The Nuclear Power Thread

[artis]

@gmax Well this might be long but maybe someone including you might be interested.

I agree with you 50/50. Here's my take on this.
A total government owned anything is bad , why? simple. Because governments tend to become lazy and incompetent if not always then at least at certain points in time. It is human nature that when they can share their responsibility they tend to take a lesser risk and much less sacrifice compared to when they stand everything to lose themselves.
I think there are two ditches here as on every road. One ditch is to have a "wild west" type of capitalist jungle where nothing is regulated and everyone just goes gold rush. Sure enough this approach is wrong clearly for again the same human nature reasons, the other approach is where everything is regulated to the last screw in the chair outside the lobby of a power plant. This was the approach in the former USSR. I happen to know about it.

Infrastructure in the former USSR and China is state owned and controlled and this is the other ditch, Chernobyl happened largely because of lazy bureaucrats running a giant nuclear plant with a very peculiar and experience demanding reactor, sure electricity was so cheap you could just leave your heater on in the summer but the downside is much increased risk of accidents if the government appointed oversight turns out less qualified or lazy, also much higher loses , nobody really cared to increase the grid efficiency and many other things.
There are countless examples from other places like China about this.Everything from much lowered emissions standards to advance competition to higher risk and accident rates etc. I'm sure we all agree on this.

As much as you want you can't really take politics or culture out of this. The example of France does not really apply to US @russ_watters , because unlike US, France is much more homogeneous also smaller, it;s just that countries that are more or less ethnically monolithic and have more or less the same thinking can have a government run program with much more success, the key is in the unity of thought.
If US had such a unity I see no problem for why the US couldn't move on with many plans that are currently o hold.
This is the same reason for why medical plans that work for countries like Norway will never work for countries like US, a different society with different numbers and models of living.

I personally think that for US it is bet to have a sensibly regulated private energy sector where competition and advances in technology push the price and also the market direction.

All in all it's the inescapable side effect of democracy that often times fools have just as much free speech and influencing power as competent people and in matters like nuclear energy this is a important factor.

 

[artis]

Truth be told there is some blame for the private sector if we talk about nuclear , I for example still can't understand how the Japanese energy company that ran Fukushima was allowed to make those reactors with diesel backup at such a low elevation in a room that can get flooded.
I mean those reactors were just fine even after the tsunami, if they had taken the risk to run them at a minimum power output even during the tsunami they could have continued to cool themselves and would have been fine.

I am not pretending to be a wise guy here but if that was my plant and my investment I would have spent a few extra bucks and made sure my diesel room is uphill and water tight.
Such a simple change would have saved Fukushima and possibly many nuclear plant projects from cancellation.On the same note I do feel that it might be the case that in the nuclear sector some of the regulations are too tight while others are not good enough.
PS. @anorlunda when you talked about that 30-60 minute storage were you envisioning possible flywheel storage systems ?

 

[anorlunda]

PS. @anorlunda when you talked about that 30-60 minute storage were you envisioning possible flywheel storage systems ?

That's one possibility, yes. So far, flywheel storage has been mostly a bad investment. But if a 30-60 minute market arises, they might fare better in competition. But there are many ways to skin that cat.

 

[gmax137]

@gmax Well this might be long but maybe someone including you might be interested.

I agree with you 50/50. Here's my take on this.
A total government owned anything is bad , why? simple. Because governments tend to become lazy and incompetent if not always then at least at certain points in time. It is human nature that when they can share their responsibility they tend to take a lesser risk and much less sacrifice compared to when they stand everything to lose themselves.
I think there are two ditches here as on every road. One ditch is to have a "wild west" type of capitalist jungle where nothing is regulated and everyone just goes gold rush. Sure enough this approach is wrong clearly for again the same human nature reasons, the other approach is where everything is regulated to the last screw in the chair outside the lobby of a power plant. This was the approach in the former USSR. I happen to know about it.

Infrastructure in the former USSR and China is state owned and controlled and this is the other ditch, Chernobyl happened largely because of lazy bureaucrats running a giant nuclear plant with a very peculiar and experience demanding reactor, sure electricity was so cheap you could just leave your heater on in the summer but the downside is much increased risk of accidents if the government appointed oversight turns out less qualified or lazy, also much higher loses , nobody really cared to increase the grid efficiency and many other things.
There are countless examples from other places like China about this.Everything from much lowered emissions standards to advance competition to higher risk and accident rates etc. I'm sure we all agree on this.

As much as you want you can't really take politics or culture out of this. The example of France does not really apply to US @russ_watters , because unlike US, France is much more homogeneous also smaller, it;s just that countries that are more or less ethnically monolithic and have more or less the same thinking can have a government run program with much more success, the key is in the unity of thought.
If US had such a unity I see no problem for why the US couldn't move on with many plans that are currently o hold.
This is the same reason for why medical plans that work for countries like Norway will never work for countries like US, a different society with different numbers and models of living.

I personally think that for US it is bet to have a sensibly regulated private energy sector where competition and advances in technology push the price and also the market direction.

All in all it's the inescapable side effect of democracy that often times fools have just as much free speech and influencing power as competent people and in matters like nuclear energy this is a important factor.

Thanks @artis for your thoughtful reply. I like your "keep between the ditches" metaphor. You are correct, driving into either ditch is hazardous.

