Integral Fast Reactor: Why Did Funding Stop?

[catseye747]

Does anyone know why this project lost its funding? From what I understand it was three years from being completed. The prototype EBR II which had tests conducted to verify the passive safety system were successful and then BAM funding is cut. Was it due to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. I think I read that these test were performed a couple of weeks before Chernobyl.

Thanks

 

[theCandyman]

Part of the Clinton adminstration's promises were to cut back funding for nuclear related programs. IFR got cut.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Does anyone know why this project lost its funding? From what I understand it was three years from being completed. The prototype EBR II which had tests conducted to verify the passive safety system were successful and then BAM funding is cut. Was it due to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. I think I read that these test were performed a couple of weeks before Chernobyl.

There seem to be different views as to why Congress voted to cut funding. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/bush/freprocessing.asp" says that Congress was concerned about the proliferation risk:

The Integral Fast Reactor concept envisioned that pyroprocessing spent fuel would take place in a facility adjacent to a reactor and some radioactive transuranium elements would remain mixed with the plutonium, making the otherwise separated plutonium less vulnerable to theft. The 62.5 megawatt-thermal (20 megawatt-electric) Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) used a prototype for testing Integral Fast Reactor fuel. The concept was highly uneconomical, however, and would have represented a significant proliferation risk because non-weapon states could have converted pyroprocessing facilities to produce and separate weapons-grade plutonium. DOE therefore terminated the Integral Fast Reactor program in September 1994, but it kept alive the pyroprocessing program by continuing reprocessing research using Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel.
​

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html" on the other hand, the head of Argonne's reactor development program for the IFR, says that the IFR fuel cycle presented a very low proliferation risk.

Morbius may have something to say on this. I expect that the proliferation risk for the IFR was not well understood by Congress.

In my view, the IFR had great potential. But it was probably ahead of its time, technologically and politically.

AM

 

[Astronuc]

The concept was highly uneconomical, however, and would have represented a significant proliferation risk because non-weapon states could have converted pyroprocessing facilities to produce and separate weapons-grade plutonium.

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]

The EBR II project was nearly completed - it cost more to cancel the project than it would have cost to complete it. You can find the entire history of the EBR II by googling the following: S.M. Stacy, Idaho National Laboratory, Proving the Principle This will eventually lead you to about 24 chapters on the history of the Idaho National Laboratory that will include numerous details about EBR II and why it was cancelled. By the way, the EBR II has been totally dismantled, but they continued some of the fuel reprocessing projects.
I have written a book "Total Energy Independence for the United States - A Twelve-Year Plan" extolling the benefits of the integral fast reactor in achieving oil independence and a hydrogen fuel infrastructure for the U.S, and for consuming most of the waste plutonium currently being stored in about 125 locations throughout the U.S. I used some of the information documented by S.M. Stacy in my book.

 

[vanesch]

This has the same smell to it as Super-Phenix...

I don't know much about the IFR, but what I know about it, sounds brilliant. I had a few courses on the pyro-processing techniques that were used there. As such, the argument of proliferation is, as usual, silly, because the knowledge is out there
(this is like Carter being against the PUREX process, while you can read about it in a few books...).

 

[Captainjf]

I am in debate and i was instructed by my teacher to find negative evidence on the IFR reactor. is there anything wrong with the reactor that stands out alot?

 

[RobertW]

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.

 

[Captainjf]

What about the acutal cost, is it around $10bill for one reactor? more? less? i just need more info.

 

[RobertW]

The best estimate I can find on the cost of an IFR is $1.5 to $2 billion for a one-Gw(e) reactor if the reactors are mass-produced. In my book, I use the scenario of constructing 500 reactors at locations throughout the U.S. where there is an abundant supply of water. My thinking is that the water could be electrolyzed to produce hydrogen and steam used to drive the generators.

The cost of the reactor will also vary if the operating fluid is a supercritical gas instead of steam. The use of a supercritical gas as the operating fluid practically eliminates the need for water. Water would be needed only for sanitation purposes and pyroprocessing of spent fuel.

I am assuming that you are aware that the IFR can use our reprocessed nuclear waste for fuel. We have on hand enough "fuel" (nuclear waste and processed uranium) for the IFRs to produce all of the energy the U.S. will need for the next 1,000 years.

 

[Captainjf]

What i would really like to know is how much a standard IFR (sodium cooling, not mass produced, and still new) would cost. not any new versons, because this is all that the other teams are basically saying. also for a 1,700MW reactor

 

[RobertW]

There is no such thing as a "standard" 1.7GW(t) IFR - one must be designed and built. A 1.7GW(t) -(thermal) IFR would produce about one GW(e) - (electrical) output. Based on the Department of Energy's 10-year old estimate of $985 million to build a one GW(e) IFR reactor, the 1.5 to 2 billion dollar estimate I gave you earlier is approximately correct once the prototype is built, tested, and approved, taking inflation into account. The prototype one GW(e) IFR, estimating again, would cost about $5 to $10 billion to design, construct, test, and approve.

The use of liquid sodium as the coolant in an IFR has inherent dangers. Sodium, when exposed to air will burn; exposure of sodium to water in the presence of oxygen can cause an explosion. The Monju IFR in Japan had such an accident. No one was injured, but the reactor had to be shut down. Liquid lead is the coolant of choice because of its shielding characteristics and higher operating temperature.

