I assumed balance of plant might explain that - large areas of foundation and slab, though that's all relatively low strength concrete and doesn't require much steel reinforcement or rigorous inspection and regulation.vanesch said:Yes, but the calculation mheslep and I did was a geometry calculation of the primary grade kind: the volume of the double containment building walls, simplified as cylinders, with wall thickness of 1.3 meters (times two, for the two buildings).
I will retake it here (I even think we made a mistake back then):
cylinder of 55 meters high, 48 meters diameter:
Surface of wall: pi x 48 m x 55 m = 8289 m^2
Surface of bottom = surface of roof: pi * (48m/2)^2 = 1808 m^2
Total surface = 8289 m^2 + 2 x 1808 m^2 = 11907 m^2
That, times the double thickness of 2.6 m gives us a total wall volume of:
30957 m^3
So 31 000 m^3.
How do they come at 200 000 m^3 of concrete, which is almost 7 times more ??
gmax137 said:I don't know the details, but the source says 200,000 m3 concrete for a two unit plant. Your calc of the containment concrete neglects any internal walls & floors within the containment; perhaps more importantly it neglects the auxiliary building, the tubine building, the intake structures and or cooling towers, the switchyard, the maintenence and admin buildings, parking lots, security structures etc etc...
The BrucePower source says 400,000 cubic meters of concrete for a two unit plant; I optimistically called it 200k for one.gmax137 said:I don't know the details, but the source says 200,000 m3 concrete for a two unit plant. ...
mheslep said:Source?
An estimate that precise must be linkable somewhere at DOE? Googling at DOE gives me nothing.RobertW said:D.O.E. - about 14 years estimated the cost of a sodium-cooled 1GW(e) IFR to be $985 million. ...
mheslep said:An estimate that precise must be linkable somewhere at DOE? Googling at DOE gives me nothing.
Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.RobertW said:But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. The liquid metal ones are 99.5% efficient if the fuel is reprocessed in a co-located pyroprocessing cell. Also, the design life of the IFR can be extended to 60 years.
Neither do I, and all of the links above appear to be architecture oriented and not informative regards cost; the reference papers are not are generally not publicly available. Therefore,RobertW said:I obtained the following by Googling "STAR-LM REACTOR:
Supercritical CO2Brayton Cycle Control Strategy for Autonomous Liquid Metal-Cooled Reactors
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/840371-mR3VlE/native/840371.pdf
STAR-LM Concept
http://www.ne.anl.gov/research/ardt/hlmr/index.html
POWER OPTIMIZATION IN THE STAR-LM MODULAR NATURAL CONVECTION REACTOR SYSTEM
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/02/42316.pdf
Supercritical Steam Cycle for Lead Cooled Nuclear Systems
http://nuklear-server.ka.fzk.de/OFMS/Web%2FMain%2FPublications%2F2005%2FGLOBAL2005%2FP_C.Boehm_GLOBAL2005.pdf
Heavy Metal – Cooled Reactors: Pros and Cons
http://nucleartimes.jrc.nl/Doc/Global03final2.pdf
These will get you started. There are at least 100 papers and articles on the Secure, transportable, autonomous reactor (STAR). A STAR-LM is a liquid metal cooled fast reactor. If one were to triple or quadruple the size of of the STAR-LM and integrate a pyroprocessing cell with the reactor, one would have an IFR. There are numerous references at the end of the papers that can lead you to cost info done by someone. I don't have time to search for specific cost estimates.
I am not certain of any cost information presented here.But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. ...
Astronuc said:Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.
mheslep said:Neither do I, and all of the links above appear to be architecture oriented and not informative regards cost; the reference papers are not are generally not publicly available. Therefore,
I am not certain of any cost information presented here.
