Last Operating Magnox Nuclear Reactor Closes 98
nojayuk writes: The world's last operating
Magnox
nuclear reactor, Wylfa 1 in Anglesey, Wales was closed yesterday
after providing carbon-free power for over 40 years. Wylfa1 was originally scheduled to shut in 2012 along with the adjacent Wylfa 2 reactor but it was kept operating for another three years with the innovative use of partially-burnt fuel from Wylfa 2 and remaining stocks of fresh Magnox fuel. The reactor will be defuelled and move into its decommissioning phase over the next year. The Magnox design used gas-cooling and a carbon moderator with the capability to produce weapons-grade plutonium depending on how it was fuelled and operated. Its design fed into the next-generation AGRs which provide about 6GW of Britain's electricity supply today.
Magnox... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't most windmills shut down in winds like they are having now?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a new world, friend.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Magnox... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, it really is not. Pumped hydro energy storage facilities do work; they are reasonably efficient and they can store a lot of energy. But you have to have a pretty unique combination of geology and hydrology to build such a facility.
The energy storage problems really is THE ISSUE with solar and wind. There is no magic answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it is an issue and there is no magic answer. It is just not that big of an issue as the opponents of wind and solar seem to believe. And there are many partial solutions which can be combined. First, solar fits well to the demand curve, so it usually does not have to be stored in the first place. Also wind and solar often complement each other well. This is the reason pumped-storage is currently underutilized in Germany despite a having a huge share of renewables. Then you can have a large enough grid
Re: (Score:2)
Solar fits the demand curve ? Maybe in a hot country where there is lots of air con, but not in the UK. Go check sites like gridwatch for the actual demand curves, peak demand is early evenings, currently around 6pm, long after its dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual data for Germany can be found here:
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/... [fraunhofer.de]
See the "Recent facts.." document (page 61, figure 52).
Re: (Score:1)
Selective ignorance is one of the main characteristics of the nuclear-apologists. In the end they want it for the military power thy think it gives them.
Re: Magnox... (Score:2)
You mean unseasonably mild?
Re: (Score:1)
Localized weather anomalies are not, by themselves, indicative of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Change. In fact, the most ardent supporters of the theory have been quite clear that they are not related and that localized fluctuations are not "climate."
This does not negate the theory. This is simply pointing out that anomalous weather is not, in and of itself, indicative of long-term changes.
That said, I'm kind of old and have noticed some weather patterns in my lifetime. One of the things that I
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
According to EDF [edfenergy.com], the carbon footprint of a nuclear power station – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime, from construction to decommissioning – is about 16 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent for each kilowatt-hour of electricity it generates (gCO2e/kWh).
Now that is interesting.
From the same web site, we see the carbon footprint for solar cells is 4.5 times greater than that of a nuke.
https://www.edfenergy.com/ener... [edfenergy.com]
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
Re: (Score:1)
So assuming the 72 grams is based on a 5-year lifespan, that would mean the solar panel's lifespan would have to instead be 22.5 years.
For home use, I could believe this, given that people are often buying solar panel's at prices that require a 30-year payback.
But do you honestly believe that a corporation operating an industrial scale solar plant would not be replacing panels sooner that 22.5 years to take advantage of technology improvements? And if they do, what happens to the old panels? Do they sell
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I've seen that website. Lol, they think the lifetime of a solar panel is 5 years!
No,
5 years is the average payback time - when the amount generated pays back the cost of manufacturing the panel.
They averaged some 17 studies to get the 72 g/kWh and those used a lifetime of 25-30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that EDF is a French welfare queen company. They have been living on fat subsidies for nuclear power for decades. In fact these reactors were built by the UK government who then found they couldn't sell them off, so they ended up paying a commercial operator to take over while guaranteeing to pay most of the costs.
They love the nuclear cash cow. Renewables are a huge threat to them, and they have seen what has been happening in Germany. They are fairly accident prone too.
72 grams for solar (Score:2)
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
https://www.edfenergy.com/ener... [edfenergy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since the Persian flying carpet strike, we've had to return to rotund, diesel trucks to deliver the concrete. Between the Persian carpets and splitting the atom, for a couple of years it almost looked like we had it made there.
Moral of the story: don't piss off the Persian carpets. First day of picketing lasts a thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
Between the Persian carpets and splitting the atom, [...]
Oh, so that's what they're doing at Fordow!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or you can just use the remaining energy in the nuclear 'waste' for useful purposes.
Re: (Score:1)
Such as expanding American hegemony?
Now that's a good idea - using nuclear waste to expand American hegemony.
Pray tell us how that would be done.
Is there any role for the small investor in using nuclear waste to expand American hegemony? I'd like to get in on it.
Re: (Score:3)
nature's nutrient CO2.
Please, shut yourself in a room full of "Natures Nutrient" and survive on that.
buried and managed for the next million years
Also, learn some basic physics. And the meaning of the word "Hyperbole"
Re: (Score:3)
Please, think before you speak.
http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
Re: (Score:3)
. It does however produce toxic waste that will need to be buried and managed for the next million years
No, it doesn't.
