Page 1 of 12
nuclearinfo.net
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 2 of 12
phasing out of the older reactor design means that an accident of this type is most unlikely to occur again. Since the contained meltdown at Three Mile Island reactor, many improvements have been made to Nuclear Reactor design. The third generation reactors currently proposed are designed so that a failure leading to a contained core melt-down, (which would destroy the commercial value of the reactor) should occur at the rate of 1 in 2-million reactor-years. If the cost of a new reactor is 2 billion dollars and operates for 60 years, this risk would amount to an extra $80,000 insurance. After the events on September 11th, 2001, many people were reasonably concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants from terrorist activities. However the containment facilities of nuclear reactors and the structures holding spent fuel rods are very strong and make hard terrorist targets.
Radiation
Dose
The biological effects of heavy particle ionising radiation are measured with a quantity called Absorbed Dose. However, while two differing particles may have the same amount of energy, they may have very different responses from our living, biological cells, so a factor called Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) is also used. RBE is a measure of the amount of cell damage a given type of particle causes as compared to a dose of x-rays with the same energy. The combination of RBE with Absorbed dose is measured in units called Sieverts. Estimated dose (MicroSieverts) 5 10 10 10 10 20 65 300 460 400 - 1000 7,000 8,000 50,000 2,000,000 700,000 - 13,000,000 65,000,000
Activity sleeping next to your spouse for one year a year of watching TV at an average rate a year of wearing a luminous dial watch a year of living in the USA from nuclear fuel and power plants a day from background radiation (average, varys a lot throughout the world) having a chest x-ray flying from Melbourne to London, via Singapore Yearly dose due to body's potassium-40 maximum possible offsite dose from Three Mile Island Accident Average annual dose from Medical sources having a PET scan having a chest CT (CAT) scan off-site dose from accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (estimates vary widely) Typical single dose to Cancer region from Radiation Therapy staff and firefighters at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant during and immediately after the accident Typical total dose to Cancer region from Radiation Therapy
Background, naturally occurring environmental sources of radiation include cosmic radiation (which occurs when subatomic particles from outside the solar system interact with the Earth's atmosphere and produce a shower of gamma rays, neutrons and leptons), terrestrial radiation (due to naturally occurring radionuclides such as uranium, radium and thorium which are present in rocks, soil and water), internal radionuclides (most common is potassium-40 which emits beta and gamma particles as it decays, and may be found as a fraction of the total amount of potassium in the body). The largest source of our dose from
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 3 of 12
background radiation is from radon-220 and radon-222 gases, which are the airborne products of the decay of terrestrial uranium. Inhalation of radon gas contributes approximately two-thirds of the dose that is received from natural, background sources.
Cancer Induction
- in this case the DNA is damaged or altered but the alteration is not lethal to the cell. If the normal regulator genes which control the rate at which cells divide and die are rendered malfunctioned the cell may become `immortal' and multiply at an abnormal rate producing an out-of-control growth of a line of abnormal cells. This is a cancer. Most tissues can produce cancers with enough radiation damage but rapidly dividing tissue lines, such as blood-forming `haemopoietic' lines which may produce leukemias, are particularly vulnerable. The risk for cancer production in the general population is estimated to be approximately 0.06 cases per million Micro-Sieverts of absorbed dose.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 4 of 12
It is clear from the table above that the left over nuclear isotopes from the generation of
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 5 of 12
electricity through nuclear power are extremely long lived and therefore must be shielded from humans and the environment for a long time.
1. Reprocessing
Recall that the spent nuclear fuel contains uranium and plutonium which are used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. It is possible to isolate much of the uranium and plutonium from the other fission products in spent nuclear fuel so that it can be recycled as fresh fuel to power the nuclear reactor. This is called reprocessing. After reprocessing the left over waste is largely liquid. It is then embedded into borosilicate glass and put into interim storage. Eventually it will be disposed of permanently deep underground.
