Brown's Ferry 1 restarts

[BrownTown]

The Tennessee Valley Authority restarted Unit 1 at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in North Alabama today, completing one of the most extensive recovery efforts in the nuclear industry for an operating plant.

TVA received permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 15 to restart the reactor. TVA told the NRC on May 9 that it has the ability to operate and maintain all three units at Browns Ferry safely, that work to restart and operate Unit 1 is complete and that pre-start up testing was successful.

The restart completes the recovery effort within the five-year plan approved by the TVA Board in 2002, and at the projected cost of about $1.8 billion.

?Returning Browns Ferry Unit 1 to our nuclear fleet gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley,? said TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore. ?The successful recovery of TVA?s third unit at Browns Ferry is a result of the commitment, determination and attention to detail of the people who did the work. I offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to all TVA employees and contractors who helped bring this important project to a successful conclusion.?

Operators began the deliberate, controlled process of restarting the reactor on Monday, May 21, and a self-sustaining nuclear reaction was achieved at 12:28 am CDT on Tuesday, May 22. Operators will gradually increase power in the reactor over the next several days and will test secondary plant systems to ensure they operate as designed.

TVA will continue to conduct tests on the reactor and the other plant systems during the next several weeks, including a series of brief connections to the power grid, followed by deliberate ?automatic? trips, or shutdowns, to ensure that safety systems operate correctly.

Following these and other tests, the unit will be reconnected to the TVA power system for the final time. The tests are part of a program designed to bring the plant safely to power production. TVA conducted similar power-ascension tests during the successful restart and subsequent safe operation of Browns Ferry units 2 and 3.

?All three units at Browns Ferry are essentially alike now,? said TVA Acting Chief Nuclear Officer Preston Swafford. ?We have new or refurbished equipment that is operated in the same manner on all three units, and our ongoing operations, maintenance, training and oversight programs can focus on sustaining high-quality performance to ensure the safe and reliable operation of Browns Ferry.?

TVA completed more than 4 million work hours preparing the engineering and design and more than 15 million work hours modifying, replacing, and refurbishing systems and components to ensure Browns Ferry Unit 1 can produce electricity safely and reliably to meet the growing need for power in the Tennessee Valley.

TVA installed modern digital instrumentation and controls, modern power supplies, replaced 200 miles of electrical cable and eight miles of pipe, replaced or refurbished the unit?s large pumps and motors and conducted more than 1,200 tests that showed Unit 1 meets the design and regulatory requirements for safe operation.

Browns Ferry is located on Wheeler Reservoir in Athens, Ala. All three units are capable of producing more than 1,155 megawatts of electricity each, enough for each unit to supply power to approximately 650,000 homes. TVA also operates two units at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy Daisy, Tenn. and one unit at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn.

TVA shut down all three Browns Ferry reactors in 1985 to address management and operational concerns. Browns Ferry units 2 and 3 were returned to service in 1991 and 1995, respectively. The recovery of Unit 1 used lessons learned from the restarts of units 2 and 3, and Unit 1 has the same upgrades and improvements made on the other two units.

In May 2002, the TVA Board approved returning Unit 1 to service, calling it the best business decision to meet the Tennessee Valley?s long-term power needs. The Board based its decision on improved nuclear performance, increased power demand in the Valley, a positive evaluation of the environmental impact, and a detailed scoping, estimating and planning effort for the Unit 1 restart.

Not sure how much people care about these things, but since people around here are pretty pro-nuclear I guess this might be of interest. This is the first addition to the nuclear fleet in over 10 years and was considered the test case for nuclear reactor construction for the new "nuclear renaissance". In case you are keeping count that means there are currently 104 nuclear reactors in the USA.

 

[Yreka]

.....gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley,?

Completely ignorant on the topic, but do this types of plants still generate some kind of toxic waste ? I thought the coolant had to be disposed of after a certain amount of time, or have we found a way to address this ?

 

[newb111]

Originally posted by: Yreka

.....gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley,?

