http://youtu.be/e0UE_CvEZLs
WHAT IS A FAST NEUTRON BREEDER REACTOR?
What is a breeder reactor? Berkeley
Dr. Helen Caldicott addresses the science, insanity and misrepresentations surrounding the development of breeder reactors. Caldicott is a pediatrician and internationally recognized author and lecturer. For more information see her book, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.
One of the first promises made by promoters of fast breeder reactors is that they would 'burn' all of the waste products from other nuclear reactors, and thus 'recycle' all of the nuclear waste generated. As the following article describes in great detail, the nuclear waste generated by this breeder reactor that is still on this site is immense, and there is no plan about how to deal with it, or what to do with it. Several fires have broken out and numerous issues arose around dumping of nuclear waste into the ocean, with subsequent radioactive contamination of both ocean water, ocean bottom and radioactive contaminated beaches.
The problems described in the country case studies in the following chapters make it hard to dispute Admiral Hyman Rickover’s summation in 1956, based on his experience with a sodium-cooled reactor developed to power an early U.S. nuclear submarine, that such reactors are “expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.”2
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/dunn1/docs/rr08.pdfSHORT VIDEO TOUR OF DOUNREAY
http://youtu.be/wk9_RdQm-7g
MAJORITY OF SCOTS DO NOT SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER, WANT RENEWABLES INSTEAD
Scots have concluded that the problems generated by the nuclear industry and the fast breeder reactor programs are not worth it, as they have decided as a majority to not support them any longer.
Wikipedia; "In 2013, a YouGov energy survey concluded that:
New YouGov research for Scottish Renewables shows Scots are twice as likely to favour wind power over nuclear or shale gas. Over six in ten (62%) people in Scotland say they would support large scale wind projects in their local area, more than double the number who said they would be generally for shale gas (24%) and almost twice as much as nuclear (32%). Hydro power is the most popular energy source for large scale projects in Scotland, with an overwhelming majority (80%) being in favour. [1]
CURRENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED ON NO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS, INCLUDING NO NEW FAST BREEDER REACTORS
The current Scottish National Party (SNP) government elected in 2007 has a 'no new nuclear power strategy'. This position is at odds with UK government policy which in January 2008 announced the go-ahead for new nuclear power stations to be built across the United Kingdom. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond maintains that there is 'no chance' of new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.
The Scottish Government's stance has been backed by the Scottish Parliament that voted 63-58 to support the Scottish Government's policy of opposing new nuclear power stations. MSPs vote No to new nuclear stations The Scotsman 18 January 2008. Nuclear Power accounts for approximately 50% of Scotland's electricity demand. Torness generates about 1200MW and Hunterston 800MW.
Nuclear reactors in Scotland
Power station reactors
Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway - 4 x 180MW(th) (Generation ceased in June 2004)
Hunterston A, North Ayrshire (Generation ceased 1990)
Hunterston B, North Ayrshire EDF Energy owned AGR
Torness, East Lothian 2 x 682MWe. EDF Energy owned AGR
Research reactors (all of them shut down)
VULCAN (Rolls-Royce Naval Marine) (decommissioned in 1992)
PWR2 (Rolls-Royce Naval Marine) - (scheduled to shut down in 2014)
DMTR - (shut down 1969)
Dounreay Fast Reactor - Fast breeder reactor (shut down 1994)
Prototype fast reactor - (shut down 1994)
East Kilbride - Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre (deactivated 1995, fully dismantled 2003)
Dounreay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dounreay in 2006
Location of Dounreay
Country Scotland
Commission date 1955
Decommission date 1994
Operator(s) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Power generation
Primary fuel Nuclear
Dounreay (Gaelic: Dùnrath) (Ordnance Surveygrid reference NC982669) is on the north coastof Caithness, in the Highland area of Scotland and west of the town of Thurso. Dounreay was originally the site of a castle (now a ruin) and its name derives from the Gaelic for 'fort on a mound.'[1] Since the 1950s it has been the site of two nuclear establishments, for the development of prototype fast breeder reactors and submarine reactor testing. Most of these facilities are now being decommissioned.
History
Dounreay formed part of the battlefield of the Sandside Chase in 1437.
The site is used by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment) and the Ministry of Defence (Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment), and the site is best known for its five nuclear reactors, three owned and operated by the UKAEA[2] and two by the Ministry of Defence.