2. Final Disposal
Eventually the nuclear waste will have to be stored indefinitely because of the long time it takes for some of the waste isotopes to decay to a safe level. The consensus of most waste management specialist for final disposal is to bury the waste deep underground. In doing so we must ensure that the radioactive waste does not move from its burial site or that it does not escape into the environment. If it does it could have dire consequences for future generations such as contamination of drinking water. To ensure that the radioactive waste is contained the current consensus is to use a multi-barrier system to store the waste. The geological disposal system consists of firstly surrounding the conditioned and packaged solid waste by several human made barriers then placing this at a depth of several hundred meters in a stable geological environment. The geological formation is the most important of the isolation barriers. The barriers act in concert to initially completely isolate the radioactive particles so they can decay and then limit their release to the environment. The combination of man made and natural geological barriers is called a multibarrier system. The solidification of nuclear waste (which is necessary for final disposal) usually consists of dispersal in a glass matrix. However, alternative techniques are being researched. One such technique consists of embedding the waste into a ceramic matrix such as Synroc.Synroc is a synthetic rock invented in 1978 by Professor Ted Ringwood of the Australian National University. Synroc can incorporate nearly all the elements contained in high level waste. The barriers surrounding the solid waste vary from country to country. However most countries believe that the barriers should be made of materials that occur naturally in the earths crust. In Sweden, the barriers consist of
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 6 of 12
1. A copper canister with a cast iron insert. This barrier is closest to the waste and its function is to isolate the fuel from the environment. 2. The second layer consists of bentonite clay called a buffer. Its function is to protect the the canister against small movements in the rock and keep it in its place. The clay also acts as a filter in case any radioactive particles escape form the canister. 3. The geological rock. The rock also stops leaking of radioactive particles into the environment but its main function is to protect the canister and buffer from mechanical damage and to offer a stable environment for the isolation of the waste.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 7 of 12
would be that a single fuel loading derived from 4 years of operation of a light-water reactor could be used to deliver all the energy needed over the 60-year life of a VHTR. This technology would not only destroy most of the long-lived waste, it would make the existing stockpiles a very valuable source of energy, since it could be used to deliver ten times the energy of the original fuel.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 8 of 12
The Oklo reactors give us an opportunity to observe the effects of storing waste deep underground for billions of years. By analyzing the remains of these ancient natural nuclear reactors and gaining an understanding of the conditions needed to secure and contain the nuclear waste, we can apply the same techniques to the final disposal of man-made nuclear reactor high level waste. The study of the Oklo nuclear reactors means that we can have reasonable confidence in final disposal.
Uranium-235
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 9 of 12
This is currently the most common fuel in nuclear reactors. Natural Uranium must be enriched to contain about 3-5% 235U before it can be used in most conventional reactors. The CANDU Heavy-Water reactor can use natural Uranium. To create a weapon Uranium must be enriched above 80%. Highly enriched Uranium (more than 20% enrichment) is also used for reactors in naval vessels and for research reactors. Various techniques can be used to enrich Uranium. Any of these techniques used to enrich Uranium for power plants could in theory be further used to produce 235U in pure enough quantities for nuclear weapons.
Plutonium-239
This is the preferred isotope for Nuclear weapon design as it has a lower critical mass and is easier to produce in large quantities than 235U. 239Pu and 240Pu are produced in nearly all nuclear reactors by neutron capture on naturally occurring 238U, and can be easily separated from the Uranium. However, for the purposes of Nuclear Weapon's 240Pu is an unwanted component as it has a high rate of spontaneous fission which limits the a nuclear weapon from achieving critical mass for long enough to consume a large fraction of the fissile material. Weapons grade Plutonium is defined to contain no more than 7% 240Pu. That said, the USA exploded a nuclear weapon in 1962 with a 240Pu content in excess of 7%. The World Nuclear Association estimates that the 240Pu concentration of the device was 10%. Other people estimate that the concentration of 240Pu in the test may have been much higher and that weapons with "reactor grade" plutonium are possible. This has very important consequences for Nuclear Weapons proliferation. If a batch of Plutonium has more than 7% 240Pu, it is unlikely to used for a Nuclear Weapon. Firstly because of the difficulty is creating a useful weapon with this material and because the mass difference between 240Pu and 239Pu is too small to allow normal isotopic enrichment procedures to work satisfactorily so that the plutonium cannot be enriched in 239Pu. Nuclear reactors must be operated in a special and easily detectable way in order to create 239Pu with a sufficiently low abundance of 240Pu to be used in a Nuclear Weapon. What happens is this: Starting from a fuel that consists solely of 238U and 235U, the 238U will capture a neutron and convert to 239U. Shortly there-after the 239U will decay to Neptuium-239 (239Nu). The 239Nu then decays to 239Pu. Now 3 out of 4, neutron reactions on 239Pu initiates fission which destroys the 239Pu. However one in four neutron reactions are neutron captures which instead convert 239Pu into 240Pu. 240Pu does not undergo fission and so the relative abundance of 240Pu compared to 239Pu increases with the time the nuclear fuel spends in the reactor. See the figure below.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 10 of 12
Consequently in order to create weapons-grade plutonium, the fuel of the reactor must be removed before the concentration of 240Pu has a chance to exceed the 7% threshold. As is shown in the figure this means the fuel must be removed before it has spent 4 months in the reactor. For this reason, Light Water reactors are what are called "proliferation resistant". In order to remove the fuel, the reactor must be shutdown. Shutting down a 1 GigaWatt reactor is very easy detect and is clearly not in the best interests of power production. When such events occur it is easy for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the fuel rods and verify that no weapons grade Plutonium has been created or diverted. A standard lightwater reactor that has been operated continuously for more than 4 months is not capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. However other types of reactors such as Heavy Water reactors and some types of Breeder reactors do not have this built-in safe-guard. In these reactors fuel can be removed without a power-down. They require much more serious monitoring to ensure that weapons-grade Plutonium is not being created.