If you are debating the disadvantages of the IFR relative to the other types of reactors, you definitely have an uphill battle.

 

[Captainjf]

Thank you for all the information, but what if you look at it in a perspective of IFR against all other alternate energy (solar, wind, biofuels) instead of against other reactors? Does that change anything?

 

[vanesch]

Thank you for all the information, but what if you look at it in a perspective of IFR against all other alternate energy (solar, wind, biofuels) instead of against other reactors? Does that change anything?

Show me a place with cities and industries and so on where, say, more than 75% of the electricity has been reliably provided by alternatives, for at least a few years.

 

[RobertW]

(Originally Posted by Captainjf
Thank you for all the information, but what if you look at it in a perspective of IFR against all other alternate energy (solar, wind, biofuels) instead of against other reactors? Does that change anything?)

The amount of power that will be required in the U.S. in the future will be immense. To provide the needed power with wind turbines, solar, etc. is unrealistic. It would require 400 2.5 MW wind turbines to equal the power output of one 1GW(e) IFR - assuming that the wind turbines get enough wind to produce their maximum output. One-eighth of the surface of the U.S. would have to be covered with solar cells to meet the nations power needs - and then only when the sun is shining. What makes matters worse is that solar cells, when they are spent, are slightly radioactive - another disposal problem.

A 0.5GW(e) "clean coal" plant produces 125,000 tons of ash and 165,000 tons of sludge (from the stack scrubbers) in one year. The ash and sludge contain arsenic, cadmium, mercury and ... . The fly ash from the stacks contain 100 times more radioactivity than the air near a compliant nuclear reactor. Many times, the sludge is allowed to seep into the ground, contaminating the ground water for miles around. All of this is before we consider the CO2 output.

IFRs are reliable and their output is constant for 30 to 60 years, regardless of the climate, and the cost of mass-produced IFRs per kWh produced will be less than $1,000. Today, the cheapest source of electricity is nuclear - as low as 2 cents per kWh. The IFR would produce about 1,700 pounds of waste per year and it would be "safe" in 200 to 300 years as opposed to 10,000 to 200,000 years for the light water reactors.

In the future, the cost of energy, not the cost of labor will be the determining factor in which country will dominate on planet Earth. In the long-term, the IFR will produce more energy safer and cheaper than any other technology currently available. It will be another century or two before the fusion reactor is commercially viable. Perhaps, after the fusion reactor will come zero-point energy sources.

How do you like nuclear energy via IFR now?

 

[Captainjf]

Personally, i love the IFR reactor. But in debate, something you love you will have to fight against. (the IFR was actually my starting case, but my teacher pulled me off of it). I just want to know how to fight against it because i will get a very bad grade if i don't find something to use.

 

[vanesch]

Maybe you can use a lot of false information to make up a totally bogus case against the IFR ?

 

[Andrew Mason]

Personally, i love the IFR reactor. But in debate, something you love you will have to fight against. (the IFR was actually my starting case, but my teacher pulled me off of it). I just want to know how to fight against it because i will get a very bad grade if i don't find something to use.

In order to cool this reactor you need something that will carry away heat rapidly. The IFR was designed to use liquid sodium, which is a key part of the "inherently safe" design (water at high temperatures must be kept under extreme pressure in order to remain liquid, whereas liquid sodum absorbs heat at extremely high temperatures at atmospheric pressure).

But liquid sodium is highly flammable. So that is a potential problem.

Also, sodium can become radioactive when it absorbs neutrons - 24Na (unlike water which becomes stable deuterium) . This requires a second heat transfer system to circulate in order to withdraw useable heat from the reactor - to power steam turbines. This reduces its efficiency somewhat. That is a potential negative.

The other negative is that it was canceled by the Clinton administration. That was probably a big mistake. But it means that it carries some political baggage that may make it difficult to get political approval in the future.

AM

 

[RobertW]

According to the International Atomic Energy Admin., (IAEA) sodium used as a coolant for 50 years in a liquid metal cooled fast reactor should be retained for a period of 50 years before it can be used in industry or returned to nature. 24Na becomes stable in about 15 hours - the main problem is caused by 22Na, cobalt60, and cesium137 - they have longer half-lifes. See:
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/1289_7.pdf

 

[Captainjf]

thanks, that helps this a lot! I appricate all your help, and if you figure out anything else, it would be very helpful to my team and i.
(Is sodium really the only bad thing about the reactor? That wasnt very smart of clinton...)

 

[mheslep]

...The amount of power that will be required in the U.S. in the future will be immense. To provide the needed power with wind turbines, solar, etc. is unrealistic. It would require 400 2.5 MW wind turbines to equal the power output of one 1GW(e) IFR - assuming that the wind turbines get enough wind to produce their maximum output.

They don't, it would require closer to 1000 such turbines to equal the average power of one such reactor if they're built in a good wind area (Midwest). Even so, the turbines are still slightly cheaper than the current cost of a new US PWR nuclear plant, and that's before costing in processing the fuel and waste. The wind turbines would also come online 2-3x faster.

What makes matters worse is that solar cells, when they are spent, are slightly radioactive - another disposal problem...

Misinformation.

 

[mheslep]

Show me a place with cities and industries and so on where, say, more than 75% of the electricity has been reliably provided by alternatives, for at least a few years.

