Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power for the DR?

Chris · #1 10-22-2005, 12:56 PM

OK Keith, this is per your invitation, so the first question is for you.. Why do you seem to be against nuclear power for the DR? Do you have specific reasons or is it that you simply are not a proponent of nuclear power generation?

Can nuclear power not be a clean source of power generation and solve a lot of problems here (done correctly of course)?

Will nuclear power not be a better alternative to these coal fired power stations under discussion at the moment?

Robert · #2 10-22-2005, 02:17 PM

I think my #1 concern would be safety. When you are dealing with nuclear power you cannot cut corners or fix it with duct tape.

Enviromentaly it's wonderful, until you get into...

Mining and purifying uranium is not a clean process.
What about the spent fuel rods? Maybe dump them in Haiti?
Transporting the fuel on these roads and with these drivers, I don't think so.

This country is not ready for a nuclear power, regardless of how "enviromentally clean" it is.

PJT · #3 10-22-2005, 03:30 PM

Security is another issue to consider regarding nuclear power in the D.R. This country's government cannot: maintain secure borders or prosecute corrupt officials. Therefore, the security of a nuclear installation and its assets are vulnerable to external and internal threats.

Regards,
PJT

Chris · #4 10-22-2005, 03:31 PM

I did say 'done correctly'. Perhaps contract out to the French and let them build it and run it. Again, situated in the right place, spent fuel rods could be directly loaded onto a seagoing vessel and taken to areas set aside for this - I do know that this is a problem that we've had for a long time and take it that the Haiti comment was made in a satirical frame of mind.

I'm interested in the statement that 'the country is not ready' and would like to know how others see this. Is this the usual knee jerk reaction, or are these real misgivings?

In my home country (3rd world) the first nuclear power station built has an excellent safety record and solved more problems than it created, despite all our misgivings (fuel excluded - I consulted there so I do know what happens to the spent fuel).

Conchman · #5 10-22-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I did say 'done correctly'. Perhaps contract out to the French and let them build it and run it. Again, situated in the right place, spent fuel rods could be directly loaded onto a seagoing vessel and taken to areas set aside for this - I do know that this is a problem that we've had for a long time and take it that the Haiti comment was made in a satirical frame of mind.

I'm interested in the statement that 'the country is not ready' and would like to know how others see this. Is this the usual knee jerk reaction, or are these real misgivings?

In my home country (3rd world) the first nuclear power station built has an excellent safety record and solved more problems than it created, despite all our misgivings (fuel excluded - I consulted there so I do know what happens to the spent fuel).

What 3rd world country are you talking about?

If the whole operation is contracted out, it could probably be done safely.

I have no idea what happens to spent fuel rods and all that.

Don Juan · #6 10-22-2005, 05:55 PM

Politically?, Economically? How so? If not within the foreseeable future, then when?
As we all know, the most crucial element in the quest for a nation's stability, prosperity and ultimately, happiness, is a steady, dependable supply of all kinds of energies.(oil to power our vehicles and electricity for our homes and industries).
Our hapless little nation is running out of options. When you factor in the price of imported coal from Canada or diesel from Venezuela, a fossil burning plant doesn't seem any cheaper or cleaner than nukes.

We also know that entrusting the management of nukes to us Dominicans is pure madness. We would need to engage the French or even the Russians to build it, run it and maintain it.

Aside from US opposition, I don't see this to be an improvable undertaking.

Chris · #7 10-22-2005, 05:56 PM

Forgot to quote Conchman....

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in South Africa, in a little seaside village called Melkbosstrand, about 30 kilometers from Cape Town. We lived there during the planning, construction, commissioning and first few years of operation. A man that I was married to once is an engineer in the field of nuclear power generation and was involved from inception, so, I picked up quite a bit, watched it being built, saw the protests and kinda lived through the whole deal. Did some systems consulting there as well - in fact, I had the first personal computer in the village.

The French are known leaders in this field... Alsthom was the design and contracting company in this case. I should also say that there were very many English contractors on this job, so there also is some expertise there.

Spent fuel rods are usually trucked to a very abandoned place and buried in concrete or steel or deep in wells buried in concrete.

Keith R · #8 10-22-2005, 08:02 PM

Gee, can't leave DR1 for a few hours and attend to real life without someone challenging me to post. Sigh.

Chris, I've stated my concerns many times before, should be easily find-able through the search function. While I am not wild about nuclear power, I'm not knee-jerk opposed to it either. My opposition to it in the DR is more nuanced than that. In a nutshell, it boils down to, not in any particular order: (1) safety; (2) security; (3) waste.

I'm surprised you of all people have to ask, Chris. Have you seen ANY project in the DR properly maintained over time?

Any inspection service in the DR that does its job as it should (do YOU want the safety and environmental specs of a nuclear power plant up to the vigilance of Dominican inspectors?)?

Do you really think Dominican security will stay air-tight enough to prevent mischief or even diversion?

What Dominican water supply (remember how tight water supplies are now, and how much tighter they are projected to be) would be used as coolant?

If the DR cannot even take care of end-of-life mercury button batteries, do you really think it is ready to deal with radioactive wastes with half-lives measured in centuries? I'm sure someone will say just ship the wastes to country ___ (X), but sorry folks, most countries are unable to find someone to legitimately import their radioactive wastes , and Japan finds it hard to ship even to get transit permission for their ships carrying spent fuel rods.

And then there is the huge capital outlay involved and the large sums necessary for proper maintenance, security, storage, monitoring, and if wastes go somewhere else, then transport costs on top of that.... Wouldn't that money be better spent on providing the DR with a safer, sustainable energy system that does not depend heavily on the goodwill of foreign technicians and trade?

Honestly, I don't even understand why it merits more than a moment's contemplation before you realize how much a waste of time it would be to pursue.

Keith R · #9 10-22-2005, 08:07 PM

One more thing, Chris. South Africa is South Africa, the DR is the DR.

Chris · #10 10-22-2005, 10:49 PM

Keith, this was not meant as a challenge, possibly more as a re-examination... a relook at the feasibility - and in this mindset asked for your thoughts. And I agree, the subject matter is probably exhausted but the coal fired plants on the agenda at the moment is to my mind an abomination... Who in their rights minds would build coal fired plants if they have no coal - and this is besides all the other issues.

After reading your comments, a few thoughts come to mind... I have seen 3 businesses maintain standards in the DR - and only 3 - so, I have the same reservations you have in terms of quality and sustainable, long-term effort here, especially mission critical effort.

The thing that made me ask yet again, is that we could easily slip into a mindset of -- this is the DR, and this will never work here --. I was fighting against my own mindset I guess.

Also, you talk about a sustainable model - I am truly not sure what that sustainable model could be - We've seen small models dotted here and there, but nothing really long term and sustainable for a country of our size. Wind generation is also greatly capital intensive and requires an expertise that we do not have here. Investment in infrastructure - this is a fact, no matter what the model is.

Cooling, I am not sure of cooling water temperatures required and do not know if our sea waters are too warm. I am only familiar with using ocean water to cool. I am not familar with other methods.

Inspectors - I believe nuclear power stations are subject to international inspections. So, no local 'buy-off' of inspectors.

Waste - it remains a problem. Yet, I think, if it is a question of choosing between coal fired power generation on the cards currently, and nuclear power generation, I lean towards the latter.

Do we have any experts on board that can give us an idea of input/investment costs of wind generation vs nuclear generation in relation to output?

Sorry Keith, again, not meant as a challenge...