The nuclear power establishment was built on the site of a World War II airfield, called RAF Station Dounreay. It became HMS Tern (II) when the airfield was transferred to the Admiralty byRAF Coastal Command in 1944, as a satellite of HMS Tern at Twatt in Orkney. It never saw any action during the war and was placed into care and maintenance in 1949.
Dounreay is near the A836 road, about 9 miles (14 km) west of the town of Thurso, which grew rapidly when the research establishment was developed during the mid 20th century. The establishment remained a major element in the economy of Thurso and Caithness until 1994 when the government ordered the reactors closed for good; a large workforce employed in the clean-up of the site (which is scheduled to continue until at least 2025) remains.[2]
Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment
Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment was established in 1955 primarily to pursue the UK Government policy of developing fast breeder reactor (FBR) technology.[2] The site was operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).[2] Three nuclear reactors were built there by the UKAEA, two of them FBRs plus a thermal research reactor used to test materials for the programme, and also fabrication and reprocessing facilities for the materials test rigs and for fuel for the FBRs.
Dounreay was chosen as the reactor location for safety, in case of an explosion.[2] The first reactor built was surrounded by a 139-foot steel sphere, still a prominent feature of the landscape. The sphere was constructed by the Motherwell Bridge Company.
DMTR
The first of the Dounreay reactors to achieve criticality was the Dounreay Materials Test Reactor (DMTR), in May 1958. This reactor was used to test the performance of materials under intense neutron irradiation, particularly those intended for fuel cladding and other structural uses in a fast neutron reactor core. Test pieces were encased in uranium-bearing alloy to increase the already high neutron flux of the DIDO class reactor, and then chemically stripped of this coating after irradiation. DMTR was closed in 1969, when materials testing work was consolidated at Harwell Laboratory.
Key1 Fissile Pu-239 core
3 U-238 Breeder blanket
4 Primary NaK coolant loop
5 Secondary NaK coolant loop
6 Secondary NaK circulator
7 Secondary heat exchanger
8 Primary heat exchanger
9 Primary NaK circulator
11 Radiation shield
DFR
The second operational reactor (although the first to commence construction) was the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), which achieved criticality on 14 November 1959, producing an electrical output of 14MWe. This power was exported to the National Gridfrom 14 October 1962 until the reactor was taken offline for decommissioning in 1977. During its operational lifespan, DFR produced over 600 million kWh of electricity.[3]
DFR and associated facilities cost £15m to build.[4] It was designed to generate 60MW thermal power and achieve a 2% fuel burn up.[5]
DFR was a loop-type FBR cooled by primary and secondary NaK circuits, with 24 primary coolant loops. The reactor core was initially fuelled with uranium metal fuel stabilized with molybdenum and clad in niobium. The core was later used to test oxide fuels for PFR and provide experimental space to support overseas fast reactor fuel and materials development programmes.
PFR
The third and final UKAEA-operated reactor to be built on the Dounreay site was the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR). PFR was a pool-type fast breeder reactor, cooled by liquid sodium and fueled with MOX. It achieved criticality in 1974 and began supplying National Grid power in January 1975. The output of PFR was 250 MWe. There were many delays and reliability problems before reaching full power.[6]
The reactor was taken offline in 1994, marking the end of nuclear power generation at the site. The lifetime load factor recorded by the IAEA was 26.9%.[7] A remotely operated robot dubbed 'The Reactorsaurus' will be sent in to remove waste and contaminated equipment from this reactor as it is too dangerous a task for a human.[8] The control panel for the reactor has been earmarked for an exhibition on the reactor at the London Science Museum in 2016.[9]
Subsequent activity
Since the reactors have all been shut down,[2] care and maintenance of old plant and decommissioning activities have meant that Dounreay has still retained a large work-force. Commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and waste was stopped by the UK government in 1998 although some waste is still accepted from other nuclear facilities in special circumstances.