Its a bit of a stunt, but see Samso.
5 years, 100%. 4300 people, farming, tourism, no heavy industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/SamsoeRenewableEnergyIsland.html

Some of the shore turbines
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=55.86...4341,10.538056&spn=0.008494,0.019312&t=h&z=16
Interestingly, it looks like they buried all of their transmission, everywhere on the island.

 

[vanesch]

Its a bit of a stunt, but see Samso.
5 years, 100%. 4300 people, farming, tourism, no heavy industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/SamsoeRenewableEnergyIsland.html

Some of the shore turbines
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=55.86...4341,10.538056&spn=0.008494,0.019312&t=h&z=16

Now that's remarkable. I really wonder how they do it, because I don't see any large means of electricity storage, so how do they reach 75% wind energy ? I take it that they are electrically isolated and that they are not just calculating averages - I couldn't find this.

EDIT: also, there's something I don't understand. Visibly the habitants of the island are shareholders of the windfarm, and "they make money with it", but how ? It is their own electricity bill which is the income of the windfarm, so how can they make money with it ?

I really wonder whether they are not just calculating averages...

 

[mheslep]

Now that's remarkable. I really wonder how they do it, because I don't see any large means of electricity storage, so how do they reach 75% wind energy ? I take it that they are electrically isolated and that they are not just calculating averages - I couldn't find this.

Hmm, at first I thought they'd use a couple of diesel generators (biofueled) for backup, but then I see repeatedly the claim of carbon _neutral_, ie average, for Solso and that they 'sell electricity back to the mainland' when the wind is good so they are not electrically isolated, and I am sure the juice flows both ways. Thus I am sure you're right and they rely on the mainland during low wind, so I retract as an example of renewable energy independence.

You're up early in France Vanesch. Off to bed for me.

 

[RobertW]

They don't, it would require closer to 1000 such turbines to equal the average power of one such reactor if they're built in a good wind area (Midwest). Even so, the turbines are still slightly cheaper than the current cost of a new US PWR nuclear plant, and that's before costing in processing the fuel and waste. The wind turbines would also come online 2-3x faster.

Misinformation.

"What makes matters worse is that solar cells, when they are spent, are slightly radioactive - another disposal problem...

Misinformation."

Should have said: "can be slightly radioactive", to be more precise - it depends on the type of solar cell. In any case, there are some very nasty chemicals (heavy metal compounds) used in some solar cells and they will be a disposal problem. Also, the use of radioactive additives such as 60Co have been successfully used experimentally to increase cell output - see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V51-4DVW4F6-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=67f1dca5ca1f43e63dc99028a80c3d50. It is no longer safe to think of contemporary energy producing devices in conventional terms.

Also, an IFR can use a supercritical gas as the operating fluid and, therefore, require water only for sanitation purposes and fuel reprocessing. The elimination of the need for a huge water reservoir greatly reduces the construction time and cost of an IFR. According to General Electric (GE), the life expectancy of a 2.5 MW wind turbine is 20 years. The design life of a sodium cooled IFR easily can be 60 years. If GE is correct, the wind turbines would have to be replaced twice during the lifetime of the IFR. At this juncture, in the long-term, there is no cheaper, more reliable way to produce electrical power in the quantities needed than the IFR. The IFR concept makes nuclear power an "almost" totally renewable source of energy. Compared to the IFR, PWRs are a waste of energy.

 

[wouland]

In the case of Denmark and this island, things are not always as great as perceived. In this case it is trade of electricity back and forth, since there is no storage of the locally produced electricity. But since almost all of their electricity is fossil based, you could get "crappy electricity" back. Now as they count that would still be carbon neutrol if they keep balance in sent+received electricity, since they produce enough wind-electricity even if they use fossil electricity, which is a definition I and many others in the Nordic countries object to.

As other examples of clean electricity: Norway, 100% capacity in hydropower, higher than swedens 50% (other 50% nuclear), and on a 5M country that is a lot of electricity intensive industry (much aluminum industry etc). Norway have on the other hand large amounts of oil and gas, but referring to their produced electricity they have 100%+ capacity in hydro (all nordic countries are one electricity market/grid so exchange in all directions occur).

The Nordic windpower is usually considered to be 1600 plants needed at 2.5MW each for getting 1GW. They stand still 25% of time due to to strong wind, 25% of time due to too weak wind, and in between average 50% output, meaning 25% of their rated power.

A bit off topic from original subject though, but denmark is often marked up to idiocy when it comes to Windpower, especially in relation to neighbouring countries (they produce 1/4th the electricity of Sweden, but generate 4 times the amount CO2, for a factor 16 "dirtier electricity")

As for the IFR, I have huge issues with the liquid sodium (if it is to be used), it have been used nicely in several places, but french/japanese experience makes me very hesitant. Also the reprocessing is a dirty solution, but I'm a researcher in safeguards, and coming from a swedish perspective where no reprocessing is employed (currently).
Also the use of them for producing hydrogen for storing the energy is technology still quite far away, with other safety issues. I also oppose the hydrogen track for the US idea to use it for hydrolysing lower quality fossil fuel... it's still fossil so that idea to me is mindboggling, even if it raises the water part of the exhausts.

 

[RobertW]

Nearly all of the H2 produced in the U.S. is produced by reforming natural gas - a CO2 - producing process. Every space shuttle launch uses about 200,000 gallons of liquid H2.

Hydrolyzing low-grade fossil fuels has to be a flawed idea promulgated by the oil industry; this is the first I've heard of it.

