The United States second nuclear reactor, licensed in 1955, relicensed for another 20 years.

[NNadir]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Another_twenty_years_for_USAs_oldest_reactor-1112097.html">Another twenty years for USA's oldest reactor

After over half a century of operations, the oldest research reactor in the USA has been licensed to operate for a further 20 years.

The Penn State Breazeale Reactor (PSBR) first received an operating licence from the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1955 and went critical on 15 August that year. Its licence number - R-2 - belies that it was in fact the first research reactor to be licensed by the forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Licence R-1 was reserved by AEC and granted retrospectively to a reactor at the North Carolina State College which had started up in September 1953 but had already ceased operating by before PSBR went critical. The Carolina reactor never restarted; the R-2 licence for PSBR has never lapsed.

Penn State University was one of the first US universities to take advantage of President Dwight Eisenhower's 1954 Atoms for Peace initiative by building its own reactor. The original reactor consisted of a core of plate-type fuel elements mounted in a grid plate, suspended from a movable bridge in an open pool of water. Initially, the reactor's power level was limited to 100 kWt. In 1960, the authorized maximum operating power level was increased to 200 kWt...

...The PSBR is the second oldest research reactor operating in the world today. Only the F-1 graphite pile reactor at Russia's Kurchatov Institute, which started up at the end of 1946, is older. The American Nuclear Society recognized PSBR's historical status nearly two decades ago, presenting it with a Nuclear Historic Landmark Award in 1991.

Research reactors are generally not used for power generation but instead to provide a neutron source for research or other purposes. They are smaller and simpler than power reactors, and operate at lower temperatures, but like power reactors are still subject to International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) safeguards and inspections. The PSBR is used for experimental, research and educational purposes, including student laboratory exercises and operator training. It currently operates for approximately 2000 hours per year, with the reactor critical for between 840 and 1040 hours per year...

Have a nice day.

[ensho]

1. not good

nt

[NNadir]

2. That would depend totally on whether you value science or not. It's certainly not good

for people who hate science and education for sure.

For people with minds, it is excellent news.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Right near me

we have an aging bridge that was built in 1955, and it keeps getting approved to have mass numbers of people crossing it every day, even though it looks like a patchwork quilt.

I'd bet this reactor has more engineers looking out after it than my bridge.

[Statistical]

3. The reactor has operated for 55 years and will be 75 when its extended license expires in 2025.

Of course that assumes it won't be extended again.

Kinda blows that whole "Reactors only last 25 years" myth out of the water.

Newer GenIII+ reactors are designed to last even longer. 60 rated operation lifespan which can be extended to 60 more by replacing the high stress components (reactor pressure vessel, primary cooling pumps, and steam generator).

[kristopher]

7. The historical average for longevity of nuclear reactors is 22 years. That is a fact, not a myth.

Some people live to be 110 are you claiming that all people live to be 110.

What this really shows is that the NRC is the lapdog of the nuclear industry not its watchdog.

[Statistical]

10. The historical average for PLANT ALREADY CLOSED is 22.

That intentionally excludes the 438 currently operating plants many of which are older than 22.

Every 95% of the operating plants in the US are older than 30 years yet none of them are included in that worthless stat.

If you are going to use it then at least use it properly.

[FBaggins]

12. What's the similar average for wave power generators?

One and a half months, isn't it?

What conclusions should we draw from this?

[kristopher]

14. We can cover this ground as many times as you wish.

Costs also drop when assessors lengthen reactor lifetimes.

Current plants were designed to last 30 years, and some licenses have been extended longer (Smith 2006).

However, the global-average lifetime of the 119 already-closed reactors is 22 years (Schneider 2008).

19 US fission plants (20%) retired before 30 years, and more than $20 billion was spent on 121 plants that were later cancelled (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

Thus more US reactors (140) were closed prematurely or cancelled (amid construction) than those (104) now operating.


Rather than 22 years, however, virtually all nuclear-cost studies assume longer reactor lifetimes, partly because (as noted) industry data exclude early-retirement/cancelled plants, e.g. (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007).

Some studies assume 60-year lifetimes, e.g. (Tarjanne and Luostarinen 2002); others assume 40, e.g. (World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Scully Capital Services Inc. 2002; PB Power 2006; Royal Academy of Engineering 2004; University of Chicago (U Chicago) 2004; OXERA 2005; Department of Trade and Industry (UK DTI) 2006; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2005).

