As oil becomes more expensive, hydrogen may replace it as a transport fuel and in other applications. This development becomes more likely as fuel cells are developed, with hydrogen as the preferred fuel. If gas also becomes expensive, or constraints are put on carbon dioxide emissions, non-fossil sources of hydrogen will become necessary.
In the short term, hydrogen can be produced economically by electrolysis of water in off-peak periods. In future, a major possibility is direct use of heat from nuclear energy, using high-temperature reactors.
In the USA, oil refineries and chemical plants today have a demand for hydrogen which matches the country's nuclear capacity. The rapidly-growing demand for hydrogen favours technologies with low fuel costs, and the scale of hydrogen demand is appropriate to its production by nuclear reactors. A hydrogen pipeline network already exists, allowing production facilities to be remote from users.
All this points to the fact that while a growing hydrogen economy already exists, linked to the worldwide chemical and refining industry, a much greater one is in sight. With new uses for hydrogen as a fuel, the primary energy demand for its production may come to exceed that for electricity production.
Alternatively, many direct thermochemical processes are available for producing hydrogen from water. For economic production (small plant, low capital), high temperatures are required to ensure rapid throughput and high conversion efficiencies. In each of the leading thermochemical processes the high-temperature (800-1000°C), low-pressure endothermic (heat absorbing) decomposition of sulfuric acid produces oxygen and SO2. There are then several possibilities. In the iodine-sulfur process iodine combines with the SO2 and water to produce hydrogen iodide which then dissociates to hydrogen and iodine.
The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute is preparing to demonstrate the production of hydrogen by using the heat from its High-Temperature Engineering Test reactor (HTTR) initially in steam re-forming of natural gas, and later with this iodine-sulfur thermochemical process.
The economics of hydrogen production depend on the efficiency of the method used, and may be expressed as the ratio of energy output (in the H2) to the input. Hydrogen production by electrolysis is about 80% efficient considering only the electricity, but the thermal efficiency of producing that electricity ranges from about 34% in light water reactors to 50% in advanced systems, giving overall efficiencies of 25-40%. A significant investment in electrolytic cells is also required.
For thermochemical processes an overall efficiency of greater than 50% is projected. Combined cycle plants producing both H2 and electricity may reach efficiencies of 60%.
Three potentially-suitable reactor concepts have been identified:
(These are described more fully in the Small Nuclear Power Reactors & Advanced Reactors papers.)
In the meantime, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water, using electricity from any source. Non-fossil sources, including intermittent ones such as wind and solar, are important possibilities (thereby solving a problem of not being able to store the electricity from those sources).
However, its main use is likely to be in fuel cells which catalyse the oxidation of hydrogen directly to electricity at relatively low temperatures. The hydrogen may be stored at very low temperature (cryogenically), at high pressure, or chemically as hydrides. The last is seen to have most potential.
One promising hydride storage system utilises sodium borohydride as the energy carrier, with high energy density. The NaBH4 is catalysed to yield its hydrogen, leaving a borate (NaBO2) to be reprocessed.
The first fuel cell electric cars running on hydrogen are expected to be on the fleet market in 2004. (Current electric car technology relies on heavy storage batteries, and the vehicles have limited endurance before slow recharge.)
Hydrogen can also be used for stand-alone small-scale stationary generating plants using fuel cells, where hydrogen storage may be less of a problem than for transport.
Forsberg & Peddicord 2001, Hydrogen production as a major nuclear energy application, Nuclear News 44,10; Sept.
Hoffman, P. 2001, Tomorrow's Energy - Hydrogen, fuel cells and the prospects of a cleaner planet, MIT Press.
Wade et al 2002, Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor for Hydrogen Production & Desalination, ICONE-10 proc.
Rio Tinto Review, March 2002; IHT 25/2/02.
Large reactor to be recommissioned.
In May the Tennessee Valley Authority decided to recommission a large nuclear reactor that had been laid up for 17 years (after running for 11 years). The 1055 MWe Browns Ferry-1 unit will take five years to refurbish, with its power being increased to 1280 MWe, at a cost of US$ 1.7-1.8 billion. It will be the first 'new' US reactor start-up since Watts Bar in 1996. TVA will also apply for 20-year licence extensions for all three Browns Ferry units. The three were shut down in 1985 due to poor performance. Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, followed by unit 3 in 1995.
Three major US utilities have announced that they will apply for permits to build new reactors at existing nuclear power plant sites: Dominion Resources at North Anna, Entergy at Grand Gulf, and Exelon at Clinton.