DECOMMISSIONING TO COST 2.9 BILLION, MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN INITIAL COST
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ownership
On 1 April 2005 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) became the owner of the site, with the UKAEA remaining as operator. Decommissioning of Dounreay was initially planned to bring the site to an interim care and surveillance state by 2036, and as a brownfield site by 2336, at a total cost of £2.9 billion.[10]
Apart from decommissioning the reactors, reprocessing plant, and associated facilities, there are five main environmental issues to be dealt with:
NUCLEAR WASTE DISCHARGED INTO OCEAN IN UNREGULATED MANNER
A 65-metre deep shaft used for intermediate level nuclear waste disposal is contaminating some groundwater, and is threatened by coastal erosion in about 300 years time. The shaft was never designed as a waste depository, but was used as such on a very ad-hoc and poorly monitored basis, without reliable waste disposal records being kept. In origin it is a relic of a process by which a waste-discharge pipe was constructed. The pipe was designed to discharge waste into the sea. Historic use of the shaft as a waste depository has resulted in one hydrogen gas explosion[11] caused by sodium and potassium wastes reacting with water. At one time it was normal for workers to fire rifles into the shaft to sink polythene bags floating on water.[12]
Irradiated nuclear fuel particles on the seabed near the plant,[2] estimated about several hundreds of thousands in number.[13] The beach has been closed since 1983 due to this danger,[2] caused by old fuel rod fragments being pumped into the sea.[2] In 2008, a clean-up project using Geiger counter-fitted robot submarines will search out and retrieve each particle individually, a process that will take years.[2] The particles still wash ashore, including as at 2009 -137 less radioactive particles on the publicly accessible but privately owned close-by Sandside Bay beach and one at a popular tourist beach at Dunnet.[14]
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF NUCLEAR WASTE GENERATED BY PLANT THAT WAS PROMISED TO CONSUME ALL WASTE AND GET RID OF OTHER PLANT'S WASTE
18,000 cubic metres of radiologically contaminated land, and 28,000 cubic metres of chemically contaminated land.
1,350 cubic metres of high and medium active liquors and 2,550 cubic metres of unconditioned intermediate level nuclear waste in store.
1,500 tonnes of sodium, 900 tonnes of this radioactively contaminated from the Prototype Fast Reactor.
Historically much of Dounreay's nuclear waste management was poor. On 18 September 2006, Norman Harrison, acting chief operating officer, predicted that more problems will be encountered from old practices at the site as the decommissioning effort continues. Some parts of the plant are being entered for the first time in 50 years.[15]
LOCAL LANDFILL SITE ILLEGALLY USED TO DUMP RADIOACTIVE WASTE
In 2007 UKAEA pleaded guilty to four charges under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 relating to activities between 1963 and 1984, one of disposing of radioactive waste at a landfill site at the plant between 1963 and 1975, and three of allowing nuclear fuel particles to be released into the sea,[16][17] resulting in a fine of £140,000.[18]
TERRORIST SECURITY RISK HEIGHTENED, REQUIRES 24 HOUR POLICE GUARDS
Due to the uranium and plutonium held at the site, it is considered a security risk and there is a high police presence.[2] The fuel elements, known as "exotics", are to be removed to Sellafield for reprocessing, starting in 2014 or 2015.[19]
In 2013 the detail design of the major project to decommission the intermediate level waste shaft was completed, and work should begin later in the year. The work will include the recovery and packaging of over 1,500 tonnes of radioactive waste.[20] As of 2013, the "interim end state" planned date had been brought forward to 2022-2025.[21]
NUMEROUS FIRES AND ACCIDENTS, MOST COVERED UP
In March 2014 firefighters extinguished a small fire in an area used to store low-level nuclear waste.[22]
On 7 October 2014 a fire on the PFR site led to a "release of radioactivity via an unauthorised route". The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) concluded that "procedural non-compliances and behavioural practices" led to the fire, and served an improvement notice on Dounreay Site Restoration Limited.[23][24]
Vulcan NRTE
Vulcan NRTE entrance
The Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment(NRTE) (formerly HMS Vulcan) is a Ministry of Defence(MoD) establishment housing the prototype nuclear propulsion plants of the type operated by the Royal Navy in its submarine fleet. Originally it was known as the Admiralty Reactor Test Establishment (ARTE).
For over 40 years Vulcan has been the cornerstone of the Royal Navy's nuclear propulsion programme, testing and proving the operation of four generations of reactor core and currently testing its fifth. Its reactors have significantly led the operational submarine plants in terms of operation hours, proving systems, procedures and safety. The reactors are run at higher levels of intensity than those on submarines with the intention of discovering any system problems before they might be encountered on board submarines.[25]
Rolls-Royce, which designs and procure all the reactor plants for the Royal Navy from its Derby offices, operates Vulcan on the behalf of the MoD and employs around 280 staff there, led by a small team of staff from the Royal Navy. Reactors developed include the PWR1 and PWR2.