To their credit, MIT analyses assumed 25–40 years (Ansolabehere et al. 2003; Deutsch et al. 2009), and one UK-government study assumed 15–30 years (Performance and Innovation Unit 2002). Yet most studies assume operating-lifetimes of 40? years. The result? The pro-nuclear MIT study calculated that increasing reactor lifetimes, from 25 to 40 years, would reduce overall nuclear-electricity costs 5% (Ansolabehere et al. 2003; Deutsch et al. 2009).

How does data-trimming affect fission-electricity prices?

The preceding data show that including full-nuclear-liability-insurance expenses could alone increase atomic-energy costs 300% above most published nuclear-cost estimates—which were above $0.15/kWh in 2008, according to credit-rating firms (Finance 2008), and roughly $0.21/kWh in late 2009 (Lovins et al. 2008).

Including full, 15%, not 0, nuclear-interest charges could alone raise costs 188%.

Including 10-year, not 0, reactor-construction times could alone increase costs 150%.

Using historical-average (71%), not hypothetical (90–95%), nuclear-load factors could raise costs 19–36%.

Finally, using actual historical (22 years), not projected (40-year), nuclear-plant lifetimes could increase costs 5%.

Provided various cost-increases are independent, this means correcting 5 types of nuclear-data-trimming arguably could increase atomic-energy costs 662–679% (300 + 188 + 150 + (19 - 36) + 5) — far above all published estimates.

Yet even this figure may be too low because it excludes expenses such as full nuclear-waste storage, reactor decommissioning, and the 15% annual increase in nuclear-construction costs caused by labor/materials increases (Deutsch et al. 2009).

-Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Journal: Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
October 2009

[FBaggins]

15. Just until you get a clue will be just fine.

When making policy decisions about reactors and estimating their useful life... what possible reason could there be to look at reactors that were never built while ignoring the ones that are still operating?

Only one reason comes to mind... that lies are more convenient than the truth for your position.

[Statistical]

16. "However, the global-average lifetime of the 119 already-closed reactors is 22 years"

"However, the global-average lifetime of the 119 already-closed reactors is 22 years (Schneider 2008)."

That EXCLUDES EVERY SINGLE operating reactor in the United States.

So using 22 as an average life excludes all operating reactors (90%) with more than 22 years.
It also excludes any future years. Although every plant won't last till license expiration every plant isn't getting shut off today.

[kristopher]

17. And your claim presupposes

Your claim presupposes there will not be a repeat of past performance regarding early closures and cancellations.

There is no basis for your optimism.

[Statistical]

18. No my claim supposes that you are IGNORING every single one of the 104 reactors CURRENTLY OPERATING!

90% of which have over 20 years.
50% of which have over 30 years.
The longest running are over 40 years.

All of them are excluded from the bogus "22 year number". Why are the excluded? ..... BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL OPERATING. That is logical.

The irony (or maybe it is just stupidity) is that NOT LASTED AS LONG they would have been included. Take Surry plants. They have 37 years substantially more than the 22 "average". Had they shutdown this year early they would be boosting the "shutdown lifespan". Because they will last even LONGER than 37 they aren't counted.

By only counting plants which have shutdown you penalize plants that are still operating because ... they dare to still operate.

Hell if you had your wish and every nuclear reactor shutdown tomorrow that fact alone would substantially boost the average (because all these long lived reactors would now be "shutdown" and thus included in the average). Every year the 104 operating plants remain online the real average is getting higher however by "avoiding" shutdown they will not be included in the bogus "22 year" number.


You honestly still think that 22 years is accurate?

Say you owned 2 cars. The first one died after 20,000 miles. The second one is still running and has 120,000 miles on it. You take it to a mechanic and he says if you keep maintaining it likely it will be good for 200,000 miles but then you are going to need to junk it. Someone asks you "how many miles do you get from a car on average"? By your logic you would ignore the car with 120,000 mile because it is still running.

Which is the best answer?
a) 20,000 (only use mileage from vehicles no longer on the road)
b) 70,000 (20,000 + 120,000)/2 (take average of all dead vehicles and all current mileage of course this assumes your 120,000 mile will die today)
c) 110,000 (20,000 + 200,000)/2 (take average of all dead vehicles and projected mileage of running vehicles)
d) not sure but it likely is between 70,000 & 110,000.

I would say d would be the best answer and it is your view that A is the most accurate. Strange because that is the only "logic" that can bring average lifespan down to 22 years.

