESBWR
Grand Gulf Unit 3 Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI) GEH ESBWR
Levy County Units 1 and 2 Progress Energy (PE) Westinghouse AP 1000
North Anna Unit 3 Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion) GEH ESBWR
River Bend Station Unit 3 Entergy Operation, Inc. (EOI) GEH ESBWR
Shearon Harris Units 2 and 3 Progress Energy (PE) Westinghouse AP 1000
South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) GE ABWR
Victoria County Station Units 1 and 2 Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings, LLC (Exelon) GEH ESBWR
Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Westinghouse AP 1000
Vogtle Units 3 and 4 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) Westinghouse AP 1000
William States Lee III Units 1 and 2 Duke Energy Westinghouse AP 1000

The issuance of a COL authorizes the licensee to construct and (with specified conditions) operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site, in accordance with established laws and regulations. A COL is valid for 40 years from the date of the Commission finding that the acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. A COL can be renewed for an additional 20 years. Receiving a COL is a precondition for actual construction, but does not indicate that the plant will necessarily be built.

GEH’s 1,520-MW ESBWR is an evolutionary Generation III+ passive-safety reactor design undergoing final certification review by the NRC. According to GE, the simplified design provides improved safety; better economics; better plant security; a broad seismic design envelope; and operational flexibility.

 Natural circulation in the ESBWR. Click to enlarge. Source: GE

The ESBWR uses natural circulation rather than the forced circulation of previous Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and all Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) designs. Because hot water is less dense, it rises through the core while the cool water flows down to the bottom of the core. These differences in density create natural circulation.

Use of natural circulation enables the simplification of the design, with the removal the of recirculation pumps and associated motors, piping, valves, heat exchangers, controls, and electrical support systems that exist with forced circulation. Natural circulation in the ESBWR also eliminates the risk of flow disturbances resulting from recirculation pump anomalies.

Among the benefits and features of the ESBWR design are:

• Residual heat transferred to the atmosphere;

• 11 systems eliminated from previous designs;

• 25% of pumps, valves, and motors eliminated from previous nuclear island designs;

• Passive design features, such as passive containment cooling, reduce the number of active systems, increasing safety; and

• Incorporation of features used in operationally proven BWRs, including isolation condensers, natural circulation and debris-resistant fuel

Much of the site-specific engineering design work for future ESBWR projects will be performed at GEH’s Advanced Technology Center in Wilmington, NC, where the GE Hitachi nuclear alliance is headquartered.

Entergy’s River Bend plant currently is powered by an earlier-generation, 980-MW boiling water reactor (BWR) unit designed by GE, which joined with Hitachi to create the GE Hitachi nuclear alliance in 2007.

Wow, 1500+ MWe on natural circulation.

It is impressive that they get rid of the pump, a passive design is probably a garantee of safety and reliability.

Still I hope that US won't repeat the mistake they made in the past in building 3 or 4 type of different reactor instead of only one. The best guarantee of safety and cost control is to standardize one single robust type of reactor and to build all your power plants with it. That what's made the french nuclear plan so successful and safe. Market strength don't work properly for nuclear industry.

Select one robust type of reactor (ask industrial to partnership to design and build it) then trim cost.

Still the problem I see is that there is only one primary circuit of water, you use a steam to power the generator that has been expose directly to the radioactive core...probably thermally efficient but then you have huge problem of managing radioactivity risk a along the whole energy production line. Last but not least, unless you fully recycle the water through steam condensation, you release radioactivity in the environment.

am I wrong ?

It'll be interesting to see how these new BWRs size up over their forty year lifetime. Particularly against the entry of LENR systems that exhibit near zero radiation. Granted this is a technology in its infancy but one clearly destined to replace traditional fission reactors. One hopes that the NRC, DoE, Congress, Executive, etc. include this inevitability in their licensing considerations.

In light of the speed with which low energy/low temp NR technology is progressing - it would be prudent now to require licensees to commit to a LENR transition plan. This is reasonable considering that public funding is utilized in plant construction, operation, monitoring and oversight. The best interest of the public may be an immediate analysis of LENR technology impact on baseline demand over the next forty year licensee lifecycle.

