Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trawsfynydd Power Station: built in 6 years, run for 26 years, will finish decommissioning in 70 years.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trawsfynydd Power Station: built in 6 years, run for 26 years, will finish decommissioning in 70 years.

    ...having been in the process of decommissioning for the past twenty years.

    British nuclear plant needs 90 years for decommissioning after 26 years in operation



    Preparations are under way to tear down the wall on the top floor of a nuclear reactor building at the Trawsfynydd Power Station in western Wales in Britain. (Mainichi)
    拡大写真

    GWYNEDD, Wales -- The Trawsfynydd Power Station in western Wales in Britain is one of the world's most advanced nuclear power plants when it comes to decommissioning work. It had two gas-cooled reactors with a combined output capacity of 235,000 kilowatts.

    The operator of the power station started decommissioning the power plant in 1993. A senior official in charge of the decommissioning work says 99 percent of radioactive materials have been removed. But it will still take 70 more years for the operator to finish decommissioning the nuclear plant.

    The Mainichi witnessed firsthand the ongoing decommissioning operation of the plant in Wales, which is taking a lot of time and at huge cost, and got a reminder of the tough road ahead for Japan to decommission the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant in the aftermath of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

    Two concrete buildings cover the nuclear reactors in Wales, which sit by a manmade lake.

    Magnox Ltd. instructed us to wear helmets and special eyeglasses to protect our eyes. The Mainichi Shimbun was the first Japanese news organization to be admitted to this power station since the March 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima power plant, which is owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO).

    As we entered the nuclear reactor building, there was a huge dark brown container, which officials say is a portion of a boiler to produce vapor for hydroelectric turbine operations. On the top floor of the building, scaffolding was in place along the wall, and workers were preparing to carefully dismantle upper portions of the building. The structure's height will be trimmed from about 53 meters to about 30 meters to maintain the safety of the concrete wall until the power station is decommissioned.


    An official in a monitor room at the Trawsfynydd Power Station in western Wales in Britain checks work on removing contaminated water. (Mainichi)
    拡大写真

    The Trawsfynydd Power Station started operations in 1965 and was shut down in 1991. Spent nuclear fuel (fuel rods) were removed from the nuclear reactors in 1995, but the radiation dose of low-level radioactive substances around pressure vessels and inside interim storage facilities is still high. Accordingly, Magnox will temporarily halt decommissioning work in 2026 before embarking on the final phase of the decommissioning campaign such as the permanent disposal of nuclear waste in 2073.

    Vic Belshaw, programme delivery manager at Magnox, said nuclear power plants built in the initial phase of nuclear power generation were not designed with future decommissioning in mind. Workers are encountering many new things and feeling their way in their decommissioning operations.

    Decommissioning work was under way at a contaminated water purification installation (33 meters in length, 5 meters in width and 6 meters in height) adjacent to the nuclear reactor building. Contaminated water caused by the cooling of fuel rods and decontamination work has already been cleared. Three machine tools (weighing 5 metric tons each), remotely controlled by workers in a separate room, are slowly scraping off contaminated walls.

    Because of radiation exposure fears, workers are only allowed to work inside the buildings for a short period of time and many are engaged in remote control operations. Radioactive substances were collected and sealed and later taken to the interim storage facilities on the premises.

    About 800 people are engaged in decommissioning work, outnumbering those who had operated the nuclear power plant. Because the initial phase of the decommissioning operation takes more than 30 years, recreational facilities and other buildings have been built on the premises. All facilities will be dismantled in 2083 after the decommissioning work is suspended and resumed. Decommissioning the power plant thus takes far longer than the 26 years of the plant's operations.

    The Trawsfynydd Power Station was relatively small in size and started decommissioning smoothly after going offline thanks to the absence of any major accidents. But it will take 90 years to decommission the plant and the final price tag will come to about 600 million pounds (about 90 billion yen).


    The Trawsfynydd Power Station in western Wales in Britain is covered with a concrete building and the building's outer wall is inspected, as pictured on July 31. (Mainichi)
    拡大写真

    Robin Phillips, an environment, health, safety, and security manager at Magnox, predicted that Japan has to utilize many robots to decommission the ill-fated Fukushima nuclear plant because workers have limited mobility, as compared to the Trawsfynydd plant. It is certain the Fukushima decommissioning task will be unimaginably tough, he added.

    While decommissioning the British power plant appears to have progressed smoothly, there are many challenges facing the plant, and the biggest issue is finding a location to permanently store radioactive materials.

    In October 2006, Britain decided to bury the radioactive substances deep in the ground. Two cities in Cumbria County signaled their willingness to accommodate the substances. But the Cumbria County Council in January this year rejected the plan for fear of potential adverse effects on the tourism-oriented Lake District.

    The British government says it is possible to open a permanent storage facility by the middle of 2070 because there are many places that will offer help due to the potential economic benefits. But so far there is no place to build a permanent storage facility while decommissioning work is under way.

    The Trawsfynydd station plans to temporarily store mid-level radioactive waste on the premises but whether or not all of the facilities can be dismantled depends on the location of a permanent storage facility.

    Meanwhile, British taxpayers are shouldering a heavy burden due to the decommissioning campaign. The British government decided to halt old nuclear power plants with poor output rates at an early date because they could not be privatized. It has decided to nationalize such old reactors and pay for decommissioning them. The government is expected to shoulder about 59 billion pounds (about 8.85 trillion yen) in total but the total cost may further rise.