In this source, some capital estimates are given (in reference to another source table I): $661.5/kW for a liquid metal reactor (SVBR), however it also cites in comparison $749.8/kW as the capital costs for a same size traditional PWR (VVER) and we know that is ridiculously low for a total cost, with Olkiluoto at $3,000/kW and the AP1000's in Florida quoted at $6,000/kW.RobertW said:...Heavy Metal – Cooled Reactors: Pros and Cons
http://nucleartimes.jrc.nl/Doc/Global03final2.pdf
Astronuc said:Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.
- and Astronuc replied no, based on personal experience. In response you give this Argonne article:RobertW said:...But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. The liquid metal ones are 99.5% efficient if the fuel is reprocessed in a co-located pyroprocessing cell. Also, the design life of the IFR can be extended to 60 years.
and though it suggests IFRs would be more economic than existing reactors, it says very little to none at all to support the assertions you made above about 'fractional' and '2 or 3%' fuel costs.RobertW said:You say no, and these folk say yes - who is right?
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrBerkeley.htm
An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) PROGRAM
Because if one sizes and IFR to 1 GWe, it's going to take about the same amount of material (and labor) as a 1 GWe LWR. One still needs a containment structure - and one is going to throw in steam generators and a turbine/generator set - and cooling systems because one still uses a steam (Rankine) cycle.RobertW said:Why not?
Fast reactors require specialty steels and those are alloys are quite expensive, not to mention that they have not been fabricated in the high tonnage quantities for large plants.new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.
Thanks for this link. I saw the article when it came out, but missed the very good CBO article referenced therein.Astronuc said:...It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/...
The worst case period before 3 Mi Island was 1974 to 1975, with 14 plants underway. Industry average estimate: $1,263/kW, actual $4,817/kW (281%)CBO said:CBO’s assumption about the cost of building new nuclear power plants in the United States is particularly uncertain because of the industry’s history of construction cost overruns. For the 75 nuclear power plants built in the United States between 1966 and 1986, the average actual cost of construction exceeded the initial estimates by over 200 percent (see Table 2-1). Although no new nuclear power plants were proposed after the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, utilities attempted to complete more than 40 nuclear power projects already under way. For those plants, construction cost overruns exceeded 250 percent.3
mheslep said:RW you stated - and Astronuc replied no, based on personal experience. In response you give this Argonne article:
and though it suggests IFRs would be more economic than existing reactors, it says very little to none at all to support the assertions you made above about 'fractional' and '2 or 3%' fuel costs.
Astronuc said:Because if one sizes and IFR to 1 GWe, it's going to take about the same amount of material (and labor) as a 1 GWe LWR. One still needs a containment structure - and one is going to throw in steam generators and a turbine/generator set - and cooling systems because one still uses a steam (Rankine) cycle.
On top of that, one will include a pyroprocessing center and fuel fabrication site if one is planning to reuse the spent fuel. That is not a trivial matter, especially if one is recycling metric ton levels. What has been done at INL is not anywhere near a commercial scale.
Also bear in mind that EBR-II was a small core/unit (~62 MWt/20 MWe) and FFTF was 400 MWt. Scaling to a ~3000 MWt IFR (~1 GWe) is not trivial.
I've seen one estimate that FFTF would cost $2-4 billion to build today, and that's probably an underestimate. FPL did an estimate earlier this year that put a twin EPR unit plant at about $12-14 billion. I think it was reported in the WSJ.
It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/
Fast reactors require specialty steels and those are alloys are quite expensive, not to mention that they have not been fabricated in the high tonnage quantities for large plants.
And given the materials problems (failures) I've seen (and been involved with) in the nuclear industry over the last 20+ years, I imagine there's still a lot of R&D to do on advanced reactor concepts.
Any IFR plant will have to get into the pipeline with all the other LWRs already ahead, so they are not going to pop up very quickly - if at all.