Treehugger,
Water is always recycled in a modern steam turbine engine. No water is ever released in the environment. The gain in efficiency is due to steam released at below atmospheric pressure due to complete condensation of the steam downstream to the turbine, thus dropping the pressure.

@gr

What is LENR?

The lifetime of a reactor is 60 years now. In 20 years it will most likely 60 years. Coal and nuke steam plants are designed to have components replaced periodically. How long does concrete last.

Anyone have a pointer to US nuclear construction? Stuff actually being built.

All the sites I find are about the state of licensing (the US is doing fine in paperwork about licensing) or operations.

Aside: I was under the impression that Palo Verde in Arizona was the last plant built in the US. That was 1983. But several smaller plants have gone into operation since then. The last in 1996.

Treehugger:

Yes, the primary coolant water is used directly in the turbines in a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). There is a low level of induced radioactivity in this coolant water. Any particulates which may be radioactive are pretty carefully filtered out of the coolant. As Roger said, the water is condensed and recycled through the reactor.

In a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) the primary coolant is not used in turbines. The primary coolant is run through a heat exchanger (called a steam generator) to boil a secondary water loop that is then used in the turbines.

The BWR has a higher efficiency because it avoids using a steam generator. The PWR does not have its turbine exposed to radioactive water. This is one of the many tradeoff evaluations that a utility makes if it is considering a nuclear generation station.

About 1/3 of the nuclear reactors currently in service in the US are BWRs. The rest are PWRs.

Bill

K,

The last US reactor to come on line was Watts Bar 1 in 1996. It is owned and operated by the TVA.

The only reactor currently under construction in the US is Watts Bar 2.

Both Watts Bar 1 and 2 were started in the early 1970's and stopped when TVA suspended all of its nuclear construction. Several years later they decided to restart work on WB1. A little over a year ago they decided to restart work on WB2. WB2 is expected to go online in 2013.

No serious new reactor construction can start until issuance of a Combined Operating Liscense. There have not yet been any COLs issued under the new liscensing methodology although the NRC has several under study. Some site preparation work can be performed prior to issue of the COL.

Watts Bar 2 is being completed under the old liscensing rules and will be vulnerable to intervenor challenges and lawsuits prior to coming on line.

Bill

Bill: thanks for the fact - we have one reactor actually being built. And whether it will ever be allowed to operate is problematical.

And someday real soon, or maybe not so soon, the NRC will issue a COL. The change to COLs was made, if I remember correctly, about 3 years ago.

I'll keep looking for a good overall site about nuclear construction facts. Not licensing facts or intention facts.

SOB I am grouchy today. I just sort of prefer that we generate electricity not paperwork.

America speeds toward the 19th Century.

What radio-active foods did you eat this week? All foods have always been naturally radio-active ever since before any life was on the earth. Humans and all organisms have developed mechanisms for dealing with low levels of radio-activity just like we can deal with low levels of exposure to sunlight. There is no way to eliminate the radio-activity in food or the environment. Cells have evolved to deal with small amounts of radioactivity until something kills them. Some cells have a life of more than a hundred years. Some seeds have much more concentrated radio-activity and survive many years in a dormant state. You can get more radio-activity from a granite counter top than a nuclear reactor as a direct neighbor.

Fortunately there were many places in the world where nuclear powerplants were built since 1980 including Canada where some were built, used, shut down and rebuilt and operated. Few of the deaths or accidents in oil fields are reported in world news, but every small burst of a non-radio-active steam pipeline is reported world wide.

Chernobyl was not a catastrophy just a mild industrial accident that killed less than twenty people immediatly and perhaps thirty more died days or months later because of lack of precaution against radio-active exposure whilst fighting the fires. The nuclear reaction stopped with the explosing of the steam pipes. A recent train wreck injured far more people in LA.

The disaster of Three-Mile-Island is that many more thousands of people in the US and elsewhere met their demise earlier than necessary because of air pollution from coal and oil and natural gas and the high cost of fuel and other energy.