In 2011 the MoD stated that NRTE could be scaled down or closed after 2015 when the current series of tests ends. Computer modelling and confidence in new reactor designs meant testing would no longer be necessary.[26]
The cost of decommissioning NRTE facilities when they become redundant, including nuclear waste disposal, was estimated at £2.1 billion in 2005.[27]
Dounreay Submarine Prototype 1 (DSMP1)
The first reactor, PWR1, is known as Dounreay Submarine Prototype 1 (DSMP1). The reactor plant was recognised by the Royal Navy as one of Her Majesty's Submarines (HMS) and was commissioned as HMS Vulcan in 1963. It went critical in 1965. HMS Vulcan is a Rolls-Royce PWR 1 reactor plant and tested Cores A, B and Z before being shut down in 1984. In 1987, the plant was re-commissioned as LAIRD (Loss of Coolant Accident Investigation Rig Dounreay) a non-nuclear test rig, the only one of its kind in the world. LAIRD trials simulated loss of coolant accidents to prove the effectiveness of systems designed to protect the reactor in loss-of-coolant accidents.
Shore Test Facility (STF)
The second reactor, PWR2, is housed in the Shore Test Facility (STF), was commissioned in 1987, and went critical with Core G the same year. The plant was shut down in 1996, and work began to refit the plant with the current core, Core H, in February 1997. This work was completed in 2000 and after two years of safety justification the plant went critical in 2002 and is still critical today. Vulcan Trials Operation and Maintenance (VTOM) (the programme under which Core H is tested) is scheduled to be complete in 2014 and the reactor will be de-fuelled and examined. The site would then be decommissioned along with facilities at neighbouring UKAEA Dounreay.
In January 2012 radiation was detected in the reactor's coolant water, caused by a microscopic breach in fuel cladding. This discovery led to HMS Vanguard (S28) being scheduled to be refuelled early and contingency measures being applied to other Vanguard and Astute class submarines, at a cost of £270 million, before similar problems might arise on the submarines. This was not revealed to the public until 2014.[25][28]
It was discovered during decommissioning, that fuel rods have swollen and become stuck due to high neutron radiation. They are still trying to figure out how to get those stuck fuel rods out of the reactor.
GLOBAL OVERVIEW AND PULLING OF FUNDING FOR MONJU FAST BREEDER REACTOR
The Monju liquid sodium cooled project was promised as the facility that would 'eat' all of the nuclear waste from all of the 50 or so nuclear power plants around Japan. After many years and over ten BILLION dollars poured into the facility, it has only operated for about 1 hour. A huge liquid sodium leak and fire was covered up and resulted in a scandal.More recently, the Monju fast breeder reactor funding was pulled.
VIDEO: Details on Monju fast breeder reactor failure, vote to pull it's funding in 2014, and global overview of molten salt fast breeder reactors in panel discussion
http://youtu.be/1-R3vJZVWaQ?t=2m30s
To learn more about Monju, click on the following link;
Sodium Cooled Monju Nuclear Fast Breeder Power Plant Accidents; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/sodium-cooled-monju-nuclear-fast.html
REPORT: UNSUCCESSFUL “FAST BREEDER” IS NO SOLUTION FOR
LONG-TERM REACTOR WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES
"Thomas B. Cochran, nuclear physicist and senior scientist in the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “Fast reactor development programs failed in the: 1) United States; 2) France; 3) United Kingdom; 4) Germany; 5) Japan; 6) Italy; 7) Soviet Union/Russia 8) U.S. Navy and 9) the Soviet Navy.
The program in India is showing no signs of success and the program in China is only at a very early stage of development. Despite the fact that fast breeder development began in 1944, now some 65 year later, of the 438 operational nuclear power reactors worldwide, only one of these, the BN-600 in Russia, is a commercial-size fast reactor and it hardly qualifies as a successful breeder. The Soviet Union/Russia never closed the fuel cycle and has yet to fuel BN-600 with plutonium.”
M.V. Ramana, Ph.D., visiting research scholar, Woodrow Wilson School and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy, Princeton University, said: “Along with Russia, India is one of only two countries that are currently constructing commercial scale breeder reactors. Both the history of the program and the economic and safety features of the reactor suggest, however, that the program will not fulfill the promises with which it was begun and is being pursued. Breeder reactors have always underpinned the DAE’s claims about generating large quantities of cheap electricity necessary for development. Today, more than five decades after those plans were announced, that promise is yet to be fulfilled. As elsewhere, breeder reactors are likely to be unsafe and costly, and their contribution to overall electricity generation will be modest at best.”