[kristopher]

19. I'm not ignoring anything. I was very clear.

Costs also drop when assessors lengthen reactor lifetimes.

Current plants were designed to last 30 years, and some licenses have been extended longer (Smith 2006).

However, the global-average lifetime of the 119 already-closed reactors is 22 years (Schneider 2008).

19 US fission plants (20%) retired before 30 years, and more than $20 billion was spent on 121 plants that were later cancelled (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

Thus more US reactors (140) were closed prematurely or cancelled (amid construction) than those (104) now operating.


Rather than 22 years, however, virtually all nuclear-cost studies assume longer reactor lifetimes, partly because (as noted) industry data exclude early-retirement/cancelled plants, e.g. (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007).

Some studies assume 60-year lifetimes, e.g. (Tarjanne and Luostarinen 2002); others assume 40, e.g. (World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Scully Capital Services Inc. 2002; PB Power 2006; Royal Academy of Engineering 2004; University of Chicago (U Chicago) 2004; OXERA 2005; Department of Trade and Industry (UK DTI) 2006; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2005).

To their credit, MIT analyses assumed 25–40 years (Ansolabehere et al. 2003; Deutsch et al. 2009), and one UK-government study assumed 15–30 years (Performance and Innovation Unit 2002). Yet most studies assume operating-lifetimes of 40? years. The result? The pro-nuclear MIT study calculated that increasing reactor lifetimes, from 25 to 40 years, would reduce overall nuclear-electricity costs 5% (Ansolabehere et al. 2003; Deutsch et al. 2009).

How does data-trimming affect fission-electricity prices?

The preceding data show that including full-nuclear-liability-insurance expenses could alone increase atomic-energy costs 300% above most published nuclear-cost estimates—which were above $0.15/kWh in 2008, according to credit-rating firms (Finance 2008), and roughly $0.21/kWh in late 2009 (Lovins et al. 2008).

Including full, 15%, not 0, nuclear-interest charges could alone raise costs 188%.

Including 10-year, not 0, reactor-construction times could alone increase costs 150%.

Using historical-average (71%), not hypothetical (90–95%), nuclear-load factors could raise costs 19–36%.

Finally, using actual historical (22 years), not projected (40-year), nuclear-plant lifetimes could increase costs 5%.

Provided various cost-increases are independent, this means correcting 5 types of nuclear-data-trimming arguably could increase atomic-energy costs 662–679% (300 + 188 + 150 + (19 - 36) + 5) — far above all published estimates.

Yet even this figure may be too low because it excludes expenses such as full nuclear-waste storage, reactor decommissioning, and the 15% annual increase in nuclear-construction costs caused by labor/materials increases (Deutsch et al. 2009).

-Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Journal: Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
October 2009

[FBaggins]

22. Yes... very clear... and very clearly wrong.

You said "The historical average for longevity of nuclear reactors is 22 years."

[joshcryer]

30. This is also the *same exact method* NNadir uses with his "wind life expectancy."

And kristopher is all over that (rightly so) when NNadir spouts it. Fucking hypocrisy abounds. There is nothing worse in a personality than being two-faced.

[joshcryer]

26. It's denialist math.

[FBaggins]

11. It's neither fact nor myth.

It's intentional deception.

By the same formula, what's the average logevity of wind turbines? Five years? Seven?

Would it be honest to expect new ones to only last that long?

Some people live to be 110 are you claiming that all people live to be 110.

If every single living human being in the country was over 30... would you expect anything but laughter if you claimed that they only lived to 25?

[Statistical]

13. "If every single living human being in the country was over 30..."

If every single living human being in the country was over 30... would you expect anything but laughter if you claimed that they only lived to 25?
Exactly. Very good analogy.

The average lifexpetency is now 72 years but the average age of people who died over the last 50 years is not 72. Kris claim is no more credible than usaing average age at death for last 50 years to "determine" life expectency. "Since your grandparents and great grand parents died at an aveage age of 60 the life expetency is only 60 not 72".



The age of nuclear plants is not distributed evenly.
You have some plants that operated for 0 years (they were closed in construction).

Then you have a small group of plants that went critical, operated for a small number of years 1-10 and then were closed.
Here it is important to look at WHY the plant was closed. Some were closed because of defects, poor performance, or safety issues. However many were closed due to public pressure and a poor regulatory framework which didn't protect operating compliant plants. Closing a defective plant is one thing. Closing a plant early that is operating according to standards is a completely different thing. If public protest shuts down a wind plant after one year would Kris include that plant in the average operating life of wind farms.