NucNet news # 176/02, Ux Weekly 20/5/02.
Record US nuclear power production.
Last year US nuclear plants generated 769 billion kWh of electricity, a 2% increase on 2000 and equivalent to adding two large new plants. This was 20.3% of US electricity. It makes a 22% overall increase since 1997. Average net capacity factor was 90.7%, and 61 US reactors exceeded 90%.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 15/4/02, Ux Weekly 22/4/02.
Senate passes energy bill.
By 88 to 11 votes the US Senate has approved a long-debated energy bill which confirms renewal of Price-Anderson nuclear insurance, including provision for small reactors. The bill provides increased funding for advanced nuclear reactor technologies and a new regulatory process for next-generation plants, as well as tax incentives for nuclear plant decommissioning funds. It also provides for a feasibility study of using high-temperature nuclear reactors for thermochemical production of hydrogen fuel.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 29/4/02.
Seabrook nuclear plant sold.
The consolidation of the US nuclear plant ownership and operation continues. Following an auction process the FPL Group has agreed to buy an 88.2% interest in the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. The utility will pay six utility vendors US$ 836.6 million, being $749.1 million for the plant (including decommissioning trust fund), $61.9 million for fuel and the balance for components of an uncompleted second unit. The 1161 MWe PWR reactor started operation in 1990. The deal is subject to various government approvals. Seabrook will become part of FPL Energy, the US leader in wind energy generation and a sister company to Florida Power & Light, which operates four PWR nuclear reactors. One of these recently set a record for fastest refuelling.
NucNet business news # 23/02, FPL 15/4/02.
Certification sought for new reactor types.
Westinghouse Electric has submitted an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for full design certification for its AP1000 nuclear reactor. This is intended to be a standardised 1100 MWe pressurised water design based on its already-approved (but not yet built) AP600 design, which is one of three advanced reactors given NRC design certification so far. Both types are simplified relative to their predecessors, designed for a 60-year operational life and about 3-year construction time. The NRC approval process is likely to take nearly three years.
General Electric has requested a pre-application review by NRC of its European Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), a 1380 MWe development of its already certified and operating Advanced BWR and its subsequent Simplified BWR. The review is likely to take a year.
NucNet news # 128/02, Platts 9/5/02.
Major power uprate for US reactor.
A 20% increase in the rated power of AmerGen's Clinton nuclear power plant in Illinois has been approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Generating capacity at the 930 MWe boiling water reactor will be raised to some 1116 MWe in two stages, starting soon.
TradeTech NMR 5/4/02.
US enrichment shake-up.
Urenco has confirmed that in partnership with US utilities it is preparing to submit a license application by the end of the year to build a US centrifuge enrichment plant. Pending approval, construction will begin in 2004 and the first cascade will come on line in 2006. The technology would be based on Urenco's European plants, and be built progressively in modules of 500 tSWU/yr capacity.
USEC, now operating a very old diffusion plant, has confirmed that it moving forward with its plans for its own centrifuge plant based on past US efforts in that field, and with a view to having the first cascade going about 2009-10. USEC also said that it may consider SILEX laser enrichment technology in the long term, the development of which it is now funding.
TradeTech NMR 19/4/02.
US reactor damage rated as serious incident.
The deep corrosion of the carbon steel in the reactor pressure vessel head at the 906 MWe Davis-Besse nuclear plant has been rated 3 on the INES scale, meaning that it had a serious loss of defence in depth capability. The corrosion, adjacent to a control rod drive, is thought to be due to boric acid. It was discovered during refuelling early in March. Other PWR units have been inspected to check for similar structural degradation but nothing has been found.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has laid the blame for the Davis-Besse corrosion incident squarely on the operator, FirstEnergy Corporation, and said that evidence of the problem was clear four years ago. A worst-case failure scenario would have been a high-pressure leak of slightly radioactive primary cooling water (as steam) into the reactor containment building. This is the first INES level 3 incident in the USA (though Three Mile Island was retrospectively rated as level 5 - an accident with off-site risks).
Boron (as boric acid dissolved in the primary cooling water) is used as a neutron absorber in PWRs to control core criticality after refuelling, and also in the case of emergency shut-down.
NucNet news # 127/02, NEI, NRC Notification 5/4/02, NY Times 5/4/02.
US public opinion firmly supportive.
A February poll (N=1000) in the USA shows continuing support for nuclear power. Some 66% favour its use (27% strongly so), while 75% believe that it should play an important role in meeting future US electricity needs. 87% support renewal of nuclear plant operating licences beyond 40 years, subject to meeting safety standards, while 73% agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade.