Completely ignorant on the topic, but do this types of plants still generate some kind of toxic waste ? I thought the coolant had to be disposed of after a certain amount of time, or have we found a way to address this ?

I believe emissions-free refers to airborne waste. Nuclear plants generate solid/liquid waste, which although it is toxic, it is easier to keep it away from nearby people.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Yreka

.....gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley,?

Completely ignorant on the topic, but do this types of plants still generate some kind of toxic waste ? I thought the coolant had to be disposed of after a certain amount of time, or have we found a way to address this ?

havent you heard of budweiser?

 

[Sukhoi]

I've completely toured Exelon's plant in Clinton, IL and that place is AMAZING inside. It's rather surprising they don't cost more than they do.

 

[BrownTown]

Theres nothing wrong with the coolant, they do produce spent fuel, but it is on the order of a few tons a year and is completely contained (and far less dangerous than many people realize especially after a few years). So, there are no emissions to the environment of toxic substances. They are mostly referring to the CO2, SOx, NOx, particulates, mercury etc.. that are released by fossil fuel plants (esp. coal).

EDIT: if you mean the radioactivity of BWRs compared to PWRs than this is the more radioactive type of plant, but both release considerably less radiation than a coal plant, and several order of magnitude below background.

 

[eplebnista]

Thanks for the info! :beer:

 

[91TTZ]

I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

 

[Eli]

:thumbsup:

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

Likely, but it's much more contained and concentrated. From what I understand, coal plants expel large amounts of radioactive material into the air. With nuclear all the radioactive waste is contained in the fuel rod, cooling system, etc. Nothing is released into the air, as with coal.

 

[boredhokie]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Yreka

.....gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley,?

Completely ignorant on the topic, but do this types of plants still generate some kind of toxic waste ? I thought the coolant had to be disposed of after a certain amount of time, or have we found a way to address this ?

havent you heard of budweiser?

My first LOL of the evening, thanks!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Guy who lives in the corporate apt below me is a PM there.

I do not expect that the electric rates will lower for TVA customers though.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Guy who lives in the corporate apt below me is a PM there.

I do not expect that the electric rates will lower for TVA customers though.

I wouldn't really expect them to, they've gotta make their investment back.

It would suck if they went up, though.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

:thumbsup: for nuclear power

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

Likely, but it's much more contained and concentrated. From what I understand, coal plants expel large amounts of radioactive material into the air. With nuclear all the radioactive waste is contained in the fuel rod, cooling system, etc. Nothing is released into the air, as with coal.

As well as sulfur, particulates, etc.

 

[BrownTown]

Given the rate of growth of electrical consumption over the years a company like TVA has to add a new nuclear plant every 3 years just to keep up with demand. There are already 3 more nuclear units in different stages of planning at TVA and with all that they will still need to keep their 59 coal units operating and still add new natural gas capacity just to keep up with growing demand. So, reducing rates isn't gonna happen. Although BFN1 was built without incurring any debt so it should help their bottom line, but they will need that new money to build Watts Bar 2.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

Likely, but it's much more contained and concentrated. From what I understand, coal plants expel large amounts of radioactive material into the air. With nuclear all the radioactive waste is contained in the fuel rod, cooling system, etc. Nothing is released into the air, as with coal.

I think you misread my post. I said it's higher at the coal plants. Aside from the air, the radioactivity in the plant is higher at coal plants.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Last night, I talked to the guy downstairs about the plant.

The unit will be up for about 2-3 days.

Then they intend on shutting it down to perform safety checks.

Back up and then emergency shutdown checks.

They state they are expecting to actually be providing power to the grid in 2-3 weeks.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Given the rate of growth of electrical consumption over the years a company like TVA has to add a new nuclear plant every 3 years just to keep up with demand. There are already 3 more nuclear units in different stages of planning at TVA and with all that they will still need to keep their 59 coal units operating and still add new natural gas capacity just to keep up with growing demand. So, reducing rates isn't gonna happen. Although BFN1 was built without incurring any debt so it should help their bottom line, but they will need that new money to build Watts Bar 2.

