Jay F. Kunze

Underground Nuclear Power Parks: Power Plant Design Implications

The siting of nuclear power plants underground, along with associated reprocessing, fuel manufacturing, and high level waste disposal facilities offer many advantages. Security costs are substantially less, radiative package transportation issues are eliminated, and political issues of high level waste storage and disposal are largely eliminated. Keeping the site preparation costs to a minimum requires that the underground facilities accommodate several power producing units (nominally 6 GW or more). However, significant redesign and placement of components can make it possible to accomplish most of the underground excavation with tunnel boring machines. These latter issues are addressed in this paper.© 2008 ASME

Is Nuclear Power Also the Key to Economically Clean Coal Gasification

Reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere is a major goal and an imperative need for most of the world’s nations, even for those nations such as the USA who are not Kyoto Treaty signatories. A response by the current USA administration is to develop a national transportation economy for automobiles based upon efficient, environmentally sound fuel cells. However, hydrogen is a secondary fuel requiring a primary energy source for production. Nuclear power (or renewables such as hydroelectric, wind or solar) must be the source of the primary energy required to produce hydrogen from water, if the overall energy system is to be free of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. The dissociation of water leaves oxygen as a major byproduct. Currently, there are no existing commercial markets for the large quantities of oxygen that would result from a US transportation economy based upon hydrogen fuel cells. However, Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants operating on pure oxygen for both gasification and combustion produce no greenhouse gas releases. This highly desirable feature results from the combustion output being only water and carbon dioxide. Pure CO2 can be relatively easily captured and delivered to a sequestration site. Also, hazardous trace metal compounds (e.g., Hg, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Se, U, Th, etc.) that would ordinarily be emitted to the atmosphere could be captured as solids, for environmentally acceptable disposal.Copyright

Potential Advantages of Underground Nuclear Parks

In this paper we argue that an underground nuclear park (UNP) could potentially lead to lower capital and operating cost for the reactors installed in the UNP compared to the traditional approach, which would be to site the reactors at the earth’s surface at distributed locations. The UNP approach could also lead to lower waste management cost. A secondary benefit would be the increased margins of safety and security that would be realized simply as a consequence of siting the reactors underground. Lowered capital and operating cost for a UNP relative to traditional reactor siting is possible through the aggregate effect of the elimination of containment structures, in-place decommissioning, reduced physical security costs, reduced weather-related costs, reduced cost of liability insurance and reduced unit-cost for the nth reactor made possible through the continuous construction of multiple reactors at the same underground location. Other cost reductions might be possible through the transfer of the capital cost for part of the underground construction from the reactor owners to the owners of the UNP. Lower waste management cost is possible by siting the UNP at a location where there are geological and hydrological conditions suitable for hosting both the reactors and the repository for the waste from those reactors. After adequate storage and cooling, and assuming direct disposal, this would enable the spent fuel from the reactors to be transported directly to the repository and remain entirely underground during the transport process. Community concerns and transportation costs would be significantly reduced relative to current situations where the reactors are separated from the repository by long distances and populated areas. The concept for a UNP in bedded salt is used to develop a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for excavation of the reactor array portion of a UNP. Excavation costs appear to be only a small fraction of the overall power plant costs for an UNP in salt. Many engineering, safety, environmental, regulatory and cost-benefit and technical issues related to the UNP concept need to be evaluated.Copyright

Underground Siting of Nuclear Power Plants: Insights From Fukushima

Siting of nuclear power plants in an underground nuclear park has been proposed by the authors in many previous publications, first focusing on how the present 1200 to 1600 MW-electric light water reactors could be sited underground, then including reprocessing and fuel manufacturing facilities, as well as high level permanent waste storage. Recently the focus has been on siting multiple small modular reactor systems. The recent incident at the Fukushima Daiichi site has prompted the authors to consider what the effects of a natural disaster such as the Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami would have had if these reactors had been located underground. This paper addresses how the reactors might have remained operable — assuming the designs we previously proposed — and what lessons from the Fukushima incident can be learned for underground nuclear power plant designs.Copyright