NucNet news # 121/02, Bisconti Research.
A government spokesman said that "the decision in principle now ratified is based on the view that the nuclear power option is the most cost-effective alternative, both in terms of central government finances and national economy, for generation of base-load power within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, it will lead to a more stable price of electricity in Finland." Other policy initiatives including energy conservation and support for renewables were passed at the same time.
Both municipalities under consideration for the location of the new unit are keen to attract it. The construction permit application process is expected to be completed in 2005, allowing the new unit to be operational in 2010.
Finergy 24/5/02, NucNet news # 187/02, background # 8/02.
British Energy progress on nuclear aims.
British Energy, the UK's main nuclear power utility, has reported a pre-tax profit of £42 million before exceptional items for 2001-02. This comprised a £41 million UK loss and an £83 million North American profit, from AmerGen in USA, and Bruce Power in Canada. In the UK it wrote off £300 million on its coal-fired power station due to low prices, while nuclear output rose to 67.6 TWh and nuclear costs dropped to 1.67p/kWh. BE envisages future annual profits from Bruce Power of £20-25 million per reactor unit, and £10 million per reactor from its half share in AmerGen.
It has also been reported that BE is negotiating to take over operation of most of the UK's vintage Magnox reactor capacity. The eight smallest and oldest (50 MWe, 1956-60), at Calder Hall and Chaplecross, will remain with BNFL, their owner. They are currently shut down. BE would take over eight other Magnox reactors of 210-495 MWe at four sites, but would assume no financial risks or liabilities. It would run them with its 14 Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors and its single new PWR at Sizewell.
BE 15/5/02, Times 5/5/02, FT 6/5/02.
EU poll homes in on nuclear wastes.
An EU-wide poll of 16,000 people in 15 states on radioactive wastes and associated issues has been published by the European Commission. It shows that most Europeans believe nuclear power should remain an option for electricity generation if the waste is safely managed and disposed of without leaving it for future generations, this being the responsibility of each country individually. However, there was little public awareness of existing programs of radioactive waste management or the fact that nuclear plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases. The report is part of the Eurobarometer series. The industry group Foratom called for policy makers at both national and EU level to start making a serious and determined effort to resolve the waste issue politically, since technology and funding mechanisms for deep geological disposal of the wastes already exist.
Foratom 3/5/02.
UK to re-evaluate spent fuel options.
The UK Environment Minister has signed an international declaration to evaluate options for management of spent nuclear fuel after current reprocessing contracts come to an end. Reprocessing is essential for Magnox reactor fuel, but these UK first-generation reactors will all close by about 2010. The "Bergen declaration" notes the concern of a number of North Sea states regarding marine discharges from Sellafield, and the Minister has agreed to address these, notably concerning technetium.
France declined to endorse the declaration, which goes on to "welcome the adoption of the OSPAR strategy" for the protection of the marine environment including "progressive reduction of discharges from nuclear facilities." In 2000, both UK and France abstained from an OSPAR decision to reduce and eliminate radioactive discharges.
Sellafield effluents are closely monitored to ensure no adverse health risks, but artificial radionuclides such as technetium-99m (used as environmental tracers to monitor effluents elsewhere) are conspicuous even at great distances. All figures on Sellafield effluents indicate negligible health impacts. The site has UK's reprocessing facilities, MOX plant, four early Magnox reactors and a decommissioned prototype reactor, as well as a legacy of closed-down military facilities and wastes.
The UK energy minister has challenged Irish campaigners for closure of Sellafield to deal in facts rather than "emotive and misleading arguments. The UK government would not pursue any course of action that is damaging either to our own people or to our neighbours in Ireland". This was reinforced by the Prime Minister, who affirmed his confidence in the plant's safety, both operationally and in relation to risk from accidents or terrorism.
The Royal Society has called for better storage of some UK nuclear wastes and for the UK government to treat their disposal as urgent. It points to the need for public confidence in the disposal of toxic and long-lived wastes and calls for early creation of a new and independent Nuclear Waste Management Commission to grapple with the question.
NucNet news # 117, 159 & 165/02, Royal Society 3/5/02.
Bulgaria to revive power plant construction.