They do produce toxic waste, so does coal, gas, solar and wind if you stop ignoring certain parts of the production process that produce the toxic bits. Photovoltaic is WAY fucking worse than nuclear when you take production byproduct into account.
Things with long half lives aren't very dangerous. Anything that last that long is about as dangerous as lead ... If you EAT ENOUGH OF IT ... Just like lead.
The dangerous parts have half lives numbered in single digit years or days. 12 years is a
Re: (Score:3)
If you built it in my back yard, you'd be an idiot since I live near a sandy coastline, which means it could leech into the ecosystem rapidly. Rather you bury it somewhere that its going to have a really hard time getting out of while its still dangerous ... like all the current storage sites, you put it in a massive salt deposit, which naturally seals itself. Problem fucking solved. I'll build a brand new house for me and my son right on top of the thing and live a happy life if it means we can actually
Re: (Score:2)
If you built it in my back yard, you'd be an idiot since I live near a sandy coastline, which means it could leech into the ecosystem rapidly.
Like the recently shut down SONGS plant.
Rather you bury it somewhere that its going to have a really hard time getting out of while its still dangerous ... like all the current storage sites, you put it in a massive salt deposit, which naturally seals itself. Problem fucking solved.
The biggest issue waste repositories is water flowing through the facility through the waste products. Water erodes salt so that probably wouldn't work.
That would pretty much ensure you would have a lot of highly soluble plutonium chloride entering the water table.
I'll build a brand new house for me and my son right on top of the thing and live a happy life if it means we can actually fucking use nuclear power elsewhere without all you idiots acting like its going to kill as all.
In that scenario, the radionuclides you and your son accumulated would introduce a lot of issues into your DNA, if you survived ingesting the plutonium chloride. You would be sick - a lot.
I'm not an ignorant paranoid nut job and actually understand whats dangerous and why. You should try it sometime.
Indeed. You certai
Re: (Score:1)
>http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com
Garbage scare site. Example of their trash:
"Ontario Power Generation plans to bury and abandon radioactive nuclear waste approximately 400 metres below the bottom level ofLake Huron. Scientists cannot guarantee that this Nuclear Waste Dump will not leak."
Guess what? Scientists also cannot guarantee that a meteorite won't wipe out most of the planet as well.
Not a single word on the front page actually has any scientific opinion backing it, other than a positiv
Re: (Score:2)
Photovoltaic is WAY fucking worse than nuclear when you take production byproduct into account.
That very much depends on the manufacturer. Even in the US there are several [solarscorecard.com] that score quite well in this regard (under the thresholds set by the EU, which has the most stringent related rules in the world).
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating level of ignorance you display there. People like you are truly blessed they live far, far too short to have to suffer the consequences of their deeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, churnobyl blew in 86 (~30 years) and it is still very hot in the core, the hospital that treated the victims, and several other places. Workers still wear dosemeters. So feel free to get a job as part of the cleanup there. Everyone has a favorite source of energy that thinks it is clean as a whistle. The ugly truth is they are all disruptive to nature and there are too bloody many humans with more popping out all the time who need(want) energy and nature is having trouble restoring balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, churnobyl blew in 86 (~30 years) and it is still very hot in the core, the hospital that treated the victims, and several other places. Workers still wear dosemeters. So feel free to get a job as part of the cleanup there. Everyone has a favorite source of energy that thinks it is clean as a whistle. The ugly truth is they are all disruptive to nature and there are too bloody many humans with more popping out all the time who need(want) energy and nature is having trouble restoring balance.
How many Reactors comparable to the RMBK-1000 did anyone outside the Soviet Union build? Zero. You know why? No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the rubbish you did.
The Soviets, in the nuclear arena as well as several others, were special little monsters, who did many, many things that no one would want to emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. 12 years is about the longest half life of the 'dangerous stuff', which means you stop caring in a hundred years or so AT MOST
Bullcrap. cesium-137, strontium-90 and iodine-131 have half lives much longer than 12 years and are and are some of the more dangerous nuclear byproducts out there. You are a damned fool if you think you can stop caring about these after "100 years of so."
You are right in that materials with very long half lives are not that dangerous due to the fact that they are not that radioactive. Stuff with very short half lives does not stick around for a long time so it is not a long-term hazard. But you are WAY off
Re: (Score:2)
Um, 131I has a half life of 8 days, you may have been thinking of 129I with a half life of 16 million years. 90Sr has a half life of 28.8 years, so it will be pretty much gone in a few hundred years. 137Cs has a half life of 30 years and as with 90Sr, will be pretty much one in a few hundred years - figure the radioactivity declining by a factor of 10 for every century.
Considering that King Tut's tomb lay undisturbed for ~3,000 years, it doesn't seem to be too much of an effort to keep spent fuel isolated
Re: (Score:2)
. It does however produce toxic waste that will need to be buried and managed for the next million years
No, it doesn't.