All of the spent nuclear fuel rods of the US would fill up only a small part of a Walmart-Superstore. They are more than safe enough for the time being in the used fuel pools, and they would be much more safe buried under Yucca mountain. Or pay money to France, England or Japan to have them reprocessed. Or form them into smaller bundles and build CANDU reactors to use them again. They are a million times, or more, safer to ship than the gasoline truck that delivers fuel to the local gasoline station. Life is not perfectly safe; View the propane truck explosion in Toronto.

The fastest way to reduce CO2 production from New York City would be to build a CANDU reactor a hundred feet or so beneath the city to provide high temperature water for the steam heating systems. It might even produce a little electricity, but the steam can be used to also cool in the summer with absorbtion chillers.

Even if a Chernobyl reactor exploded two hundred feet below Manhattan it would not be noticed by most people, but a CANDU reactor runs only at a warm room tempeature with very hot tubes through the cool water and there is no chance of the water burning like the graphite did at Chernobyl. Uranium did not explode at Chernobyl, but water pipes did, and air got in and started the graphite burning.

Passive safety is useful; pressure relief valves are required on all boilers and now most water heaters even. Three-Mile-Island needed actual interlocks not computer and operator controlled interlocks.

Nuclear fuel costs much less than any other type of energy for power plants. If coal were delivered free to to a power plant it could only reduce the price of the electricity at the meter by 20 cents out of a dollar. The capital cost of a nuclear power plant is the most important cost. Ten times as much effort shoud go into making a nuclear power plant cheaper than to make it more efficient. Doubling the efficiency of a nuclear power plant would not reduce the cost at the homeowners meter by ten cents on the dollar. There are ten million kilowatt hours of energy in a pound of fissionable Uranion, U235. A low efficiency nuclear reactor can get 2 million kilowatt hours of electricity out of this ten million. It takes a minimum of a hundred and fifty pounds of Uranium to get one pound of U235. At one cent per kilowatt-hour you get $20,000 for the electricity. Uranium costs as low a$8 dollars a pound but speculation has brought it to as much as a hundred recently, but even at a hundred you can buy 200 pounds of uranium for the $20000. At a hundred dollars a ton for coal it would take about$100,000 to make the same electricity. Coal at the mine is much cheaper to get out, or as low as five dollars a ton.

@ KitP:

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Published papers confirm charged particle emissions in Pd/D lattice cathodes in electrolytic type cells. The presence of these particles indicates a need for accelerated research into LENR as a non-radioactive source of nuclear energy. Most of this published work originated at Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center San Diego,
San Diego, CA.

http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjap/pdf/2007/12/ap07222.pdf

(abstract)

It has been a long time since the Utilities have been able to add significant, MODERN, clean electric generation. The original nuclear additions died, amid pre-planned, forced cost overuns, and forced bankruptcy, by the green community.

The ironical result was that the Utilities were forced to continue to run old, inefficient and VERY dirty, coal plants, with almost no pollution controls, for much longer than wanted. Those "old smokers" run today, even as they were planned to be junked in the early 1980s.

Once again, the phony greens demonstrated that they would rather have pollution continue, as long as they had a reason to keep the checks and subscription money flowing in.

Finally the founder of Green Peace and others,(like myself), said enough, and abandoned the phonies masquerading as concerned environmentalists.

The nice thing about the GEN III+ reactor designs is that they are virtually "melt-down" proof, and passively safe. They answer virtually every criticism that we original, principled, critics of nuclear power had. These plants do not require minute by minute operator control. They are "walk away" plants.

If a problem occurs, the operators need do nothing, unlike the Three Mile Island situation, and the plant will shut itself down, by itself, as the nuclear fire will go out over 72 hours, by itself.

No need for panicked operators to make bad decisions like at Three Mile Island, in an urge to just "do something".

The NRC has teeth now, and regulates but doesn't cheer-lead. And it uses them. Regulation is in place, and demonstrated to be effective in the 106 running plants.

No longer are sloppy construction techniques accepted. Procedures are now in place to force test reports and test details all through construction, as it occurs in the present 106 running plants.

In these new GEN III+ designs much of the critical work is now done in a factory, and only final assembly takes place at the construction site adding to quality. These GEN III+ plants are mathematically provable to be three orders of magnitude safer, than the safe plants running today.