Bulgaria intends to resume building the partially-completed Belene nuclear power plant, the prime minister has announced. Construction of the first VVER-1000 unit was stopped after three or four years work about 1990, due to objections. Bulgaria is planning to decommission the four oldest reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in order to comply with criteria for joining the EU. Units 1 & 2 are due for closure this year, and units 3 & 4 by 2010. All are first-generation VVER-440/230 units of 405 MWe.
A recent Gallup Poll revealed that a large majority of Bulgarians believe that the EU is being unreasonable in insisting on the closure of these Soviet-designed reactors - over 77% of them disagree that they should be closed prematurely on safety grounds. Over 66% think that the government should firmly resist demands to close the first two 405 MWe units at the end of this year, even if this delays Bulgaria's accession to the EU. Almost 70% thought that the EU had a hidden economic or political agenda in demanding the closures, and nearly 90% thought that electricity prices would rise as a result.
Completing one or two 953 MWe units of the Belene plant would compensate for the lost generating capacity from Kozloduy, and this is well supported by public opinion. Unit 1 is said to be 40-65% built with US$ 1.3 billion spent, and Russia in 1997 established the feasibility of completing it. Since then Bulgaria has canvassed the possibility of building a more modern western or Russian unit there.
Ux weekly 8/4/02, ANSTO, NucNet news # 182/02.
Russian loan for new Ukraine reactors.
Ukraine's utility Energoatom expects to sign a loan agreement with Russia in July to help fund completion of its Khmelnitski-2 and Rovno-4 reactors. This will cover US$ 150 million of equipment.
Late last year the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development postponed indefinitely a loan of US$ 215 million after Ukraine baulked at the conditions. However, in February a Ukrainian delegation completed further talks with EBRD and made some headway, though details are not yet available.
NucNet news # 116/02.
Veteran power plants closed.
In Russia, the Obninsk nuclear power plant, claimed to be the world's first for generating power (5 MWe), was shut down at the end of April after almost 48 years service without any breakdown. It will be turned into a museum.
In the UK, the Bradwell nuclear power plant (2 x 123 MWe Magnox reactors) was closed at the end of March after 40 years and 70 billion kWh output. It cost £58 million in 1962, equivalent to some £1 billion today, but has produced almost twice that value of electricity. It was one of the first plants in the world built purely for electricity production.
Russia Journal 7/5/02, Nuclear Issues April 2002.
EU energy priorities announced.
The EU energy commissioner has outlined her priorities in the light of expected expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members. These include security of supply (as canvassed in last year's Green Paper), the security of energy infrastructure, sustainable development involving clean energy sources and demand management, and nuclear safety. The last is of particular concern in central and eastern Europe, and eight early Soviet reactors are slated for closure by 2010. However, Bulgaria and Lithuania (with six of these) are reluctant participants and are arguing the merits of upgrades undertaken during the last few years.
In the light of this, she proposed harmonisation "across the enlarged Europe, ... to attain equivalent nuclear safety standards everywhere". International benchmarks are set under the IAEA Convention of Nuclear Safety, and the Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association has been assessing safety standards in central and eastern Europe.
NucNet background # 6/02 & 45/01; & see paper on Early Soviet Reactors and EU Accession.
Shortly after that, the fifth Chinese reactor - unit 1 of China's Lingao nuclear power plant, reached full power. Commercial operation of the French 935 MWe unit is now expected in June.
NucNet news # 151 & 157/02.
Japan reaffirms nuclear energy, including MOX.
The Japanese government has announced that it will rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. A 10-year energy plan, submitted in July 2001 to the Minister of Economy Trade & Industry, has now been endorsed by cabinet. It calls for an increase in nuclear power generation by about 30 percent (13,000 MWe), with the expectation that utilities will have 9 - 12 new nuclear plants operating by 2010. At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 44,300 MWe on line, with 3 (3700 MWe) under construction and 12 (15,858 MWe) planned. Parliament is expected to revise existing laws to align with measures in the energy plan when it is considered there.
Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission confirmed in April that using mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is safe, and that its use at up to 18 reactors by 2010 was supported. Senior members of the government have reaffirmed that the country's use of MOX "must happen", and that the government will initiate educational and information programs to win wider acceptance for it. A local referendum last year has delayed plans for its introduction. The Minister for Science & Technology also said that the early restart of the Monju fast reactor was a key aim.
NucNet news # 112 & 149/02, TradeTech NMR 22/3/02, SpentFuel 15/4/02.
India moves forward on nuclear power.....
Construction has started on the Kudankulam nuclear plant, with twin VVER-1000 reactors and their fuel being supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport. This followed approval by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and the national regulator and government approval of the US$ 2.74 billion cost. They are the first pressurised water reactors in the country and are expected to produce electricity at a price competitive with local coal-fired plants.