The sodium-cooled Monju IFR (Japan) was suppose to be back on line this year. I wish I knew more details about the accident. I do know there were no radiation leaks and no one was injured. Liquid lead would be a better coolant, but there are some long-lived nuclides produced when using lead. The advantage of using sodium as a coolant is that the sodium can be safely returned to nature or used in industry 50 years after it is removed from the reactor. Most likely, the sodium would be reused in the same reactor.

The main reason the U.S. does not have a H2 fuel infrastructure is the high cost of electricity. Currently, one-third of the energy used to liquefy H2 is spent mechanically compressing it pryor to chilling it. The electrochemical hydrogen compressor has no moving parts and can compress H2 to 10,000 psi using electrical voltages (it is essentially a fuel cell in reverse); this device reduces by one-third the amount of energy needed to liquefy H2 and reduces the cost of liquid H2 proportionally. In the U.S., hydrolysis of water would be the best way to produce H2. IFRs could also be used to desalinate sea water in addition to producing electricity and H2.

Pyroprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is performed in an argon-filled reprocessing cell. This process reduces the amount of actual reactor waste by 99.5%, and produces a proliferation-resistant, fertile alloy of plutonium, uranium, americium, and other actinides that can again be used as fast reactor fuel. The actual IFR waste is safe in 200 to 300 years as opposed to 10,000 to 200,000 years for light water reactor waste. In fact, light water reactor waste can be pyroprocessed and used as IFR fuel. The U.S. has enough light water reactor waste stored in 125 locations to furnish all of its energy needs for the next 1,000 years if the waste were pyroprocessed and consumed in IFRs.
The problem with this idea is finding a politician that can understand the concept.

 

[wouland]

The hydrolysing of low grade oil is part of many government reports on possible ways forward, and the disturbing thing I found was that it was mention especially in conjunction with nuclear electricity, essentially negating the good environmental effect of it. Though reports and suggestions are still far away from what will actually take place, and I suggest as you mention that the oil industry is one of the biggest backers of these ideas, the fact that they are still there is enough to be concerned in my mind, especially in a brutally oil/gasoline dependant country as US.

The monju incident was only a small leak of secondary non-irradiated sodium if I'm not missinformed, the eye opener which shut them down for so long was that it could happen, and a big sodium leak would present huge challenges with safety from the sodium, in addition to the reactor-problem of loss of heat sink, and if you focus on the sodium only not dealing with possible problems in transport of core-heat etc, that is a big possible issue. lead-bismuth mixtures etc could be a solution to them as you mention. The interest in Japan about fast reactors had declined quite much from what I was told when I was there this summer, talking to some in the nuclear research, possibly due to the difficulties getting running/funding from the authorities/agencies. But they are as you mentioned supposed to be allowed to run again after more than a decade of standstill.

I would oppose to the main reason against H2 infrastructure being the electricity cost, it have technical challenges too, especially transport and storage in tanks etc associated with propulsion. High cost of electricity should promote hydrogen (from water of course, not the oil-alternative) since you don't want to waste any energy. It anit fully as easy as that, but high temperature reactors or plants could hydrolyse water with heat instead of directly using lots of electricity even if you need to compress it in a costly manner afterwards. But a H2 infrastructure is nowhere near to be realized from what I've seen of US and all european countries. The use of IFR to desalinate water is a good one, but nearly 100% of it is done with fossile energy atm, and only the kazaks have any decent experience with nuclear desalination (30-40 years running), and it would not be limited to necessarily IFRs so I can't see it as a good argument for the IFR, rather than for nuclear plants in general.

As for the long life of normal light water waste and the long life, you are neglecting reprocessing and MOX, vitrification, which is very much a reality in much of the world (not in my country though similarly to US), which reduces the bulk, and changes the times substatntially. Also if talking about using the light water waste in IFRs then that issue is not there anymore, although that certainly is a strong argument for the IFR, but also for some other reactors/reprocessings.

 

[Morbius]

Chuck Till, on the other hand, the head of Argonne's reactor development program for the IFR, says that the IFR fuel cycle presented a very low proliferation risk.

Morbius may have something to say on this. I expect that the proliferation risk for the IFR was not well understood by Congress.

Andrew,

Dr. Charles Till is correct - there's no reason to say that the IFR is a proliferation risk.

My own Laboratory - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - did the evaluation at the
behest of Congress; and the Congress was informed of the conclusion - the IFR is proliferation resistant.

Here is a link to a letter written to the New York Times by two US Senators:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4D91E3CF936A35754C0A962958260

You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates
plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A
recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more
proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium...

Senator Paul Simon
Senator Dirk Kempthorne

Senators Simon and Kempthorne understand EXACTLY why it is impossible to make a
nuclear weapon with recycled IFR fuel; the recycled fuel contains highly radiioactive actinides
that make the material unsuitable as a bomb fuel. Senators Simon and Kempthorne understood
exactly what the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report told them; which echoes the
comments of Dr. Charles Till in his interview with PBS's Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make
it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.

Unfortunately, some Senators will not listen to what the labs and their scientists tell them
if it runs counter to their own views. From Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0509till.html

The anti-IFR forces were led by John Kerry. He was the principal speaker and the floor manager of the
anti forces in the Senate debate. He spoke at length, with visual aids; he had been well prepared. His
arguments against the merits of the IFR were not well informed�and many were clearly wrong. But what
his presentation lacked in accuracy it made up in emotion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[soon2beam]

As well as I can remember it (from the 1980s), the project was funded THROUGH completion.