Unfortunately, natural gas is becoming much more expensive. In the days when the majority of nat. gas generators where built the fuel was dirt cheap. This is no longer the case and the cost of fuel will probably continue to rise. That?s the main reason most people in Southern states are seeing their electricity bills going up.

Currently, nuclear is really the only good option to meet our rising energy needs. Nuclear energy is extremely safe, unlike what others would have you believe, extremely clean compared to other energy sources and very cheap.

As a matter of fact, not allowing new nuclear power plants to be built has actually been bad for public safety. Instead of having brand new power plants using the very latest technology we are forced to continue using very old nuclear technology that was built decades ago. We can?t just shut those plants down because we can?t compensate for the energy they produce.

 

[dug777]

While i'm a tentative fan, the waste issue still bothers me.

Yucca Mountain is not operational, as i understand it, and other than one experimental storage mine in some Scandinavian country, i'm not aware of any sparkling examples of nuclear waste storage. And no, you can't bury it here in Western Australia :|



It is not cheap when you take into account little issues like insurance (or the indirect and massive subsidy that is underwriting of risk by the government ) and site rehabilitation, it has massive capital costs upfront, and as i understand it, even those pushing nuclear here don't pretend that a honest whole of life cost is attractive compared to coal, but take into account carbon costs and it starts looking very attractive indeed, as i am lead to believe...

As always, you guys have an inexhaustible amount of energy and time, so feel free to bring me up to speed on this :beer:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dug777
While i'm a tentative fan, the waste issue still bothers me.

Yucca Mountain is not operational, as i understand it, and other than one experimental storage mine in some Scandinavian country, i'm not aware of any sparkling examples of nuclear waste storage. And no, you can't bury it here in Western Australia :|



It is not cheap when you take into account little issues like insurance (or the indirect and massive subsidy that is underwriting of risk by the government ) and site rehabilitation, it has massive capital costs upfront, and as i understand it, even those pushing nuclear here don't pretend that a honest whole of life cost is attractive compared to coal, but take into account carbon costs and it starts looking very attractive indeed, as i am lead to believe...

As always, you guys have an inexhaustible amount of energy and time, so feel free to bring me up to speed on this :beer:

Most nations that have large scale commercial nuclear industries reprocess their waste instead of merely shelving it like we do here. Carter banned reprocessing in 77, even though it was eventually lifted the means (facilities) to do so had already been dismantled. We need to construct new infrastructure to do so.

 

[jhayx7]

UPDATE:

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry No. 1 nuclear reactor was idled today in the midst of its first start up in 22 years. The shut down was blamed on a leak of hydraulic fluid.

The reactor at the Athens facility began starting up earlier this week after a long period in mothballs. It should restart soon to continue power ascension testing, Terry Johnson, a TVA spokesman, said today.

The other two reactors at the Browns Ferry complex are operating normally. Browns Ferry No. 1 was shut in March 1985 after a string of problems that included a fire started by a worker using a candle to check for air leaks.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
they do produce spent fuel, but it is on the order of a few tons a year and is completely contained

I don't believe it's in the tons per year range at the plant I was at. Most of the fuel is used over the span of 1.5 to 3 years and we definately didn't move tons of it during a refueling outage.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

Yes, because of Radon Gas in the coal.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I used to work in a nuclear power plant. They said the radioactivity level is much higher at the coal plants.

Likely, but it's much more contained and concentrated. From what I understand, coal plants expel large amounts of radioactive material into the air. With nuclear all the radioactive waste is contained in the fuel rod, cooling system, etc. Nothing is released into the air, as with coal.

Coal plants spew radiation into the air becuase of the release of radon gas from the burnt coal.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: BrownTown
they do produce spent fuel, but it is on the order of a few tons a year and is completely contained

I don't believe it's in the tons per year range at the plant I was at. Most of the fuel is used over the span of 1.5 to 3 years and we definately didn't move tons of it during a refueling outage.

No, it definitely is on the order of tons a year.