These are all very valid points. However, the economic advantages of the IFR will be realized only when competing with plants using once-through fuel. If the world were to eventually replace its nuclear plants with IFRs, the demand for new U fuel would drop dramatically. This would result in the price of U going down to a level that would make all but the richest deposits economic to mine.RobertW said:Let's be clear about the cost of nuclear fuel - the real costs of an open fuel cycle. The real costs of an open nuclear fuel cycle include the mining and processing of uranium, the conversion of uranium into reactor fuel, the transportation costs of the fuel to and spent fuel from reactor sites, the reprocessing costs if the fuel is MOXed, the encapsulation of unuseable nuclear waste, and the storage of unuseable nuclear waste for 10,000 years or more. Now, how many of these costs could be eliminated or nearly eliminated by using an IFR with a closed fuel cycle? I can't prove my estimate is correct and you can't prove it is wrong - neither of us have sufficient emperical data. However, the IFR closed fuel cycle, from a simple economics point of view, should greatly reduce the real costs of nuclear fuel.
Andrew Mason said:These are all very valid points. However, the economic advantages of the IFR will be realized only when competing with plants using once-through fuel. If the world were to eventually replace its nuclear plants with IFRs, the demand for new U fuel would drop dramatically. This would result in the price of U going down to a level that would make all but the richest deposits economic to mine.
A few hundred miles north of where I live is the world's richest uranium deposit at MacArthur River, Saskatchewan. It is 24% U. Every load of ore that is hauled to the mill is worth about half a million dollars. This single deposit could supply the world with Uranium to generate all of the world's electricity for several hundred years if all of the world's electricity were produced by IFR's.
AM
That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.RobertW said:... Now assume that 12 one-GW(e) reactors (Brayton Cycle IFRs of course) are built in the shale fields of the west-central U.S. It is estimated that there are one trillion barrels of oil locked in shale in this portion of the U.S. Let's assume further that the electricity produced by these reactors is used to heat the oil shale in the manner described in the Shell in situ conversion process - see: http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/mrp_technology.html
The heat produced by these 12 reactors could yield 10 to 12 million barrels of shale oil per day at a cost of about $20 to $25 per barrel if the government provided the reactors. If shale oil is extracted at a cost of $25 per barrel and oil is selling on the open market at $50 per barrel, that would save the U.S. about $115 billion per year. If the reactors each cost $20 billion, they would pay for themselves in about six years (the shale has to be heated for 3 to 4 years before it produces oil and natural gas). The savings would continue for as many years as the U.S. imports this amount of oil. If the cost of oil goes up, the amount of savings will increase. Nuclear power cannot replace gas in cars, but nuclear power can help put gasoline in cars. .
starting at 1:36...There is a possibility for greatly reducing the waste of nuclear fission by having a small fraction, about 20-25% of the fission reactors use a fast spectrum – high energy neutrons, and what that does is it burns down the long lived waste to much shorter lived waste and it also converts some of the fuel, which can be used. That technology is not deployable today. The generation of nuclear reactors that are now being designed are much, much safer than old, but that new technology - the fast neutrons - is less safe...
...Nuclear won't be a major factor no matter what, because of the money issue. ...
Its about 20% in the US, it will go down I think...
mheslep said:Just announced US energy chief and nobel laureate Steven Chu on fast reactors this past year in a public talk:
starting at 1:36
in the same talk:
mheslep said:When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.
Cost and uncertainty will always win out.mheslep said:That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.
Astronuc said:Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.
The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.
Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.
RobertW said:Relative to the other types of reactors in current use, IFRs of the EBRII design are the safest reactors in the world at this time. The Russians have had a fast neutron reactor in continuous operation on their power grid since 1981. The world has about 290 reactor-years of experience with fast neutron reactors. See:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
The IFR negative that comes to mind first is that the "fuel reprocessing cell" is costly. However, the cost of creating huge water reserviors for cooling light water reactors is also costly. Considering the safety advantage in not having to transport highly radioactive fuels on our highways and railroads, I believe the fuel reprocessing cell is worth its cost.
