Aging nuke plants add to Europe's economic woes (Update)

Nov 17, 2012 by Gary Peach
This July 2012 photo shows the gatehouse of the partially-completed nuclear storage facility in Ignalina, Lithuania. Three years after the nuclear plant was shut down due to safety concerns, there is still nuclear fuel inside one of the two reactors. The temporary storage facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste are four years behind schedule. The problems have prompted threats from the European Union to sever funding and raising concerns that the facility will be around for years, possibly decades, longer than planned. The giant ventilation stacks in the background are part of the nuclear power plant. (AP Photo/Gary Peach)

(AP)—The parking lot outside the atomic power plant is weedy and potholed. Bus stops that once teemed with hundreds of workers are eerily empty.

Yet the stillness at Ignalina, a Lithuanian nuclear plant built in the 1980s Soviet era, belies an unsettling fact: There is still nuclear fuel inside one of its two reactors, three years after it was shut due to safety concerns.

A temporary storage facility for spent fuel and radioactive waste is four years behind schedule, creating a money drain at a time when the 27-nation European Union grapples with a crippling economic crisis.

States don't need EU permission to build nuclear plants, but they need to abide by its safety rules and the problems at Ignalina have provoked threats from the EU to cut the funding promised for dismantling it.

That raises concerns that the facility will be around for years, possibly decades, longer than planned. Ignalina is turning out to be a hard lesson for Europe: It's one thing to kill a nuclear power station; getting rid of the remains is another headache entirely.

Many experts downplay safety risks in delays to dismantling Ignalina and two other communist-era plants in Slovakia and Bulgaria, but that is little comfort to nearby residents who fear risks of a radioactive leak will only grow with time.

Last year's calamity at Fukushima power station triggered by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami refocused global attention on nuclear technology's vulnerability 25 years after the meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine. That Soviet-built plant is similar to Ignalina.

Germany, which has one of the world's most advanced atomic energy industries, last year decided the dangers were too great and announced it would go nuclear-free by 2022.

Ignalina's delays and massive cost overruns offer a cautionary tale for the EU, which aims to dismantle dozens of nuclear facilities over the next two decades.

In the poor nations of Eastern Europe, some fear offline nuclear reactors left in limbo pose extraordinary risks.

"Lithuania cannot continue the decommissioning process for an unlimited period and risk creating another Chernobyl in the middle of Europe," Zigmantas Balcytis, a Lithuanian member of the European Parliament, has said.

In this July 2012 photo, Thomas Pietsch, site manager for Nukem Technologies, a firm contracted for decommissioning projects for Lithuania's Soviet-era nuclear power plant, points to the unfinished nuclear fuel storage facility near the nuclear power plant in Ignalina, Lithuania. Three years after the nuclear plant was shut down due to safety concerns, there is still nuclear fuel inside one of the two reactors. The temporary storage facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste are four years behind schedule. The problems have prompted threats from the European Union to sever funding and raising concerns that the facility will be around for years, possibly decades, longer than planned. The giant ventilation stacks in the background are part of the nuclear power plant. (AP Photo/Gary Peach)

A major nuclear disaster is much less likely in a closed plant than in a live one. The Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency says an offline plant contains only one-thousandth of the radioactive material of one in operation. Still, there are dangers of smaller releases of radioactivity into the air or soil, while workers face exposure to lethal doses. 

In October 2010, radioactive pipes connected with Reactor 1 in Ignalina burst during cleaning, leaking several hundred tons of radioactive sludge. It didn't breach the concrete rooms inside the building and no one was injured, but the accident caused alarm, particularly since the plant conceded in a statement that the cleaning technology "was in fact not tested in nuclear industry enterprises before."

Dormant nuclear facilities could potentially pose a tantalizing prize for terrorists or smugglers of nuclear materials, and experts point to another worry: Only a handful of reactors worldwide have been fully dismantled, meaning the process is largely uncharted territory. Tearing apart reactor cores, for instance, creates unknown challenges and potential risks given the level of radiation inside them.

Steven Thomas, an energy expert at Britain's Greenwich University, says taking apart the core will likely require robots that are not yet invented. "The robots we have at the moment won't do it because the levels of radioactivity will send them berserk," he said.

Ignalina presents particular challenges. The nuclear fuel rod bundles, at 7 meters (23 feet), are twice as long as those in conventional plants and must be sawed in half to fit into storage casts.

Spent nuclear fuel is by far the biggest decommissioning headache. It is extremely radioactive and will remain so for thousands of years. In the U.S. and elsewhere it's a political bomb because no state or county wants to store it. France chooses to reprocess its fuel for further use in reactors, while Sweden and Finland bury it in casks deep underground.

In the long term Lithuania hopes to send its fuel back to Russia, where it was manufactured. But for now it has nowhere to put many spent fuel bundles since the temporary storage facility that was supposed to be ready when the plant closed in 2009 is still not complete.

Decommissioning work in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria has been held up by vague contracts, lengthy regulatory approval, commercial disputes and management changes, according to officials involved in the projects.