The IPFM report also found:
* The rationale for breeder reactors is no longer sound. “The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors — sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit — was based on the following key assumptions: 1. Uranium is scarce and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if fission power were deployed on a large scale; 2. Breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with the light-water reactors that dominate nuclear power today; 3. Breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light-water reactors; and, 4. The proliferation risks posed by breeders and their ‘closed’ fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed. Each of these assumptions has proven to be wrong.”
The IPFM report also found:
* The rationale for breeder reactors is no longer sound. “The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors — sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit — was based on the following key assumptions:
1. Uranium is scarce and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if fission power were deployed on a large scale;
2. Breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with the light-water reactors that dominate nuclear power today;
3. Breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light-water reactors; and,
4. The proliferation risks posed by breeders and their ‘closed’ fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed. Each of these assumptions has proven to be wrong.”
* Downtime makes the breeder reactor unreliable. “… a large fraction of sodium-cooled demonstration reactors have been shut down most of the time that they should have been generating electric power. A significant part of the problem has been the difficulty of maintaining and repairing the reactor hardware that is immersed in sodium. The requirement to keep air from coming into contact with sodium makes refueling and repairs inside the reactor vessel more complicated and lengthy than for water-cooled reactors. During repairs, the fuel has to be removed, the sodium drained and the entire system flushed carefully to remove residual sodium without causing an explosion. Such preparations can take months or years.
* Proliferation risks have not been addressed. “All reactors produce plutonium in their fuel but breeder reactors require plutonium recycle, the separation of plutonium from the ferociously radioactive fission products in the spent fuel. This makes the plutonium more accessible to
would-be nuclear-weapon makers. Breeder reactors — and separation of plutonium from the spent fuel of ordinary reactors to provide startup fuel for breeder reactors — therefore create proliferation problems. This fact became dramatically clear in 1974, when India used the first plutonium separated for its breeder reactor program to make a ‘peaceful nuclear explosion.’ Breeders themselves have also been used to produce plutonium for weapons. France used its Phénix breeder reactor to make weapon-grade plutonium in its blanket. India, by refusing to place its breeder reactors under international safeguards as part of the U.S.-India nuclear deal, has raised concerns that it might do the same.”
* Most breeder reactors are being shut down. “Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States have abandoned their breeder reactor development programs. Despite the arguments by France’s nuclear conglomerate Areva, that fast-neutron reactors will ultimately fission all the plutonium building up in France’s light-water reactor spent fuel, France’s only operating fast-neutron reactor, Phénix, was disconnected from the grid in March 2009 and scheduled for permanent shutdown by the end of that year. The Superphénix, the world’s first commercial-sized breeder reactor, was abandoned in 1998 and is being decommissioned. There is no follow-on breeder reactor planned in France for at least a decade.”
https://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/newreactors/fastbreeder21710.pdf
The Paper Fantasy And Real Dangers Of New Generation Reactors; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-paper-fantasy-and-real-dangers-of.html
LMFBR - Liquid Metal Sodium Fast Breeder Reactor Problems - Too Expensive, Too Dangerous; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/09/lmfbr-liquid-metal-sodium-fast-breeder.html
Sodium Cooled Monju Nuclear Fast Breeder Power Plant Accidents; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/sodium-cooled-monju-nuclear-fast.html
Santa Susana Sodium Reactor In Los Angeles California; 3 Nuclear Plant Meltdowns Completely Covered Up, 260 Times Worse Than Three Mile Island; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/los-angeles-nuclear-plant-meltdown.html
French Superphenix Liquid Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor Attacked By Terrorists, Cost 60 Billion Francs, (No Decommissioning) Generated Only 1 Billion Electricity, Then Closed
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/french-superphenix-liquid-sodium-cooled.html
1969 - Lucens + 2 Plutonium Fast Breeder Reactors Melted Down In Switzerland; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/1969-lucens-reactor-melted-down-in.html
1966 - Enrico Fermi Liquid Sodium Cooled Breeder Reactor Melts Down; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/1966-enrico-fermi-liquid-sodium-cooled.html
RELATED LINKS
There is a lot of hype, PR spin, misinformation and fantasy going around both on the Internet and via the mass media news. What is the reality, as opposed to the false promises and deceptive advertising? What really happened to the 'experiments' that happened in many different countries, with massive amounts of public money poured into them? Dive in by clicking on the following links.