There are only really three standard designs for all 35 plants in the current pipeline. The GE-Hitachi ESBWR, the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP-1000, and the Areva EPR, the French Reactor design. The Westinghouse AP- 1000 has been already approved; the GE ESBWR is two years into a three year approval/accreditation cycle; and the EPR is starting accreditation.

There are a few potential orders for the earlier GE ABWR too.

These 35 plants in the pipeline have millions of dollars invested by the Utilities managements in getting them this far; and 15 applications(representing 24 plants), have now applied for the Combined Operating and Construction license. That is the last step prior to placing a firm construction order with the builder. Although a lot of joint work between the future owners and builders and regulators have already been done.

For example, economic justification to Utility management, State and local utility commissions authorization, site selections, and acquisition costs, builder selection, and and Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, has been prepared and approved. These costs have been incurred, and payed for BEFORE the COL was sought. The actual COL application costs ten of millions of dollars too.

All these 35 commitments, by the Utilities, has all occurred in the last 24 months or so, after Mr. Bush had spent several years essentially forcing the Nuclear plant builders to invest in designing and then getting these "standard designs" approved by the NRC. He has worked to bring these GEN III+ "melt-down" proof designs forward, and getting Congress to pass reform legislation in the 2001 and 2005 Energy Acts, to eliminate the legal stalling methods used to derail the earlier nuclear building era. The necessary preconditions were finally met in 2007, and the Nuclear Renaissance began.

Each standard design is reviewed by the NRC in a multi-year effort, third party critics like the UCS can comment, review and sue; but after the standard design is approved, there is no legal standing to sue and stall, as used to be the case.

BTW these 35 plants, online about 2016-2018 wil raise US nuclear generation to some 35-40% nuclear, up from 19%, and together with Hydro, will make the US dependent on fossil for less than 50% of it electricity generation.

They will also provide the clean generation for the coming flood of electrified autos, in the next decade.

Without doing anything else, that will drop fossil use by 15 million barrels per day in the US, and reduce CO2 emissions to the levels well below 1990 or even 1970 levels, and well below Kyoto targets, not that that actually matters.

Meanwhile every clean coal plant built, will retire a coal plant that is 4/5th as efficient, while removing most actual, toxic, pollutants that the "old smokers" don't. That is pure gravy.

"By submitting its license application before a federal deadline of 31 December, Entergy remains eligible for tax incentives and loan guarantees offered by the US Energy Policy Act of 2005."

Can anyone calculate how much these subsidies will cost US taxpayers?

How much of the cost of the Hitachi & Toshiba reactors will go abroad?

@treehugger,

The BWR type reactors have a closed cycle that goes through the turbines and closed condensers. Isolation takes place at the lower pressures in the condenser system, rather then in a high pressure/temperature environment in primary and secondary steam exchangers. Thus it is less likely to suffer leaks and consequent contamination there.

Unlike the PWRs that use a secondary steam cycle to isolate the primary steam at much higher temperature and pressure in a primary steam cycle, while using the secondary steam that goes through the turbines and condensers.

The water in a BWR is much cleaner than in an PWR, and has little Boric additions, that are corrosive. The Steam in the turbines is slightly radioactive, but the the primary radiation is from Nitrogen-16 that decays in a few seconds. The Turbine hall is accessible to personnel a short time after the reactor is shut down. Essentially by the time the turbines cool down from the heat, they are radio-logically safe to open and work on.

But it is true during operation the turbines need radiation protection.

Thanks for contributing valuable information.

Yes, with Oil supplies declining, many countries like Germany, Italy and even UAE (Emirate) are switching over to Coal. Last year Oil's share among Top-5 sources (Oil, Coal, Gas, Hydro & Nuclear) was 35 % while that of Coal is 28 % and is increasing faster.

In the last 20 years, many nuclear reactors in USA and other countries were uprated to give more power. And these new Gen III+ reactors will give clean energy that may power the plugin hybrids of the future.