So some reactors had 0 year life, some had a short life but the vast majority operated their full lifespan (30 or 40 years depending on design).


Still looking only at closed plants is an incomplete picture. as about half all plants are still operating.

Lets look at one plant that is still operating, the one I grew up near.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surry_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Surry Nuclear Power Plant. 2 Gen II reactors 800MW each for combined output of 1.6GW.

The reactors went online in 1972 & 1973. The NRC issued a 40 year operating license, thus the reactors would have reached end of life in 2012/2013.
However in 2003 both reactors passed certification and operating life extended to 60 years.
They are now licensed to operate until 2032 & 2033. To date they have operated for 38 years. If they had not been extended they would operate for 40 years. If they operate until end of license they will operate 60 years. However none of those numbers (38, 40, 60) are included in Kris "stat".

The vast majority of nuclear reactors in this country were build between 1965 and 1978. Thus it is pretty simple to see that quite a few reactors are running much longer than 22 years (and none are included in "22 year average".

Not a complete picture but:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018651.shtml

For example, 90 percent of the 104 nuclear power plants in the US are already more than 20 years old and half have been operating for more than 30 years.

The only way to find exact average age of operating reactors would be to calculate current age for all 104 reactors. Still in 90% are older than 20 years and 50% are older than 30 years it shows how weak the "22 year so called average" really is.


Here is the sheer irony. The "22 year" number remains artificially low BECAUSE the plants last so long. Very few plants have been closed in last two decades so they won't "contribute" their age until they do close. Surry for example WOULD have been shut down in 2012 & 2013 thus adding their 40 years each to the average for closed plants however they will now be operating until 2032/2033 and as such the "closed plant average" will not increase until they do shut down.

[joshcryer]

29. Your bolded part is extremely enlightening, and it shows how kris is using denialist math.

This same thing happens every day in climate science. Fucking bullshit. An example are the GHCN data which tend to fit a curve that looks like a lot of data were "dropped" in the post 70 era, however, those data are added retroactively, from personal stations around the world. No data in those sets is "dropped."

[joshcryer]

27. Yes, he would not apply the same number to all of those abandoned wind farms.

[joshcryer]

28. Likewise, he ignores (and the paper ignores) that nuclear upgrades are total refurbs.

Again he would not include similar stats for wind turbines.

[MineralMan]

4. I remember this reactor in California. It was the first nuclear

reactor that actively supplied electricity to the commercial grid. I also remember its partial meltdown. It was located not far from my home town. At the time of the meltdown, I was a freshman in high school.


"The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental (SRE) was a small sodium-cooled experimental reactor built by Southern California Edison and Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, near Moorpark in Ventura County. It came on line in April 1957, began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957, and closed February 1964. This reactor used sodium rather than water as a coolant and produced a maximum of about 7.5 to 20 megawatts (electric). It was considered as the country's first civilian nuclear plant and the first "commmercial" nuclear power plant to provide electricity to the public by powering the near-by city of Moorpark in 1957. On July 26, 1959, the SRE suffered a partial core meltdown. Ten of 43 fuel assemblies were damaged due to lack of heat transfer and radioactive contamination was released. The plant has subsequently been dismantled. For more, please visit the U.S. Dept. of Energy's website at: www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/SRE.html."

http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

[hunter]

9. A lot of dirty stuff was done at Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

The Cold War was crazy. All sorts of crap was hidden from the immediate neighbors in the name of "National Security."

I imagine the Soviet Union had a clearer picture of what was going on at Santa Susana than the white flight suburbanites of the San Fernando and Simi Valleys did.

[tinrobot]

20. Third largest release of radioactive iodine in history - at least 260 dead.

A third of the reactor melted down, and radioactivity was spewed into the San Fernando and Simi Valley for almost two weeks. It was covered up until at least 1989, and by then had caused as few as 260 cancer fatalities, and as many as 1800, depending on how and what you count.

Boeing took almost 50 years (2006) to admit it happened and settle a class action lawsuit. They promise to have it all cleaned up by 2017, more than a few decades after the place was shut down, and almost six decades since the incident happened.

[wtmusic]

21. Any links?

Wikipedia article describes how there was, and is, lot of controversy about the amount of radiation released.