At the same time government funding of US$ 640 million was approved for Rajasthan units 5 & 6, local pressurised heavy water reactors each of 202 MWe and standardised design. However, the regulator decided early in February that the 1972 vintage Rajasthan-1 should close at the end of April. This was a 200 MWe unit built with initial Canadian input, completed without that assistance and subsequently de-rated to 90 MWe due to technical problems.
Construction of the twin 202 MWe Kaiga 3 & 4 reactors has been brought forward so that their cost has been revised down by 22%, to US$ 684 million.
NucNet news # 124-5/02, Nucleonics Week 28/3 & 4/4/02.
........with next step in thorium program.
India is preparing to start construction of a 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), which will inaugurate the second of three stages in its thorium program. The PFBR will be a pool type, sodium-cooled reactor with mixed plutonium-uranium oxide fuel and with a thorium blanket to produce U-233. The (reactor-grade) plutonium for the MOX is produced in the (stage-1) commercial heavy water reactors. Design life of the PFBR is 40 years and both the project proposal and environmental documentation are awaiting government approval. (The third stage of the program, utilising the thorium-derived U-233, has not yet been defined, but the point is to be able to utilise India's substantial thorium reserves.)
A small Fast Breeder Test Reactor has been operating for some years at Kalpakkam, up to a level of 13 MW, with high burn-up. It is cooled by liquid sodium and uses indigenously-designed plutonium-uranium carbide fuel (of 70:30 Pu:U).
ENS NucNet news # 336/97, Nucleonics Week 18/4/02.
Vietnam raises nuclear energy prospect.
The Vietnamese government is undertaking a feasibility study on electricity options, to cope with rising demand and to promote energy diversity. Both possible scenarios include significant nuclear contribution by 2017 or 2019. Last year Russia and Vietnam negotiated a nuclear cooperation agreement, primarily focused on Vietnam's Da Lat research reactor.
NucNet news # 129/02.
The new pool-type reactor will replace one of the oldest research reactors still operating anywhere - a 1956 vintage UK design, which produces medical isotopes and has various other research and commercial functions. The replacement is due to start up in 2005, initially using conventional low-enriched uranium silicide fuel but switching to uranium-molybdenum fuel when it becomes available, this having a higher U density and being more readily reprocessed.
ARPANSA 5/4/02, www.arpansa.gov.au.
Quarterly Australian U production.
WMC has announced production for the March quarter of 597 tonnes uranium concentrate (590 t U3O8, 500 tU). This is less than half of normal capacity, due to the solvent extraction plant fire last year. The plant is comprehensively redesigned, and the uranium part of it is expected to be recommissioned in October. ERA reported drummed production of 929 tonnes U3O8 (788 tU) for the quarter, 11% less than last year's average.
At ERA's AGM the Chairman referred to lapses in operating practices at Ranger, but pointed out that the resulting uranium levels in run-off were below the regulatory level of 5.8 parts per billion, which in turn was three times less than drinking water standard. Ranger completed its 21st year operating with no detriment to the surrounding environment, as confirmed by the government supervisory authority. ERA has committed itself to achieving compliance with environmental standard ISO 14001 for its mine sites in 2003.
WMC 15/4/02, ERA 15/4/02.
Exelon to withdraw from PBMR project.
US utility Exelon Generation has notified its intention to withdraw from the South African-led consortium developing the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR). It will relinquish its 12.5% stake upon completion of the current feasibility study, in order to concentrate on its core business of power generation and distribution. Exelon continues to believe that the PBMR technology has considerable potential and looks forward to it being available to utilities.
Exelon 16/4/02.
New modular reactor for hydrogen & desalination.
A project now receiving US federal funding is the Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor for Hydrogen production - STAR-H2. It is a lead-cooled fast-neutron reactor with passive safety features. Its 400 MW (thermal). size means it can be shipped by rail and also cooled by natural circulation. It uses U-transuranic nitride fuel in a cassette which is replaced every 15 years. The reactor heat at 780°C is conveyed by a helium circuit to drive a separate thermo-chemical hydrogen production plant, while lower grade heat is harnessed for desalination. Any commercial electricity generation would be by fuel cells, using the hydrogen.
Regional fuel cycle support centres would handle fuel supply and reprocessing, the fresh fuel being spiked with fission products to deter misuse. Complete burn-up of uranium and transuranics is envisaged, with only fission products being waste.