Uranium-233
Uranium-233 is produced by neutron capture of Thorium-232 in much the same way as Plutonium-239 is produced. There is very little information on the use of Uranium-233 for constructing nuclear weapons. There are also no commercial Thorium breeder reactors.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 11 of 12
This requires being able to control the neutron flux. Recall that in a nuclear reactor when a neutron is captured by a fuel nucleus (generally uranium) the nucleus splits releasing radioactive particles (or undergoes fission). Hence if we decrease the neutron flux we decrease the radioactivity. The most common way to reduce the neutron flux is include neutron-absorbing control rods. These control rods can be partially inserted into the reactor core to reduce the reactions. The control rods are very important because the reaction could run out of control if fission events are extremely frequent. In modern nuclear power plants, the insertion of all the control rods into the reactor core occurs in a few seconds, thus halting the nuclear reaction as rapidly as possible. In addition, most reactors are designed so that beyond optimal level, as the temperature increases the efficiency of reactions decreases, hence fewer neutrons are able to cause fission and the reactor slows down automatically. 2. Maintenance of Core Cooling In any nuclear reactor some sort of cooling is necessary. Generally nuclear reactors use water as a coolant. However some reactors which cannot use water use sodium or sodium salts. 3. Maintenance of barriers that prevent the release of radiation There is a series of physical barriers between the radioactive core and the environment. For instance at the Darling Nuclear Generation Station in Canada the reactors are enclosed in heavily reinforced concrete which is 1.8m thick. Workers are shielded from radiation via interior concrete walls. A vacuum building is connected to the reactor buildings by a pressure relief duct. The vacuum building is a 71m high concrete structure and is kept at negative atmospheric pressure. This means that if any radiation were to leak from the reactor it would be sucked into the vacuum building and therefore prevented from being released into the environment. The design of the reactor also includes multiple back-up components, independent systems (two or more systems performing the same function in parallel), monitoring of instrumentation and the prevention of a failure of one type of equipment affecting any other. Further, regulation requires that a core-meltdown incident must be confined only to the plant itself without the need to evacuate nearby residence. Safety is also important for the workers of nuclear power plants. Radiation doses are controlled via the following procedures, The handling of equipment via remote in the core of the reactor Physical shielding Limit on the time a worker spends in areas with significant radiation levels Monitoring of individual doses and of the work environment See the following websites for more detailed information and further references, World Nuclear Association Summary on Nuclear Reactor Safety Wikipedia information on Nuclear Reactors Safety Mechanisms at a Canadian Nuclear Power Station Final report of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Advanced Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Reactor design In addition readers should be aware that the safety of any large scale industrial activity is an on-going concern and must always be taken seriously. Nuclear Power is certainly no exception and unfortunately the US Nuclear Industry did not give it the full attention it needed before the Three Mile Island accident. An excellent description of the safety issues
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011
Page 12 of 12
surrounding early nuclear power plants is provided by Robert Pool. It can be downloaded from here. The article describes how complex interacting technologies offer substantial challenges to safety. Consequently a major goal of 3rd generation Power plants is to provide inherent safety and simpler design.
+toolbar
Copyright 2011 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. This page, its contents and style, are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, policies or opinions of The University of Melbourne.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower
4/29/2011