It cost AS much to shut it down as it would to have to COMPLETE it.

The shut-down was championed through the propaganda network (politics & money) by publicizing a fire in Japan that occurred amidst another (similarly, sodium-cooled) project - and during the anti-nuclear-power sentiment that RIPPED "safe" nuclear power from the minds of the (so-called) environmentalists.

I think this was purely a manipulation event, money and politics prevailing over our people and our planet.

Respectfully, Rob

Ps. and twenty years later, Eugene Mallove paid the ultimate price for announcing his upcoming cold-fusion models.

 

[RobertW]

Rob, you are absolutely correct - the politicians wielding the axe against the IFR were Pres. Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

 

[Morbius]

Rob, you are absolutely correct - the politicians wielding the axe against the IFR were Pres. Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

RobertW,

...and then VP Al Gore. Al Gore was one of the CHIEF opponents to the IFR.

The IFR solved many of the "problems" that the anti-nukes have with nuclear power - safety; the IFR
is "inherently safe" or "passively safe". It doesn't require any "engineered safeguards", like a pump, or
cooling system to work. The IFR relies on the Laws of Physics to achieve safety and unlike pumps and
other engineered systems, the Laws of Physics ALWAYS WORK. The IFR had a closed fuel cycle
in which long-lived waste was recycled back to the reactor to be transmuted into short-lived waste. Finally,
the IFR was proliferation resistant - you can't make a nuclear bomb from reprocessed IFR fuel. See the
PBS Frontline interview conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Rhodes with
nuclear physicist and then Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory; Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

What really gets to me is how Gore and Kerry LIED when they didn't like the answer they got from
the scientists. The Administration asked Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to verify the claim
that Argonne National Laboratory made about the proliferation resistance of the IFR technology.

I may be an LLNL partisan; but Lawrence Livermore is the best nuclear weapons design laboratory on
the planet. If the experienced scientists at Lawrence Livermore can't make a bomb out of reprocessed
IFR fuel; then you can be sure the inexperienced scientists from a nascent proliferant nation can't either.

Then VP Gore and the Senators, like Kerry; were explicitly told that one can NOT use reprocessed IFR
fuel as a nuclear bomb fuel. Senators Simon and Kempthorne refer to that LLNL report in their response
to the New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4D91E3CF936A35754C0A962958260

However, scientific truth doesn't stop politicians like Gore and Kerry; if the scientific truth isn't to their
liking - they FABRICATE what they want.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[RobertW]

Dr. Greenman:

I have been pushing my Representative to have Congress conduct additional hearings on the integral fast reactor cover-up. If he, a Republican, can catch some Democrats in a lie, it might make an impression on the Hill. My Senator, Jim Webb, is always too busy to listen - he is too preoccupied with self-engrandizement. But I am trying to goad any senator or congressman to open hearings on the lies told about the IFR. The potential of the IFR is too great to simply bury in lies. Perhaps if we had a concerted effort by many of the readers of this blog to challange their congressmen, we might get some movement to re-examine the potential of the IFR. I wrote a book about the IFR and other technologies that, if combined, could make the U.S. totally energy independent in 12 to 15 years - I wrote the book because I got tired of explaining the synergy of the concepts and then hearing people say: "if that is true, then why aren't we doing it." Even my own congressman asked me the same question. I believe if enough people wrote to their congressmen and quoted some of the positive information on this blog, we could at least get enough interest for there to be a hearing or two in congress.

 

[Morbius]

Dr. Greenman:
I have been pushing my Representative to have Congress conduct additional hearings on the integral fast reactor cover-up. If he, a Republican, can catch some Democrats in a lie, it might make an impression on the Hill.

RobertW,

Congressmen and Senators LYING? I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED to find lying in the Halls of Congress!
[ See Claude Raines as Captain Renault in the second to the last scene of the movie "Casablanca" ]

Unfortunately, I find the Congress of the USA pretty blase' about lies from their members.

That said; I applaud your efforts to get your members of Congress and the new Administration
behind nuclear power. Our new President has said that he would support nuclear power if it can
be proved that it is "safe".

I'd like to hear him say what "proof" means to him. What does he require in the way of "proof".

The national laboratories like Sandia have done LOTS of tests demonstrating the safety of nuclear
power plants. For those that are concerned about terrorists flying airliners into nuclear power plants
which seems to be the "scare story du jour" since 9/11; Sandia did tests on nuclear reactor containment
buildings long ago - before 9/11 - when the concern was that an airliner could crash into a nuclear power
plant by accident.

The ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers - refers to these tests in their post 9/11 briefing
to Congress:

http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/jan02/features/nucbrief.html

or some videos from Sandia National Laboratory:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/04/videos-of-day-crash-testing-at-sandia.html

The scientific testing shows nuclear power to be safe. Additionally, the USA has had nuclear power
for just over 50 years. The USA has had one major commercial reactor accident - Three Mile Island -
an accident in which people where neither killed nor injured. For the last almost 30 years since TMI;
the safety record of the US nuclear industry has been EXEMPLARY.

If that doesn't constitute the necessary proof; I'd like to hear someone tell me what WOULD be proof.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Andrew Mason]

If that doesn't constitute the necessary proof; I'd like to hear someone tell me what WOULD be proof.