Polly : Oil companies take lot more subsidies than any other. Out of $500 billlion, USA spends on its military, lets assume that$ 100 billion goes to secure oil in middle east. Now divide this amount by 200 billion gallons of Gasolene/Diesel that is sold here, thats 50 cents / gallon and this has been going on for many years with no one questioning it.

Nuclear along with Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Biofuels will help us in our quest for energy independence.

I find it interesting that no one has questioned where the radioactive waste from all these reactors is going to go.

Point of information: Does anyone know which type of reactor generates the smallest volume of waste between

* PWR
* BWR
* Pebble bed

??

@k,

The entire philosophy has changed due to the previous experience with the cost of money,and planned interference.

In the earlier era, progress was made each plant one at a time. Each plant ordered improved the design, and the state-of-the-art evolved. But that made each plant unique, and subject to extensive criticism, and legal delay.

Today a single design is developed and then "frozen". And then exhaustively studied, critiqued, and even re-designed, before any real plant is constructed.

Hundreds and thousands of engineer man-years are spent approving/accrediting the now "standard design". This is possible only because the standard designs are essentially a set of improvements on an already proved basic plant design.

The Utilities can chose to order such a "standard design" plant. The state-of-the-art will be frozen, and no progress will be made, until a later "standard design" is approved through the NRC accreditation cycle.

Today everything that can be done before actual construction is done. Large sums of money in the tens or hundreds of millions, are expended too. But nowhere near as much as when actual construction starts.

Then the money is borrowed to pay for the actual construction. Lesser amounts of money are needed for a shorter time, with this method, which reduce total costs.

And the legal stalling used by those trying to interfere and delay construction to drive up costs, have a lesser time, opportunity, and legal standing, to throw a monkey wrench into the system.

You may not see any actual construction yet with the COL approach, and GEN III+ plants yet; but when first concrete is poured they will be erected and start generating electricity in 42-54 months, depending on the type. Actual construction will probably begin in 2010 or 2011.

Unlike in the past, the plant builders and their chosen construction allies, will do lots in factories off-site, and there will be a minimum of on-site work for the critical high-tech components.

It is yet to be proven; but for the first time the plant builders will accept fixed length as well as fixed cost contracts. That NEVER happened in the old days. So they must believe it.

Construction for the EPR (Gen III + ) has already started in Finland and France. US and China are next.

France designed 2 reactors (900 MW & 1300 MW) and built nearly 59 reactors using those 2 designs. No wonder they can get 80% of their electricity from nuclear and also able to export to other countries.

Yes, most of the cost for nuclear comes from the opposition and it comes mainly from fake environmentalists who get their money from Oil lobby to stop the nuclear progress. They will soon give up as the rising oil prices are biting every country's economy.

Here is a table of reactors.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

439 reactors are able to produce 373,000 MW of capacity with an average reactor producing 850 MW. Its a lot of clean electricity that could be matched only by hydro at this point.

Progress in handling radioactive waste is substantial. The ridiculous "once through", wasteful, no-recycling vanity of some nuclear proliferation opponents have been exposed as just wishful thinking.

Civilian reactors are the only means of permanently destroying nuclear weapons grade materials. And they have done, and are doing so, right now. Literally five thousand or more surplus Cold War nuclear bombs from Russia and the US, have been burned up forever so far. And ten thousand more are planned for permanent incineration too.

No recent nuclear power has utilized spent reactor fuel to isolate the fissile components for a bomb. They have all used enriched Uranium, increasingly simpler and cheaper to get with centrifuge progress.

There is lots of still good fuel in spent fuel. So simply recycling spent fuel, will cut the radioactive waste to be disposed of from about 38,000 tons currently, to one tenth that. Yucca Mountain was sized to handle 70,000 tons of waste. So no other site will ever be needed, with recycling and Mixed Oxide, MOX, burning. The problem is that there are still other very long lived transuranics that live for thousands of years. Uranium and transuranics are dense; so that 70,000 tons is not a very big volume. All of it can fit on a single Basketball court.

But "Actinide Burning" is now being planned. Essentially the really long-lived radioactive waste is only a tiny fraction of the 38,000 tons, (or 3800 tons) of waste. It can be partially recycled in civilian reactors, in special non-fuel rods, where the transuranics are "burned up", as the reactor works.