The Paper Fantasy And Real Dangers Of New Generation Reactors; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-paper-fantasy-and-real-dangers-of.html
LMFBR - Liquid Metal Sodium Fast Breeder Reactor Problems - Too Expensive, Too Dangerous; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/09/lmfbr-liquid-metal-sodium-fast-breeder.html
Sodium Cooled Monju Nuclear Fast Breeder Power Plant Accidents; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/sodium-cooled-monju-nuclear-fast.html
Santa Susana Sodium Reactor In Los Angeles California; 3 Nuclear Plant Meltdowns Completely Covered Up, 260 Times Worse Than Three Mile Island; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/los-angeles-nuclear-plant-meltdown.html
French Superphenix Liquid Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor Attacked By Terrorists, Cost 60 Billion Francs, (No Decommissioning) Generated Only 1 Billion Electricity, Then Closed
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/french-superphenix-liquid-sodium-cooled.html
1969 - Lucens + 2 Plutonium Fast Breeder Reactors Melted Down In Switzerland; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/1969-lucens-reactor-melted-down-in.html
1966 - Enrico Fermi Liquid Sodium Cooled Breeder Reactor Melts Down; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/1966-enrico-fermi-liquid-sodium-cooled.html
SUMMARY
Fast breeder reactors are too expensive, finicky and hard to handle. The plutonium they generate and burn is much more hazardous and toxic to all human life, much to dangerous to have around. These breeders have too much down time and create many more problems than they solve overall. Their promises do not live up to the harsh and toxic reality when all is said and done after years of operations at fast breeder reactors.
For the amount of money thrown at these reactors and the cost to deal with the nuclear waste, health issues and environmental contamination, retail power could have been bought on the open market and given away for free, with money left over. Giving away free power to power customers would have been cheaper than what was accomplished with these fast breeder reactors, in terms of cost per kilowatt hour, per customer.
The final bill has not arrived yet, because many of these toxic fast breeder monsters all over the world are not longer in operation, but are just sitting there, waiting for someone to start the 'cleanup' or decommissioning process. They are so toxic and radioactive, that special robots have to do the work.
The costs and time to decommission these plants will and does far exceed the cost to build them by orders of magnitude, as is the case of Dounreay. The final bill for decommissioning will almost guaranteed be way over the estimated Billions that is now in play. Humanity cannot afford to buy new cars, and then pay 100 times the new car cost to 'decommission' each one. There is something very wrong with that picture, and no one in their right mind, who has any sanity left, will willingly buy that kind or model of car.
Instead of getting cheaper, easier and faster to build, nuclear reactors are becoming more expensive, more dangerous, more toxic, harder to handle, and take longer to build, with 400 percent cost over runs being the norm.
Thanks for your generous and very appreciated support!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Time Donation - AGRP Online Magazine - Monthly Donation - AGRP Online Magazine
A Green Road Eco Clothing/Products Store - Shop At A Green Road Amazon Store
More ways to support A Green Road Projects - Follow AGRP - Twitter - Facebook
Get Magazine Delivered To Your Email Address - AGRP App For Smartphones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End
Dounreay Fast Neutron Breeder Reactor Issues, Problems And Costs Prove Fast Breeders Are Not Commercially Viable Or Cost Effective
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/11/dounreay-fast-neutron-breeder-reactor.html
For more articles;
Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-accidents-around-world.html
Website at www.agreenroadproject.org - Teaching the Science Of Sustainable Health And Success
Youtube Video Channel (1,000 + Creative Commons Videos) http://tinyurl.com/agryoutube
Table of Contents http://tinyurl.com/agrindex 2,000 + Videos And Articles
Email Contact; agreenroad (at symbol) gmail.com
Access all videos and articles by clicking on Pages - upper left hand corner of any article
Search site - click in SEARCH box - upper right hand corner of any article, type in search word or phrase
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-accidents-around-world.html
Website at www.agreenroadproject.org - Teaching the Science Of Sustainable Health And Success
Youtube Video Channel (1,000 + Creative Commons Videos) http://tinyurl.com/agryoutube
Table of Contents http://tinyurl.com/agrindex 2,000 + Videos And Articles
Email Contact; agreenroad (at symbol) gmail.com
Access all videos and articles by clicking on Pages - upper left hand corner of any article
Search site - click in SEARCH box - upper right hand corner of any article, type in search word or phrase
.........................................................................................................................................
Post a Comment