I'd especially like to see how they arrive at a 260-cancer minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment

[tinrobot]

23. Archive of a Daily News article from the time

Relevant quote:

Based on estimates of how much iodine-131 and cesium-137 were released, Beyea figured 260 cancers would have been caused by the exposure -- although that number could be a lot less or a lot more, up to 1,800 cancer cases."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SANTA+SUSANA+MELTDOWN+RELEASED+MASSIVE+RADIATION+STATE-FUNDED+PANEL...-a0152450340

[FBaggins]

24. Then you should check your figures.

There's a massive difference between "260 cancers" and "260 deaths".

Particularly if the event was largely a release of radioactive iodine.

By FAR the most common cancer in such cases if thyroid cancer (because the thyroid absorbs iodine)... and thyroid cancer is not usually fatal. In fact, I think the survival rate is in the high 90% range.

And if you read the rest of the article, there's no "there" there. They couldn't get the data they needed to make an estimate, so they just made it up as they went along.

[wtmusic]

33. Your article illustrates the main problem with nuclear safety perceptions

We'll never know how many cancers, how many deaths, how much radiation was released.

IMO it's obvious this researcher is biased. To take wind data from other reactor meltdown events and use those to extrapolate is pretty weak. He has a four-year degree in nuclear engineering and his resume is padded with "safety issues" work which could be of his own initiative.

Boeing is very possibly minimizing the leak on their end, but their science is solid. If the truth is somewhere in the middle I'd put it 95% closer to Boeing's end.

[hunter]

25. What a crock.

This was a very small spew amidst a vast and ghastly spew of toxic Cold War waste, most of it having a "half life" of near forever.

The Los Angeles smog was even worse, full of lead and carcinogens. Without a doubt it killed hundreds of thousands of people, and left a lot more stupid. Not to mention highway accidents, airplane crashes, and general irradiation all along the way, everything from airline travel, to dental x-rays, to open air nuclear testing fallout.

I don't understand twits who still drive cars and fly airplanes who get worked up about this accident. Bummer if this small accident called up your particular number, probably far fewer than 200 people, but the streets then were oozing with a bloody carnage far, far worse than that.

Radioactive toxins are no different than other toxins. We live in a toxic stew of bad stuff that we ourselves made and it all demands our attention.

If our attention is limited, as it appears to be, I think we should go after the really bad stuff first, the stuff that is killing the most people.

Some little fart of an accident that happened a long time ago doesn't move me.

[Wilms]

6. It's a research reactor that has you so smug?

Wow.

[Kolesar]

32. That's how he maintains his smugness/noise ratio...eom

[NNadir]

35. Yeah. I have a fondness for research. I have a fondness for science.

I'm not big on light weight bloggers who hate sciences they know nothing about, though.

Call me some kind of name for those things. I couldn't care less.

Wow?!?

I am also not big on light weights who don't know for instance, how many years the first commercial nuclear power plant in the Western world operated.

The. First. One.

The people who object to nuclear energy are precisely the people who don't know shit from shinola about the subject.

Have a nice uninformed evening.

[hunter]

8. I was just reading up on the F1.

It went critical on Christmas Day 1946 and it's still going. The initial fuel load has a few thousand years yet to go. The reactor has a thermal output of 24 kW

Igor Kurchatov ( И́горь Курча́тов ) and his crew built that one to last.

iaea.org listing: http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/research_reactors/database/RR%20Data%20Base/datasets/report/Russian%20Federation%20%20Research%20Reactor%20Details%20-%20F-1.htm

[Kolesar]

31. Atoms for Peace :: War is Peace

George Orwell lives!

[hunter]

34. :confused:

Making plutonium for bombs is an old and robust technology. That cat's already out of the bag. When nations like Israel or North Korea start making plutonium, when any nation starts making plutonium in large amounts, it's a sure bet they are making bombs.

Enriched uranium weapons are political circus and always have been. The primary military purpose of uranium enrichment plants is to make fuel for compact nuclear reactors of the sort used in ships and submarines. The civilian purpose is to enrich fuel for light water power plants. But compared to plutonium, uranium enrichment is a very expensive way to make bombs and the infrastructure required to do it is excessively fragile and difficult to secure against military attack.

In the modern real world, as opposed to any Cold War fantasy world, civilian nuclear reactors are very useful for destroying plutonium made for weapons and are being used in this manner today. Turning old bomb cores into fuel for civilian nuclear power plants is most certainly "Atoms for Peace."

[joshcryer]

36. Read more. You'll find that the doublespeak is coming from anti-nuclear power people.