Another problem with metal-cooled reactors is that the liquid metals, particularly lead, used for cooling may cause problems with the piping used in the reactor. For example, liquid lead can leach some of the metal from the piping. I understand MIT has done research on the leaching problem with highly favorable results. MIT found that chromium and nickel alloys are very resistant to leaching.
I would like to know if you have found anything else WRONG with the IFR.
sloughter said:Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:
...
In addition to approval of the US government, one also needs approval of the Canadian government.sloughter said:Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:
2)Form the Canadian-American Corporation (CANAM). I envision a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors. CANAM does everything but build the plants. They buy the land, perhaps as much as 100 square miles along the Hudson Bay. They do the environmental impact statements over 20 years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. They put in the railroads. They establish the transmission corridors. They build perhaps the first dozen light-water plants i.e. existing nuclear technology.
If the reactor complex is never approved, then the dozen or so plants can crack hydrogen with electrolysis, or more efficiently with high temperature gas cooled reactors. Then they serve as the respository for all toxic, biological and solid waste from Montreal, Canada, Chicago, New York and Boston. They will process 10,000-100,000 tons of solid waste/day. Waste goes in and the cheapest steel anywhere in the world (free oxygen), metal hydrides (solid hydrogen), ingots of glass, rolls of aluminum, sheets of plastic and various and sundry metals come out.
The project requires that all the treaties necessary for the project be worked out and get indemnity from any future legal challenges without a 2/3 vote of Congress.
CANAM recoups its investment by taxing the electricity and the worker's wages. The power companies just build power plants. If the reactor complex is approved it could generate 1,500-3,000 gigawatts of power.
There is no indication of cost savings. There are claims without any technical or financial basis.Here are the cost savings of the project.
2.) 1,500-3,000 gigawatts / 1000 plants = 1.5-3 GW (1500 - 3000 MW) vs These smaller plants (300-500mW)? One means 300-500 MW/plant?2)Spread out over 1000 plants, the environmental impact statements would cost only $10 million/plant,
3)The Hudson Bay thermal sink permits once through cooling, the cheapest kind of cooling,
4)Standardized design---there are no separate designs for each plant as has been the case for nuclear power plants in this country.
5)Pre-fabricated construction. These smaller plants (300-500mW) are already predicted to be built in three years instead of the existing ten; seven years of extra power generation matters. Their components will be carried by rail,
6)A stable work force. Since this project would be operational for at least 100 years, we can predict that we would be able to approximate the assembly line approach by shuttling clusters of workers from construction site to construction site. They might work on as many as a dozen plants in any given year,
7)Elimination of the need for Yucca Mountain. The IFR can burn up all the radioactive wastes from existing light-water reactors; this would save about $100 billion,
8)The high temperature gas cooled reactors, in tandem can generate 50% more hydrogen than electrolysis by using a patented process involving copper and chlorine,
9)A "Ponzi" scheme to lure investors to come on board early; they get a cut of the action of every power plant built later in the complex,
10)Saving in line losses by perfecting high-temperature superconductivity over the next several decades,
11)Charging other utilities and other countries to dispose of their wastes from light-water reactors,
12)Since the reactor complex will serve as a sink for all special nuclear materials, the cost of the fuel should be inexpensive as the complex acquires, among other sources, all the plutonium left over from decommisssioned nuclear warheads,
13)The residual IFR radioactive wastes require sequestration in the 100's of years, not 10,000's of years. That waste can be enclosed in a silica gel and injected by hydrofracturing at great depth where it is allowed to die with practically no environmental effects.
Does anyone think that this project would be uneconomic?
Astronuc said:Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.
The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.
Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.
sloughter,sloughter said:According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary. Since a base load IFR program would have eliminated the need for the Hot Fusion Program at MIT (Sort of the AC/DC debate 100 years ago), the most obvious beneficiaries of closing down the research would have been MIT. No other Senators tried as hard as Senator Kerry to shut down the program. Perhaps he was just protecting his constituents.
sloughter,sloughter said:According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary..
Astronuc said:Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.
The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.
Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.