From: abasu@IASTATE.EDU (Anujit Basu)
Subject: Re: Indonesian version of nuclear power plants
Reply-To: abasu@IASTATE.EDU (Anujit Basu)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.054441.29192@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>,
okidz@ccs.northeastern.edu (Oki D Zakaria) writes:


> [...]
> >become virtually impossible to construct a new nuclear power plant in the
USA.
> 
> What's the problem with that? Is nuclear power no longer a viable source of
> energy? Or is it just because there are too many of them? 

Nuclear power continues to be a viable source of power in this country (USA) in
spite of the excessive overheads demanded by the cumbersome regulatory process.
Infact, almost all of the operating nuclear power plants report profits year
after year and are reluctant to close down. There are about 102 operating power
reactors in the USA.

> 
> I think the US doesn't want to build new ones because handling the wastes
> is not quite easy.  
> 

Nuclear wastes, in the form of used fuel, can be reprocessed and used in a
different kind of reactor that is specifically designed to use reprocessed fuel.
This is being done in Europe (France) and Japan. But, for fear of high grade
plutonium being diverted for wepons use by non-nuclear powers, the Jimmy Carter
administration decided to abandon used fuel reprocessing in the USA. This has
lead to the current situation wherein large quantities of used fuel ase stored
in the various power plants, awaiting a perpanent home under the care of the US
government. This turn of events, and the fear of the public following the
accidents in Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) in 1979 and Chernobyl, has led to
nuclear power becoming a political hot-potato in the USA. No local government
will be willing to locate a new plant in their area.

> >The deal being worked out with the Indonesian government is innovative. GE
will
> >train the local personnel, operate the plant, and sell the power to the
> >Indonesian electric utilities for a period of about 20 years. In this time,
GE
> >hopes to recover the constructuon cost of the plant, and make a substantial
> >profit. After this, the plant will be turned over to the Indonesians to
operate on their own, under their own ownership. 
> 
> How long is the 'mean time before failure' of nuclear power plants? Does it
> far exceed 20 years? It's interesting to owning a plant and can only make
> a little profit.
> 
Nuclear power plants usually start out with an initial operating license of 30
years. But they are designed for use of about 40 to 50 years. So, operating
license can be renewed after the first 30 years. But, proper maintainance and
regular inspection in vital for the continued safe operation of a reactor.

> And what about the source of the 'fuel' (uranium? plutonium?) itself. I Don't
> think that Indonesia has any of them. And considering that Indonesia is not
> a major player in nuclear things, wouldn't there be any problem to get the
fuel
> for the would-be reactors? 
> 

As long as Indonesia signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I don't
forsee any problems in getting the fuel. Uranium has become just another
commodity which is regularly traded in world markets. If the USA refuses to
supply any more fuel, the French are always around to make a deal. India had
bought a Boiling Water Reactor from GE in the 60's. Following India's detonation
of a nuclear device in 1972/73, and its continued refusal to sign the NPT, the
US refused to supply it with any more fuel for the reactor. Following this,
there was a virtual closure of this plant. But this plant is now under normal
operation, with fuel being imported from France. The political situation now is
much different than in the 60's. And politics is the main factor in Nuclear
trade. And I think the fuel will anyhow be imported from Europe as it is cheaper
than US fuel.

> [...]
> 
> >Well, the plants to be constructed in Indonesia and elsewhere by GE are going
to
> >be substantially different from the plants currently in operation in the
USA.
> >They are going to be "inherently safe" by design. 
> [...]
> 
> What about the nuclear wastes? Does Indonesian gov't have any plan on how to
> handle them? If it takes hundreds of thousand years to turn these wastes
> into inert materials, the gov't would face a big problem, I think. In Indo-
> nesia, the lands are not stable. There are many volcanoes; big sources of 
> earthquake. Burying the wastes deep down below wouldn't be very helpful, 
> I guess.
> 
I don't know what the Indonesian government is going to do with the waste. I
agree that it is not safe to construct a permanent waste repository (a burial
site for used fuel) anywhere in the highly volcanic and earthquake prone "ring
of fire" area encompassing Japan, Phillipines, Indonesia, Southern Pacific etc.
I think the used fuel will be ultimately reprocessed in France and/or Japan, and
be used in the reactors designed to use this fuel. This may or maynot be in
Indonesia.

> 
> Oki
> okidz@ccs.northeastern.edu
> 


Anujit Basu
abasu@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.indonesia