Not all can be handled this way, but a large portion of the tiny amount can. The remaining transuranics need a higher energy neutron to transmute to something safer. That can come from particle accelerators, specially constructed to do this.

Or better yet, these transuranics can be burned up by the coming Fusion plants, that we will see in two or three decades. All that will be required is to include the tiny amount of transuranics waste in the radiation shield of the Fusion plants and the active neutrons will do the job. It might even make the Fusion plants attractive with another income stream, even sooner.

Or they can be burned in proposed GEN IV fission plants that may come in two or three decades, too.

I for one, will always oppose them as unnecessary and not as safe as the GEN III+ designs. Fusion is more attractive. So GEN III+ should be the last of the fission plants.

Then the remaining stuff can be put into Yucca Mountains at the edge of Death Valley, but now without transuranics, that will be safe, equal to uranium ore, in only a few hundred years, not thousands of years.

Better yet, the waste without transuranics and fissiles will probably remain undisturbed. With good fuel and fissile material in it, there will always be an attraction to go get it, much like the gold in a Pharaoh's tomb.

Polly,

The loan guarantees are just that:guarantees. If all goes well, it costs the government(taxpayer) nothing.

There are two types of guarantees being offered: loan guarantee where the government functions rather like a cosigner on the construction loan and delay insurance where the government will partially reimburse the first couple of reactors for delays caused by the government. (This was a major cause of overruns and delays in the last big build in the 1970's).

The first couple of new reactors are eligible also for a production tax credit. It is at the same level as the PTC for wind but is limited to a couple of years rather than permanent.

Nick:

BWR and PWR have almost equal volumes of used fuel for a given amount of electricity generated. (Actually BWR's have slightly more but not enough to worry about.)

Pebble bed reactor used fuel volume will depend on the level of burnup. If the burnup is comparable to BWR and PWR, there will be more used fuel volume with pebble bed. Proponents of pebble beds hope to achieve a higher burnup than BWR/PWR which will reduce the volume.

Bill

Latest day reactors have a higher burn-up and hence lesser waste.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
Pebble bed reactor is supposed to have a average burn-up of 90 GWd/t. Its also totally melt-down proof.

Also breeder reactor research is advancing. At this rate of development, I guess the Yucca mountain storage will never get filled up.

On the other hand, what sort of storage we have for the carbon-di-oxide waste from Fossil fuels. Nothing.

Secret Fallout - Dr Ernest Sternglasss

Killing our Own - the Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation - Harvey Wasserman

Read these books - skim them. If you still want nuclear power you are criminally pathologically insane.

Nuclear Power is destroying us all right now. The plants MUST all be shut or the Human Race is dead.

>>> The fastest way to reduce CO2 production from New York City would be to build a CANDU reactor a hundred feet or so beneath the city to provide high temperature water for the steam heating systems. It might even produce a little electricity, but the steam can be used to also cool in the summer with absorbtion chillers.

>>> Even if a Chernobyl reactor exploded two hundred feet below Manhattan it would not be noticed by most people, but a CANDU reactor runs only at a warm room tempeature with very hot tubes through the cool water and there is no chance of the water burning like the graphite did at Chernobyl. Uranium did not explode at Chernobyl, but water pipes did, and air got in and started the graphite burning.

SO that's what you were doing with them. And no, two Chernobyl reactors went China Syndrome under the WTC and hardly anyone did notice ha ha - except for the 70,000 dying rescue workers, the rocketing cancer rates in NYC, underweight babies crippled from birth and hundreds of tonnes of fallout all over NY and the world.

Nuclear power is nuclear war by stealth - what is teh main cause of death now and been inceasing inexorably since 1947? Cancer. Why? Low level radiation, increasing all the time, from nuclear power station continuous emissions - with now practically no control or monitoring.

The pro Nuclear Power vileness above could only come from a forked tongue.

Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.

What a sick joke. BWRs leak radioactivity like a sieve - at least PWRs are somewhat better contained. Now let's have an even cheaper BWR to really spray it out. Ha Ha ha.

Read Secret Fallout if you want to live.

The comments to this entry are closed.