    Decommissioning the Trawsfynydd station was originally estimated to cost about 300 million pounds (about 45 billion yen) in 2005 but fiscal 2012 estimates put the cost at about 600 million pounds (about 90 billion yen). A reserve fund set aside while the plant was in operation was not sufficient because some of the money was diverted to the construction of new nuclear power plants. The decommissioning costs will thus be shouldered by taxpayers' money.

    The employment of workers after dismantling the power station is another headache. About 500 subcontractors, many of them local residents, work at the power station. There will be no work for contractors at the plant in 2026, and there is no industry in the area to hire them. Magnox initiated a job-training and mediating program for the workers last year, but David Finchett, operations manager at Magnox, says it is not easy for them to find employment locally. It is tough for them to continue working without knowing where their next job will come from, he said.

    The British government established the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in 2005 to dismantle nuclear power plants. The agency has 19 nuclear facilities to decommission and to dispose of their radioactive substances. Adrian Simper, the NDA's strategy and technology director, said power generation comes with certain risks and costs. It's unreasonable for anyone to say they do not want to pay for the electricity they use. The official also added that Japan probably needs a public entity to dismantle the Fukushima power plant and Britain is willing to help Tokyo with its technical know-how. (By Takayasu Ogura and Takayuki Sakai, Europe General Bureau)

    August 19, 2013(Mainichi Japan)


    Folks, there's gotta be a better way.
    Last edited by The Mad Monk; August 19, 2013, 14:20.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

  • #2
    You're welcome.
    <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
    I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the key here is that it was a very old plant and not design for decommissioning. It worries me that we're turning our backs on nuclear power because of issues arising from 40+ year old technology. Doesn't work like this (and the various disasters and incidents of the past) provide us with invaluable knowledge about how to build nuclear plants that are safe and designed for ease of decommissioning in the future?

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think that's the point of the article; the point was simply that it was taking forever at great expense. I'm not even sure if there's a point beyond that; it doesn't seem anti-nuclear power or even really suggesting that the expense is higher than it should be given the facts.

        Yes, I realize the concept of 'neutral news story' is antithetical to Apolyton, but that seems to be what we have here...
        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

        Comment


        • #5
          I was referring to MM's response, not the article itself. There has been a pretty major shift against nuclear energy in recent years though, especially after Fukushima.

          Comment


          • #6
            dp
            No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

            Comment


            • #7
              I find it surprising that they would have no plan to unbuild the thing.

              I also decry the continued intransigence in finding a permanent depository in one place, which only serves to guarantee the continued existence of temporary depositories in every place.
              No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                I find it surprising that they would have no plan to unbuild the thing.
                Well it was the sixties after all, when the superpowers were setting off increasingly enormous nuclear bombs in the atmosphere and across the Pacific just to see what happened. I don't think future-proofing was high on anyone's lists really.

                Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                I also decry the continued intransigence in finding a permanent depository in one place, which only serves to guarantee the continued existence of temporary depositories in every place.
                Amen to that. One huge super safe deep underground site would save a vast sum of money in the long run and sort out a ton of problems.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Did you read about that site the US was planning on building a few years back btw? It was surrounded by huge stones with engravings and symbols designed to tell any future people to keep the **** away. Then someone pointed out what we usually do when we find buried stone monuments covered in signs telling people to keep the **** away..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                    I find it surprising that they would have no plan to unbuild the thing.
                    Why? Its not like even the ones built in the 70's and 80's were designed with decomissioning in mind. Sure the utilities charged the consumer to fund the decomissioning trust funds, but in all liklihood the decision to decomission and return to green field state is extremely unlikely. Take as an example Indian Point, they worked it so that the unit 1 reactor circa 1950's is still on site by building additional unit 2 and 3, despite having not generated a kilwatt of power in over 30+ years.

                    Recent decisions to shutter San Onofre, Ca. and Crystal River, Fl plant are that they are leaving them fuel empty but potentially viable (San Onofre moreso than Crystal River) in the event that the NRC compliance/economics of restart becomes attractive.

                    San Onofre Nuclear Generating station (SONGS) ran into problems after a steam generator replacement. Mistubishi supplier of SG's had issues such that tube ruptures occurred allowing primary side reactor coolant to leak into the secondary steam generating side (and thus allowed radiation emission to the environment). SONGS fixed the issue that Mitsubishi had but was prevented from demonstrating they had a fix for the issue to the NRC's satisfaction. Thus they made the decision to shutter the plant.

                    Crystal River fubared their containment at one of their outages. Big repair required.

                    I also decry the continued intransigence in finding a permanent depository in one place, which only serves to guarantee the continued existence of temporary depositories in every place.
                    Whats done is done. The inexcusably vile Harry Reid won.
                    Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe; August 19, 2013, 15:02.
                    "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                    “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Fuck Harry Reid, forever and ever, amen.
                      If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                      ){ :|:& };:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I always think porn star when I hear that name.
                        "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                        "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Don't tarnish the good name of porn stars.
                          "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                          “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In October 2006, Britain decided to bury the radioactive substances deep in the ground. Two cities in Cumbria County signaled their willingness to accommodate the substances. But the Cumbria County Council in January this year rejected the plan for fear of potential adverse effects on the tourism-oriented Lake District.
                            Why not the South Sandwich Islands?
                            "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Implode it, grind it all up, and then dump it in the Indian ocean off the coast of Somalia. Apparently that works for the Italian mafia who has a contract to dispose of Italian hazardous waste including nuclear waste.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X