Perhaps we should hold other forms of power generation to the same standard with the added requirement that one has to look at the whole fuel cycle as well as the construction, operation and decommissioning of the plants. By that standard, wind, and biofuels might come out on top, nuclear would be a close second, followed by hydro and natural gas. At the very bottom and by far the most dangerous and unsafe would be coal (whether conventional or "clean" coal).

Mining coal kills thousands of people per year. According to http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1155".

Coal is the most unsafe form of power generation there is but we don't hear any politician saying they will only approve safe coal plants. There is no such thing.

AM

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps we should hold other forms of power generation to the same standard with the added requirement that one has to look at the whole fuel cycle as well as the construction, operation and decommissioning of the plants. By that standard, wind, and biofuels might come out on top, nuclear would be a close second, followed by hydro and natural gas. At the very bottom and by far the most dangerous and unsafe would be coal (whether conventional or "clean" coal).

Mining coal kills thousands of people per year. According to http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1155".

Coal is the most unsafe form of power generation there is but we don't hear any politician saying they will only approve safe coal plants. There is no such thing.

AM

Point taken about coal. Yes Chernobyl had only 56 direct deaths, less than the single Ukraine mining accident. But to be complete: the IAEA report predicts 4000 additional cancers from those highly exposed, and >300,000 people had to be long term relocated.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

 

[Morbius]

Point taken about coal. Yes Chernobyl had only 56 direct deaths, less than the single Ukraine mining accident. But to be complete: the IAEA report predicts 4000 additional cancers from those highly exposed, and >300,000 people had to be long term relocated.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

mheslep,

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the accident at Cernobyl is pertinent at ALL
to the current discussion of present day nuclear power.

The Chernobyl accident is like the crash of the Hindenberg for the airline industry. If the
subject under discussion was the safety of travel by airliner and the Boeing 777 in particular;
what does the crash of the Hindenberg have to do with the safety of a Boeing 777.

The Boeing 777 looks nothing like the Hindenberg. The design features that caused the crash
and fire of the Hindenberg are not present in a Boeing 777. If someone said that the Hindenberg
experience was pertinent to the question of the safety of a Boeing 777; people would consider
them an absolute IDIOT, a DOLT, a FOOL, a complete MORON; and they'd be correct.

Likewise, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor looks NOTHING like a US or western European light water
power reactor or the Integral Fast Reactor. The design features that caused the Chernobyl accident
are not present in LWR reactors, nor the IFR. So why would one even bring Chernobyl into the discussion
of LWR or IFR safety.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Perhaps we should hold other forms of power generation to the same standard with the added requirement that one has to look at the whole fuel cycle as well as the construction, operation and decommissioning of the plants.

Andrew,

Even wind turbines have their dangers. Anyone that lives near a wind farm like I do knows that.

However, recently the dangers of wind turbines have been caught on video. Catastrophic wind turbine
failure in Denmark was featured on a recent edition of Discovery Channel's "Destroyed in Seconds".
You can view the video here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/25/wind-turbine-self-de.html

On the Discovery Channel the video also included a news interview with a nearby resident who
recounted the horror she experienced as pieces of wind turbine flew over her house.

This occurance is not unique; just Google "wind turbine failure" for additional videos.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mheslep]

...So why would one even bring Chernobyl into the discussion
of LWR or IFR safety...

I did not 'bring' it in.

 

[Morbius]

I did not 'bring' it in.

mheslep,

Good. I'm glad Chernobyl isn't part of this discussion.

It's not pertinent to the safety question of either LWRs nor the IFR.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[QuantumPion]

I read an interesting statistic somewhere that stated we have enough depleted uranium; byproduct of the enrichment process for LEU LWR's; to supply all of the country's electricity in fast reactors for something like 100 years. Without even having to dig up any new uranium reserves!

 

[RobertW]

QuantumPion:

There is enough light water reactor (LWR) waste and enough processed uranium in inventory to furnish all of the U.S. power needs for 1,000 years if the LWR waste is reprocessed for use in the integral fast reactors (IFRs) using the pyroprocess, and if all of the reprocessed waste and uranium are "burned" in IFRs. The idea that the immense amount of power needed 24/7 by the U.S. can be provided by solar cells and wind turbines is a hallucination. The IFR also offers the potential to end our foreign oil dependence problem by helping retrieve shale oil for about $25 to $30 per barrel.

RobertW

 

[mheslep]

QuantumPion:

There is enough light water reactor (LWR) waste and enough processed uranium in inventory to furnish all of the U.S. power needs for 1,000 years if the LWR waste is reprocessed for use in the integral fast reactors (IFRs) using the pyroprocess, and if all of the reprocessed waste and uranium are "burned" in IFRs. The idea that the immense amount of power needed 24/7 by the U.S. can be provided by solar cells and wind turbines is a hallucination. The IFR also offers the potential to end our foreign oil dependence problem by helping retrieve shale oil for about $25 to $30 per barrel.

RobertW

No argument except on solar and wind. Solar/wind could provide the required 1000GW in the U.S. with current technology, just not economically and not with enough regularity.

 

[aquitaine]

No argument except on solar and wind. Solar/wind could provide the required 1000GW in the U.S. with current technology, just not economically and not with enough regularity.

Several western European countries tried this, but the most they could get out of them was 15~20% of their power needs, and now several of them are having looming power shortages because they tried to replace nuclear with wind/solar.