Wade et al 2002, Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor for Hydrogen Production & Desalination, ICONE-10 proc.
A review paper on the whole low-level radiation question was presented at the Australian Nuclear Association conference in October. It reaffirmed that there is no clear scientific evidence for harm from low levels of exposure (up to at least 20 mSv acute dose) or total dose rates of at least 50 mSv/yr. It cited both experimental and epidemiological evidence that beneficial health effects were at least as likely as harmful effects from such exposures. The variability of individuals was stressed, but evidence of adaptive response is mounting. This paper was in line with the 1999 findings of the International Nuclear Societies Council that there was no scientific evidence of increased incidence of cancer in humans at low doses (acute 10 mSv or continuous 20 mSv/yr).
The American Nuclear Society last year updated its position statement to declare that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of the LNT hypothesis in projecting the health effects of low-level radiation, and called for research on those health effects Ð positive as well as negative (normally research is set up to look for only negative effects). Meanwhile, quantitative estimation of health risks should not be made for individual doses of less than 50 mSv in one year, or 100 mSv in a lifetime, according to ANS.
This all relates also to the concept of collective dose, particularly the practice of multiplying small doses by a large number of people to get a figure which is supposed to reflect public risk. The Chairman of UK's National Radiation Protection Board has written that this "use of collective dose, aggregated to include all levels of dose and all periods into a single value, has distorted the process of optimisation of (radiological) protection." He refers to the ICRP proposal for focusing on dose to the individual from a controllable source, and notes that this would still require keeping the individual dose below a defined action level and as low as reasonable practicable.
R.E.J.Mitchel, Low-Dose Radiation Risk, a biological reality check, Radwaste Solutions, March-April 2002;
D.J.Higson, Review of the Controversy on Risks from Low levels of Radiation, ANA conference, October 2001,
INSC Task Group on Low Doses report, Sept 1999.
NRPB Bulletin # 231, Sept 2001.
Concern about radiation double standard.
Decommissioning experts are increasingly concerned about double standards developing in Europe which allow 30 times the dose rate from non-nuclear recycled materials than from those out of the nuclear industry. Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards. Elsewhere, 0.3 to 1.0 mSv/yr individual dose constraint is applied to oil and gas recyclables, and 0.01 mSv/yr for release of materials with the same kind of radiation from the nuclear industry. The main radionuclide in scrap from the oil and gas industry is radium-226, with a half-life of 1600 years as it decays to radon. Those in nuclear industry scrap are cobalt-60 and caesium-137, with much shorter half-lives. Application of a 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit results in a clearance level for Ra-226 of 500 Bq/kg, compared with 10 Bq/kg for nuclear material.
The concern arises because of the very large amounts of Tenorm (technologically-enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive materials) needing recycling or disposal from many sources. The largest Tenorm waste stream is coal ash, with 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, and carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This is usually just buried. However, the double standard means that the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, can either be sent to deep disposal or released for use in building materials, depending on where it comes from. The 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit is still only one tenth of most natural background levels, and two orders of magnitude lower than those experienced naturally by many people, who suffer no apparent ill effects.
Nucleonics Week 25/4/02.
This is a very readable and informative history of the nuclear physics to do with radioactivity and fission. It then extends more journalistically into current issues, where it is regrettably sloppy in some particulars and could have used some better editorial input. For instance it has the USS Nautilus reactor in 1957 being "brought ashore and used to build the first nuclear power station in America" (!), and there is no reference to the whole low-dose radiation situation, simply an assumption that the linear hypothesis tells the whole story. With accidents, there is speculation rather than reference to UNSCEAR in relation to their human effects, though the narrative is engaging. The problem areas (notably wastes) chapter is rather superficial and UK-centric.
Despite shortcomings in its last six chapters, which seem to be something of an afterthought, it is a worthwhile book for reading and reference.
IHL
Sustainable energy
Energy analysis of power systems
Advanced reactors
World uranium mining
The Hydrogen economy (new)
Desalination (new)
Small nuclear power reactors
Radioisotopes in medicine
Civil liability for nuclear damage
Early Soviet reactors and EU accession
Nuclear power reactors
Nuclear power in Sweden
Nuclear Power in China
US nuclear power industry
Plans for new reactors worldwide
Waste management in the nuclear fuel cycle
International nuclear waste disposal concepts
Environmental aspects of uranium mining
Supply of uranium (new)
See also Ux Consulting graphs
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@mpx.com.au
fax (03) 9629 7207