The decay rate of pu-239 for the first daughter product is 25,000 years. At twenty halflives for the remaining daughter products it is toxic for 500,000 years.
Photovoltaic is WAY fucking worse than nuclear when you take production byproduct into account.
It takes roughly 500 tons of rock to produce a kilo of uranium or the megalitres of sulfuric acid used in the leech minig process. Then there is CFC114 used in the enrichment process of making uranium hexaflouride, then 90% of the uranium is U-238 (only 10% is fuel) is waste and there is about 700,000 tons of that. The reactor process is pretty clean
Re: (Score:1)
Had to be AC because of trolling? (That or lobbying?)
The "waste" can be used to produce even more power, which also lowers the management time by a lot, there's not always(?) the risk of nuclear meltdown either.
And yes - definitely better than coal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Every instance of solar power you can demonstrate produces FAR more toxic output than an equivalent nuclear power station. Don't think just because we're polluting China's environment that its 'green'.
PV cells use absolutely ridiculously toxic production processes.
The factories were probably not carbon neutral until after they had a carbon neutral supply, can't count your chickens before they hatch, but don't let that stop you from making an ass of yourself.
Then you go on to bitch about emergency safety sy
Re: (Score:2)
There is toxic and then there is toxic. No chemical toxin is a problem after 100'000 years. Not so Plutonium (which was not accidentally named as it is), it has not even begun to decay noticeably after that time. There are quite a few other deadly things in nuclear waste that will be extremely dangerous for > 100'000 years, although none quite as deadly.
Can think of a few (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the same class, even remotely. You can reliably cause lung cancer with just 1 gram of Plutonium in 1'000'000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
The fire extinguishers at any given data center in the US are far more toxic than the entire generator output of the life span of a nuclear planet's test cycles.
Oppenheimers work on pu-239 shows that it is a fatal dose internally in the 1-10 microgram range. The current stocks of pu-239 are around 70,000 tons which is more than enough doses, if released, to kill every person on the planet before considering other radioactive effluents of the Nuclear industry.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a time and a place to be pedantically literal. But it's perfectly legitimate to ask (implicitly) what the incremental -- excluding manufacture of plant -- CO2 output is per unit of energy, just as it's perfectly legitimate to ask what sort of mileage a car gets, excluding manufacturing costs.
Nice (Score:1)
"closed yesterday after providing carbon-free power for over 40 years. "
And now we only have to guard the ashes they produced for a couple of hundred thousand years.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the US though and spent fuel won't be left lying around at the rector site indefinitely. As the article states the fuel will be offloaded and sent away to be reprocessed. Afterward, like other similar sites, they'll remove the turbine hall and other ancillary buildings, then leave the reactor to sit for a few decades to allow the residual radioactivity to decay to almost nothing before (carefully) demolishing it entirely. In a relatively short time, it will be a greenfield site you would never
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, the fuel is left around at the site for decades. Google "dirty 30". Pools of spent fuel, open to the elements, waste carried off by birds... The UK does not have a good track record on this.
Also, guess who is paying for this. It isn't the operator, EDF.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reprocessing facility, Sellafield. And there's a reason for that particular building 30 being a mess if you read the history, not that it makes it right. Fuel is not left at power stations.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a BROWNfield site. It won't be a GREENfield site until either the planet gets re-surfaced, or someone actually comes up with a sensible definition of the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually using the correct terminology here. They are required to return the site to a "greenfield" state. And no land stays brown; it grasses over naturally very quickly so it's rather more accurate than brownfield.
Re: (Score:2)
The path humanity should take: (Score:2)
Over the next, say, 20 to 30 years:
o Planned shutdown of current-technology Uranium-based reactors and fossil fuel-based power plants
o Continued and expanded supplementation with so-called 'renewable' sources (wind, solar, etc)
o Develop and begin deploying LFTR (thorium-based) reactors
o Continue R&D into hydrogen fusion technology, towards a commercially-viable solution
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea, thorium (Score:2)
The wiki [wikipedia.org] says that North Korea generates all of their weapons plutonium from this design, but unfortunately not go into any detail on how the plutonium is removed and purified.
I had never heard of Magnox before - it's quite interesting that non-enriched, direct ore uranium can be used as fuel. I had imagined that only a liquid salt thorium reactor could accomplish this, but it does appear that fuel reprocessing costs for Magnox are much higher.
Re: (Score:3)
There are several reactor designs that can run on natural uranium. CANDU, RBMK (like the one in Chernobyl - although they use enriched uranium nowadays for safety reasons), UNGG...
The key is either graphite or heavy water moderation, because light water absorbs too many neutrons.
Wylfa local (once) here (Score:2)
Hmm. Wylfa - will I miss it? It's the largest employer on Anglesey, giving fairly good jobs to a shedload of people. Good jobs-for-life jobs. One thing to note is that it will continue to employ a good many people for a while yet, nuclear reactors don't shut down overnight, even if they're not producing any electricity. It used to power the local aluminum smelter, the largest single customer of electricity in the UK until it shut down in 2009.
We were very proud of it growing up in the bright-eyed technologi