In this Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 file photo, workers walk around Reactor 2 at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Visaginas, Lithuania, two weeks before the facility was decommissioned. Fuel remains in the reactor core three years after it was shut down due to delays in building a nearby temporary storage facility, raising safety concerns among European officials. The problems have prompted threats from the European Union to sever funding and raising concerns that the facility will be around for years, possibly decades, longer than planned. Europe is learning the hard way that it's one thing to kill a nuclear power station; getting rid of the body is much harder. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis)

Since closing the plants was a condition for their joining the bloc, the EU is paying almost the entire bill, and for taxpayers, it's huge —more than €2 billion ($2.6 billion) so far, over half of it to Ignalina, the most troublesome. The three countries have re-estimated total costs at €5.3 billion ($6.8 billion)—up from the original estimate of €4 billion ($5.1 billion)—and doesn't include the toughest job, dismantling the reactor cores.

The job was due to be completed between 2025 and 2035, but may take much longer and cost more.  That's a disturbing omen for the EU's plans to shut down one-third of its member states' 143 active reactors by 2025. The bloc currently has 77 reactors offline in various stages of decommissioning.

Other EU countries will have to foot the bill for closing their own plants, adding to taxpayers' woes. In Germany, it will be in addition to energy price increases as the government scrambles to finance an ambitious switch from nuclear to renewables, which should account for 60 percent of total energy consumption by 2030. Just last month Germany's main utilities announced that households could see their electricity bill jump up to 50 percent in order to finance this transition from nuclear power.

Experts say that disassembling atomic plants promises to be far costlier than previously estimated, given the lack of experience worldwide and nuclear operators' propensity to underestimate decommissioning costs to make new projects look more attractive.

Thomas of Greenwich University said in Britain nuclear operators were supposed to pay for the decommissioning, but over the decades the cost was passed to the government, which will have to come up with €120 billion ($153 billion) over the next century to dismantle the country's existing nuclear power plants.

Just abandoning the facilities with radioactivity trapped inside is not an option. But given the enormous expenditures, some governments are opting to drag out the decommissioning over many decades.

In its heyday, the Ignalina plant near the border with Russia employed 5,000 people and provided power to Estonia, Latvia, Belarus and Russia. Although 2,000 people still work there, the atmosphere inside is almost funereal.

CEO Zilvinas Jurksus, a soft-spoken telecommunications expert who took over Ignalina in May 2011, believes the German company that leads the decommissioning, Nukem Technologies, underestimated the projects' scope and has been too slow preparing detailed documents.

Nukem, in turns, faults Lithuanian red tape and lack of experience.

"Nukem built a used fuel storage facility in Bulgaria. The project started at the same time as in Lithuania, and we handed the facility over to the customer last year, in the spring," said Beate Scheffler, a Nukem spokeswoman. "In Lithuania, we are still working."

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear-free dreams of countries like Germany promise to be far more complicated to fulfill than originally anticipated.

"It's one of those things that the industry has always said—'look, we know how to do it, it's technically simple,'" said Thomas. "Well, put your money where your mouth is and actually do it."

Explore further: Nanodot team aims to charge phones in less than a minute

5 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Brussels unhappy with Europe nuclear stress tests

Apr 26, 2012

The EU's energy chief Thursday deemed an almost year-long study on nuclear plant safety in Europe as short on detail and numbers and demanded further work before publication of the critical report.

Reactor at Bulgarian nuclear plant shut down

Jul 08, 2012

A 1,000-megawatt reactor at Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear plant was temporarily shut down early Saturday due to a turbogenerator problem, but no rise in radioactivity was recorded, a statement said.

Small fire stops Swedish nuclear reactor

Oct 23, 2011

A small fire in a turbine hall shut down a Swedish nuclear reactor overnight but the blaze was swiftly extinguished, nuclear power plant officials said Sunday.

Europe worried but still divided on nuclear energy

Apr 18, 2011

Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl disaster, Europe is still divided on the use of nuclear energy. But the Fukushima crisis stirred new fears that could slow down nuclear expansion.

Lithuania to hold referendum on new nuclear plant

Jul 16, 2012

Lithuania's parliament on Monday called a referendum on plans for an atomic power plant to replace a Soviet-era facility closed under the terms of Lithuania's entry into the European Union.

Recommended for you

Are electric cars greener? Depends on where you live

12 hours ago

Long thought a thing of the future, electric cars are becoming mainstream. Sales in the United States of plug-in, electric vehicles nearly doubled last year. Credible forecasts see the number rising within ...

Building a better battery

14 hours ago

Imagine an electric car with the range of a Tesla Model S - 265 miles - but at one-fifth the $70,000 price of the luxury sedan. Or a battery able to provide many times more energy than today's technology ...

Researchers find way to turn sawdust into gasoline

18 hours ago

Researchers at KU Leuven's Centre for Surface Chemistry and Catalysis have successfully converted sawdust into building blocks for gasoline. Using a new chemical process, they were able to convert the cellulose ...

Nanodot team aims to charge phones in less than a minute

22 hours ago

The world of smartphone users, which is a very large base indeed, is ripe for better battery solutions and an Israel-based company has an attractive solution in store, in the form of nanodot batteries that ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2012
It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear-free dreams of countries like Germany promise to be far more complicated to fulfill than originally anticipated.

Well, duh. Even though we've been hammered with PR to the contrary for decades: ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
ronwagn
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2012
Natural gas can meet the need safely.

Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty old coal plants, and dangerous expensive nuclear plants. It will fuel cars, vans, buses, locomotives, aircraft, ships, tractors, air conditioners, engines of all kinds. It costs far less. It will help keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It is used to make many products. It lowers CO2 emissions. Over 3,000 natural gas story links on my free blog. An annotated bibliography of live links, updated daily. The big picture of natural gas.
ronwagnersrants.blogspot.com

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.