Comparative Study of Government Subsidization of U.S. Electrical Energy Sources

Perception that U.S. government energy subsidies have favored nuclear energy at expense of renewables (hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal) is not supported by facts. Largest beneficiaries between 1950 and 2006 from federal energy subsidies have been oil and gas receiving more than half of all federal incentives. Primary subsidy for nuclear energy has been R&D. Evaluating the actual electrical energy produced resulting from government subsidy support shows that wind and solar have cost taxpayers 355mils/kWh, coal 1.53 mils/kWh, nuclear 3.8 mils/kWh and hydro at 5.88 mils/kWh. Average cost of U.S. electrical energy in 2006 was 91 mils/kWh so renewables were subsidized at four times the average cost of electricity. Subsidy for Solar Photovoltaic to produce 0.01% of U.S. electricity as of 2006 was

Cost Advantages of Large Underground Nuclear Parks

4.43/kWh.Copyright

Isotope Enrichment by Laser Stimulation Causing Condensation Repression

Underground nuclear power plant parks have been projected to be economically feasible compared to above ground installations. This paper is a conceptual analysis of the cost savings, compared to surface facilities, which result from reduced costs in the aspects of construction, transportation of materials, security, and decommissioning. The paper also explores the cost burdens associated with underground nuclear power plant parks. Overall, the cost savings are projected to far outweigh the cost burdens if design and regulatory issues are reasonably managed. The cost savings for electricity generated over a 60 year life of a typical 1000 MWe nuclear power plant are projected to be 0.23 to 0.66 cents (2008 U.S. currency) per kWh.© 2009 ASME

Nuclear, Solar and Desalination Working Together Symbiotically

Sulfur isotopes in SF6 molecules have been enriched, in a laboratory experiment, using tuned laser radiation to excite a particular sulfur isotopic molecule and inhibit its condensation on the cooled annulus inside of the chamber. The evidence of enrichment was determined by examining the residual gas with a Fourier Transform lnfra Red Spectrometer. The enrichment was observed during a transient experiment in which the temperature of the condensing surface was gradually decreased, and gas pressure of the SF6 molecules was in the range of 8 Torr (0.01 atmospheres). These results show that excitation to a single excited level can create differential rates of condensation so as to achieve an enrichment factor of approximately 2.0 in a single stage.Copyright

Low-Level Health Effects of Radiation: Nuclear Engineering Obligations

In many parts of the world, drinking water is not available except through desalination. Most of these areas have an abundance of solar energy, with few cloudy periods. Energy is required for desalination and for producing electricity. Traditionally this energy has been supplied by fossil fuels. However, even in those parts of the world that have abundant fossil fuels, using them for these purposes is being discouraged for two reasons: 1) the emission of greenhouse gases from combustion of fossil fuels, and 2) the higher value of fossil fuels when used for transportation. Nuclear power and solar power are both proposed as replacements for fossil fuels in these locations. Both of these energy systems have high capital costs, and negligible fuel costs (zero for solar) Instead of these two primary forms of energy competing, this paper shows how they can compliment each other, especially where a significant part of the electricity demand is used for desalination.Copyright

Underground Siting of Nuclear Power Plants: Enhancing Safety and Reducing Construction Cost

It has been more than 30 years since the publication of data on health effects of low level began to appear in the scientific literature. Now, this extensive data bank clearly shows that the long-taught and utilized “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) hypothesis is invalid and misleading at levels below 0.2 Sv (20 REM) per year. Below these levels, health and longevity are actually improved. Yet the imbedded and pervasive fear of low levels of radiation has resulted in planned and implemented nuclear plant shutdowns and eventual decommissioning, and has even affected the medical community regarding inappropriate concerns about dangers to patients receiving CT diagnostic imaging. These trends are now so serious and consequential to the future of nuclear energy and nuclear applications, that it is time for the nuclear engineering community to take an active role to dismiss the LNT hypothesis as incorrect and completely misleading with regard to low levels of radiation exposures to the public and to nuclear personnel. The ALARA concept and regulatory burden needs to be abandoned, and the realistic nuclear personnel exposure limits of the 1950 era should be re-adopted, and even increased.Copyright