 

[RobertW]

Several western European countries tried this, but the most they could get out of them was 15~20% of their power needs, and now several of them are having looming power shortages because they tried to replace nuclear with wind/solar.

aquitaine:

Can you please name some of the countries you are referring to and provide a reference to information about the countries "having looming power shortages"?

RobertW

 

[mheslep]

aquitaine:

Can you please name some of the countries you are referring to and provide a reference to information about the countries "having looming power shortages"?

RobertW

Two different issues really. Denmark has ~20% wind with backup pulled from Scandanavian hydro and nuclear. They seem to be ok, though they're straining their transmission grid at 20%. Other countries, Belgium I believe qualifies, perhaps Germany too, have foregone more nuclear and not stepped up with sufficient alternatives so far.

 

[Andrew Mason]

No argument except on solar and wind. Solar/wind could provide the required 1000GW in the U.S. with current technology, just not economically and not with enough regularity.

To supply the equivalent of 1000 1000 MWe power plants using solar cells (ie. which would replace one nuclear plant) how much area would you need to have covered in solar cells?

Here is a ball-park calculation:

solar irradiance: 1367 w/m^2 (this is the solar energy falling on the Earth's upper atmosphere divided by \pi R_e^2. Of course, you have to take into account that the Earth is rotating and you cannot capture solar energy at this rate for 24 hours. And even if there are no clouds, some of this energy does not make it to the earth. The average on a sunny day would be no more than a quarter of this or about 340 w/m^2. On average, 30% would be reflected by clouds, so this reduces it to about 240 w/m^2.

Solar cells convert sunlight to electricity at a rate of around 20% with present technology. So a 1m^2 high efficiency solar panel could supply about 50 watts of electricity, on average. To produce 1000 GWe, you would need twenty billion of these panels. One square kilometre is 1 million square metres, so you would need 20,000 square kilometres of panels. This is about 140 km x 140 km to supply the entire country's electricity needs. If one used roofs of buildings you would not need to use valuable land.

Of course you would want to distribute these panels around the country. If you had 1000 sites of 20 square kilometers each, you could do it. You would also need some way of storing the electricity. But it does seem workable. At a cost of $2 per watt, the cost of the solar panels would be $2 trillion dollars. The cost of installation and infrastructure might be another trillion. Given the way governments seem to be throwing money around these days, that almost seems cheap.

AM

 

[vanesch]

To supply the equivalent of 1000 1000 MWe power plants using solar cells (ie. which would replace one nuclear plant) how much area would you need to have covered in solar cells?

Here is a ball-park calculation:

solar irradiance: 1367 w/m^2 (this is the solar energy falling on the Earth's upper atmosphere divided by \pi R_e^2. Of course, you have to take into account that the Earth is rotating and you cannot capture solar energy at this rate for 24 hours. And even if there are no clouds, some of this energy does not make it to the earth. The average on a sunny day would be no more than a quarter of this or about 340 w/m^2. On average, 30% would be reflected by clouds, so this reduces it to about 240 w/m^2.

Solar cells convert sunlight to electricity at a rate of around 20% with present technology. So a 1m^2 high efficiency solar panel could supply about 50 watts of electricity, on average. To produce 1000 GWe, you would need twenty billion of these panels. One square kilometre is 1 million square metres, so you would need 20,000 square kilometres of panels. This is about 140 km x 140 km to supply the entire country's electricity needs. If one used roofs of buildings you would not need to use valuable land.

Of course you would want to distribute these panels around the country. If you had 1000 sites of 20 square kilometers each, you could do it. You would also need some way of storing the electricity. But it does seem workable. At a cost of $2 per watt, the cost of the solar panels would be $2 trillion dollars. The cost of installation and infrastructure might be another trillion. Given the way governments seem to be throwing money around these days, that almost seems cheap.

AM

Although this is in the right ballpark, there are some extra's. The first problem is that your price: $2 per watt, is per watt PEAK POWER. However, depending on your location, there is a ratio of about 1:3 to 1:6 between peak power and average power (due to variability in solar illumination, cloudiness, etc...). So although you are about right that you could have 50W per square meter on average (I think it is closer to 30 W with affordable technologies and in temperate lattitudes, but ok), you would need to install about 300W peak power per square meter to obtain 50W average.

The second problem is the storage of electricity. It plays on 3 levels:
- day/night
- cloudy week/sunny week
- summer/winter

Now, there are techniques such as storage pumping stations and so on, but these are not always geographically possible, have a certain price, and are limited in capacity. They could eventually take care of day/night (at serious extra cost of about $2 per watt BTW).
However, it would be more problematic to have the cloudy week/sunny week variability.
And the only solution to the summer/winter variation would be to *increase* the solar capacity such that you reach average consumption not averaged over a year, but averaged over the darkest winter period. Now, depending on location, that can be a factor of up to 4 or 5 (meaning, averaged over, say, a month, the solar intensity during the darkest winter month is 4 or 5 times smaller than averaged over the whole year, summer included).
This means that you have to over-design your solar power system by the same factor in order to provide still the average power needed during winter (and have an equivalent surplus production in summer, with which you cannot do much for the moment, but which you could eventually use to do things like hydrogen production or anything else).

You could of course say that you will find a "long term storage" technique, like production of hydrogen or whatever in the summer, so that you can use it in winter. But then you will run into efficiency problems, which will give you easily a similar factor. So in any case, if solar is to provide for the bulk of the electricity, you will have to over-design your system (and its surface, and its cost) with a factor of 3-5 as compared to "yearly average production" AND provide for serious extra buffer capacity for the short-time variations (day/night ; cloudy/sunny).

