Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 22, 2018 1:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 29, 2016 2:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
If you think there is no circumstance where an MSR cannot cause a significant radiation release then I am afraid you are simply lacking in imagination.
And if there is a significant release the reactor owner is essentially bankrupt either way, the payment will be sized to be as large as can be possibly recovered from said owner.
I think that a properly designed LFTR will be nigh on proof against the release of large quantities of radiation because there will not be large quantities of radioactive isotopes with a driving force to release it. Remember, Fukushima had almost 6 reactor years of Cesium stored in volatile metalic form inside the fuel elements, ready to be vaporized and released. That would not be the same with LFTRs. Properly designed, most fission products would be rapidly removed and safely stored on a continuing basis.

There is no reason to believe that a nuclear plant will necessarily go bankrupt if there is an accident. TMI didn't even exceed their primary insurance.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Last edited by KitemanSA on Jan 14, 2017 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 29, 2016 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Question, how many years of safe operation would you require before being convinced that there is no need for government to act as an insurer of last resort for MSR nuclear ?

The law isn't going to be changed just because MSR's are commercially available.
Even if 100% of reactors in the world are MSRs, and they never, ever, ever meltdown, do you think congress will change that law ? After all, being the last resort is great, when you expect to never need to be called upon that task.

I think the proof will happen when an MSR operating at full power is blow up with a military precision strike and all the radiation just stay in the rubble or splash in a 100 meter radius.

40% of fission products are either Xenon/Krypton in its final form or Xenon/Krypton as an intermediary isotope. A properly designed off gas removes 40% of fission products from the reactor, without reprocessing.
One of the nasty elements is radioactive Iodine. Its in the same chemical family as Fluor, so it will form an Iodite which has similar chemical stability advantages as a fluoride.
The reason MSRs are great for their safety is the chemistry. But explaining this to someone that doesn't properly understand ionic bonds won't make a whole lot of sense.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2016 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
macpacheco wrote:
Question, how many years of safe operation would you require before being convinced that there is no need for government to act as an insurer of last resort for MSR nuclear ?

The law isn't going to be changed just because MSR's are commercially available.
Even if 100% of reactors in the world are MSRs, and they never, ever, ever meltdown, do you think congress will change that law ? After all, being the last resort is great, when you expect to never need to be called upon that task.

I think the proof will happen when an MSR operating at full power is blow up with a military precision strike and all the radiation just stay in the rubble or splash in a 100 meter radius.

40% of fission products are either Xenon/Krypton in its final form or Xenon/Krypton as an intermediary isotope. A properly designed off gas removes 40% of fission products from the reactor, without reprocessing.
One of the nasty elements is radioactive Iodine. Its in the same chemical family as Fluor, so it will form an Iodite which has similar chemical stability advantages as a fluoride.
The reason MSRs are great for their safety is the chemistry. But explaining this to someone that doesn't properly understand ionic bonds won't make a whole lot of sense.


What law?

MSRs will need insurance, just like existing reactors.

The difference is - we saw at Fukushima, that clean up and make good costs (all be it heavily inflated) greatly exceeded the insurance cap. Therefore the state steps in - as they probably would in most situations where a damages exceed a certain amount. With an MSR "catastrophic failure", that cap probably won't be exceeded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2016 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
macpacheco wrote:
Question, how many years of safe operation would you require before being convinced that there is no need for government to act as an insurer of last resort for MSR nuclear ?
Since the government, at least in the USA, is NOT the insurer of last resort, the answer, in the USA, is ZERO.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 31, 2016 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
KitemanSA wrote:
macpacheco wrote:
Question, how many years of safe operation would you require before being convinced that there is no need for government to act as an insurer of last resort for MSR nuclear ?
Since the government, at least in the USA, is NOT the insurer of last resort, the answer, in the USA, is ZERO.


What about the Price Andersen act ? AFAIK it still applies.
Can you please tell me where I can confirm that ?
Anti nukes keep saying the contrary.
Thanks !

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2017 3:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
macpacheco wrote:
What about the Price Andersen act ? AFAIK it still applies.
Can you please tell me where I can confirm that ?
Anti nukes keep saying the contrary.
Thanks !
Yes, the PAA applies but does not make the FedGov the insurer of last resort. Unlike the hydro industry where the FedGov is the insurer of ONLY resort, the PAA makes the owner of the reactor fully liable. It then defines how the owner will cover his liability. It requires primary insurance to the maximum extent the FedGov allows insurance companies to underwrite for ANY industry (currently $375M, IIRC) and then requires secondary self insurance held by the industry as a whole (currently about $12B, IIRC). IF, and that is a mighty big IF, the secondary insurance is exceeded, then Congress will decide how the owner will cover any further liability. It does NOT make the taxpayer liable.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
Attempts to do anything but make the taxpayer liable in the aftermath of an accident would lead to endless court actions about arbitrary expropriation of property though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 247
As a practical matter the wording of the PAA does make the taxpayer liable.
It requires Congress to do whatever is necessary "to pay full and prompt compensation"
for the claims in excess of the secondary fund.
Since the nuclear utilities (read ratepayers) will already be out 13.5 billion,
not clear where this money is going to come from if not the taxpayer.
Of course, at this point we will be talking about an income transfer
from rate/tax payer to tort lawyers, their clients, and their favored politicians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
Attempts to do anything but make the taxpayer liable in the aftermath of an accident would lead to endless court actions about arbitrary expropriation of property though.
That is your opinion, but the law doesn't back you up. Current law is that the owner of the reactor is 100% liable. There is no reason to believe that anyone will ever change that.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2017 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
KitemanSA wrote:
E Ireland wrote:
Attempts to do anything but make the taxpayer liable in the aftermath of an accident would lead to endless court actions about arbitrary expropriation of property though.
That is your opinion, but the law doesn't back you up. Current law is that the owner of the reactor is 100% liable. There is no reason to believe that anyone will ever change that.

Current law is that the owner of the reactor is 100% liable up to the point where the owner of the reactor goes bankrupt.
Then the magic of limited liability dumps the remaining liability on society, and therefore likely on the state.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2017 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
E Ireland wrote:
Attempts to do anything but make the taxpayer liable in the aftermath of an accident would lead to endless court actions about arbitrary expropriation of property though.
That is your opinion, but the law doesn't back you up. Current law is that the owner of the reactor is 100% liable. There is no reason to believe that anyone will ever change that.

Current law is that the owner of the reactor is 100% liable up to the point where the owner of the reactor goes bankrupt.
Then the magic of limited liability dumps the remaining liability on society, and therefore likely on the state.
Unlikely.
Since the owners of nuclear power plants are typically owners of many, or of other major utility related assets, it is unlikely that they will be permitted to go bankrupt.

Of course, that assumes that the primary and secondary insurances are both exceeded. HIGHLY unlikely.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
KitemanSA wrote:
Unlikely.
Since the owners of nuclear power plants are typically owners of many, or of other major utility related assets, it is unlikely that they will be permitted to go bankrupt.

It is likely that on closer inspection it will be discovered that the owner of nuclear power stations tend to own nothing but the power station, and are simply contracted to produce power by a larger company, of which it is a wholly owned subsidairy.

For example all Entergy's nuclear stations are owned by a subsidiary (no idea if there is another layer below 'Entergy Nuclear' but I bet there is) and they would therefore not be legally liable for the debts of that company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 247
In th USA, such corporate veils are easily pierced. See Amoco Cadiz oil spill.
Entergy better be able to show that the subsidiary is a real company
in which Entergy was merely a passive investor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 24, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 07, 2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 122
Location: USA
Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group