EDIT: btw, your $2 per watt peak are optimistic: http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm

 

[mheslep]

To supply the equivalent of 1000 1000 MWe power plants using solar cells (ie. which would replace one nuclear plant) how much area would you need to have covered in solar cells?

Here is a ball-park calculation:

solar irradiance: 1367 w/m^2 (this is the solar energy falling on the Earth's upper atmosphere divided by \pi R_e^2. Of course, you have to take into account that the Earth is rotating and you cannot capture solar energy at this rate for 24 hours. And even if there are no clouds, some of this energy does not make it to the earth. The average on a sunny day would be no more than a quarter of this or about 340 w/m^2. On average, 30% would be reflected by clouds, so this reduces it to about 240 w/m^2.

Solar cells convert sunlight to electricity at a rate of around 20% with present technology. So a 1m^2 high efficiency solar panel could supply about 50 watts of electricity, on average. To produce 1000 GWe, you would need twenty billion of these panels. One square kilometre is 1 million square metres, so you would need 20,000 square kilometres of panels. This is about 140 km x 140 km to supply the entire country's electricity needs.

Hah, very good. The annual w/m^2 guess agrees with actual measurements for the SW US. Several other threads have gone down this road. You could have saved your self the trouble here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
The blue dots are 18x the land area size for the required US power.

If one used roofs of buildings you would not need to use valuable land.

Of course you would want to distribute these panels around the country. If you had 1000 sites of 20 square kilometers each, you could do it. You would also need some way of storing the electricity.

Its not just an 'also', storage is the currently insurmountable problem for attempting 100% variable renewables. Vanesch and others have been good about articulating the problem. See some of the energy threads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1787254&postcount=83

But it does seem workable. At a cost of $2 per watt, the cost of the solar panels would be $2 trillion dollars. The cost of installation and infrastructure might be another trillion. Given the way governments seem to be throwing money around these days, that almost seems cheap.
AM

Its more than that for the 20% panels, and that's installed panel rating, not average. A better figure to use is energy cost for PV which is $0.22/kWh for large scale PV installations for sunny climates, double that cost in cloudier climates. This is mostly an amortization of the capital costs. This still doesn't cover the required transmission infrastructure which must be built. If you go with smaller rooftop residential installations to avoid transmission the cost jumps to $0.40/kWh. Then we still don't have a cost for the cloudy day/overnight storage infrastructure, whatever that might turnout to be.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarprices.htm

 

[Andrew Mason]

Although this is in the right ballpark, there are some extra's. The first problem is that your price: $2 per watt, is per watt PEAK POWER. However, depending on your location, there is a ratio of about 1:3 to 1:6 between peak power and average power (due to variability in solar illumination, cloudiness, etc...). So although you are about right that you could have 50W per square meter on average (I think it is closer to 30 W with affordable technologies and in temperate lattitudes, but ok), you would need to install about 300W peak power per square meter to obtain 50W average.

50W average represents around 270W peak. In daytime with no clouds and overhead sun, the solar irradiation would be the full amount (1367 w/m^2 less a small amount that does not make it to the surface). So the output at 20% efficiency would provide 270 watts/m^2.

The second problem is the storage of electricity. It plays on 3 levels:
- day/night
- cloudy week/sunny week
- summer/winter

Now, there are techniques such as storage pumping stations and so on, but these are not always geographically possible, have a certain price, and are limited in capacity. They could eventually take care of day/night (at serious extra cost of about $2 per watt BTW).
However, it would be more problematic to have the cloudy week/sunny week variability.
And the only solution to the summer/winter variation would be to *increase* the solar capacity such that you reach average consumption not averaged over a year, but averaged over the darkest winter period. Now, depending on location, that can be a factor of up to 4 or 5 (meaning, averaged over, say, a month, the solar intensity during the darkest winter month is 4 or 5 times smaller than averaged over the whole year, summer included).
This means that you have to over-design your solar power system by the same factor in order to provide still the average power needed during winter (and have an equivalent surplus production in summer, with which you cannot do much for the moment, but which you could eventually use to do things like hydrogen production or anything else).

You could of course say that you will find a "long term storage" technique, like production of hydrogen or whatever in the summer, so that you can use it in winter. But then you will run into efficiency problems, which will give you easily a similar factor. So in any case, if solar is to provide for the bulk of the electricity, you will have to over-design your system (and its surface, and its cost) with a factor of 3-5 as compared to "yearly average production" AND provide for serious extra buffer capacity for the short-time variations (day/night ; cloudy/sunny).

These are all good points. It was a ball-park figure. The $1 trillion for infrastructure may be a little low. If you distribute the solar panels over a large geographic area and keep them in the lower latitudes in areas that have more sunny days, you can avoid many of these problems. We are talking about providing all of the power needs for the largest consuming nation on earth. No one is going to do that with one single technology, of course But the cost appears to be competitive with nuclear, and the fuel is free.

EDIT: btw, your $2 per watt peak are optimistic: http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm

That is low. But with large demand, you may be amazed what kind of efficiencies and cost reductions might become available. I have used the $2 figure based on today's figures. Where I may be wrong here is in assuming that this represents the price for average wattage and not peak wattage.

AM