 

[artis]

Sure @gmax137 you know as I said private owned and pushed energy sector is not bad , but one needs to keep a tight yet sensible eye on them, now this has to be the government.
A recent example , a local one, here in EU they now push for lots of renewables, one of them is cogeneration plants where you basically make a little bit of electricity and lots of heat from burning wood chips.
EU gave out lots of orders and subsidies for these plants, many sure got built and operate correctly but some guys built one and also operated it but guess what? They just put their lil bit of electricity into the grid while dumping the heat on large heat exchangers in the atmosphere. Why?
Heres why. Eu pays a double tariff to any renewable electricity producer, so the small hydro gets it, wind gets it and solar and also cogeneration. Now the problem is where do you put the heat in the summer and other periods when one doesn't need so much , well normally environmentally you would decrease your output, but money wise you just roll full on nonstop and go to the bank and get your paycheck.
These guys made millions before they got shut down and now they are in the midst of a trial.

The funny thing is that one local guy went to walk with his dog and he noticed hot air rising in summer from the heat exchangers , no smoke no nothing. Being a wise guy most likely he sensed something is not right, he called the local TV and just blew the lid right off these guys.Moral of the story?
Very few people do anything for a noble cause or a higher goal, like environment or God or the peace on earth. Most people just want to live as good as they can and get rich.
I think that the real art in a good capitalist system is to build a good separator with sensible regulation and oversight so that one can let the geniuses and engineers and honest business folks make life better while putting money seeking scumbags behind bars.This is rather long but truth be told I see only 3 options (realistically) for nuclear to come back.

1) Fusion stops being 30 years away , smaller modular reactors that are safe and easy to license (50/50 chance)
2) Public suddenly starts reading actual books and come to their senses (I wouldn't bet on this one)
3) Government gets more power and just pushes reform despite NGO , think tank and "environmentalist hippie" pushback, sort of China style capitalism ( not sure this is doable in the west or necessary)

Oh yeah and the last option , we run out of other options...
Given Hydro is here to stay and renewables are pushing more into the market, I do wonder if we leave out coal and gas and oil, how much percentage wise could the renewables rise globally, because then we sum up hydro and all reneables and the part that is left empty has to be filled with a green and sustainable source of energy.

 

[Astronuc]

@russ_watters listed a number of facts, and not surprisingly, some have changed in the past 17 years (for example, natural gas does not appear in Post#1; nobody is building oil-fired power units, and coal no longer produces 50% of US MW-hrs). But, with a few corrections that post could have been written today. Little of substance has changed. => "politics"

A useful reference - https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

Politics is a significant factor (from the policy side as well as regulatory side), but so is economics. The 1990s saw the consolidation of utilities in parallel with a move to deregulate the electrical utility industry, and the trend continued during the 2000s. Some utilities sold their nuclear plants, while some bigger utilities, e.g., Exelon, bought nuclear plants. The cost of new plants accelerated with the cost of raw materials. I attended several presentations on the next generations (Gen-3+) LWRs, which were originally priced at about $1 billion (and 5 years to build), but during the early 2000s the prices appreciated to ~$5 billion, then ~$7 billion per unit!
The industry was also focused on fuel reliability (trying to achieve zero fuel failures by 2010), while addressing limits on peak fuel enthalpy during RIA events and high-temperature cladding oxidation during LOCA events (both hypothetical accident scenarios, but key parts of plant licensing), control blade interference with BWR channels, plant uprates (some plants increasing power by up to 20% of original licensing levels), and plant life-extensions (going from 40 years to 60 years, and looking down the road to 80 years). Unresolved challenges included a lack of final disposition of spent fuel in the US (Yucca mountain perennially in limbo) and development of cheap natural gas power plants that could be quickly built (couple of years) as opposed to at least 5 years (optimistic) for a nuclear plant.

For two units, Vogtle 3 and 4, "On August 26, 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. Limited construction at the new reactor sites began, with Unit 3 then expected to be operational in 2016, followed by Unit 4 in 2017, pending final issuance of the Combined Construction and Operating License by the NRC." The units are now nearing completion (2021 and 2022), which would put them at about 12 and 13 years for construction (from ground breaking), or 8 and 9 years since the basemats were poured in March and November 2013, respectively. The expected building cost for the two reactors is estimated at about $14 billion.

https://www.powermag.com/westinghouse-shaw-to-break-ground-on-georgia-nuclear-units-3-and-4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34172

Gas-fired plants (using aero-derivative gas turbines), particularly in combined cycle plants have become prolific/ubiquitous along with cheap natural gas from fracking. But some older gas-fired plants have problems, too.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-plant-closes-down-as-renewables-get-cheaper/

The sad thing about some of the German PWRs is that they are among the most thermally efficient (>35%, and approaching 37%) NPPs (e.g., Pre-Konvoi NPPs: Grafenrheinfeld, Grohnde and Brokdorf) ever constructed.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=107
Some of the plants did load-following, and some were pretty aggressive.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf
Some old history - https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/307038

I've had the privilege of working with most of the German, as well as other European, nuclear utilities, most Japanese nuclear utilities and Taipower, not to mention most US nuclear utilities. Most of the folks with whom I have worked are deceased, retired, or moved into other areas in the industry (e.g., energy trading, electrical cars and charging systems, renewable energy, . . . ).

Advanced NPP concepts, i.e., Gen-IV and others, are another story.

 

[Astronuc]

Advanced reactor projects teams receive US federal risk reduction funding
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Advanced-reactor-projects-teams-receive-US-federal
17 December 2020

The five projects chosen through a funding opportunity announcement issued in May to receive the cost-shared awards are: the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor, a transportable microreactor using TRISO fuel for use in off-grid applications and remote areas; Westinghouse's eVinci Microreactor, a transportable heat pipe-cooled microreactor also using TRISO fuel; the Hermes Reduced-Scale Test Reactor, a scaled-down version of Kairos Power's fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor (KP-FHR); the Holtec SMR-160 light-water small modular reactor; and the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment, a project led by Southern Company Services Inc to build and operate a small reactor experiment based on TerraPower's molten chloride fast reactor technology.

Somewhat related - https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

 

[artis]

@Astronuc I read about these plant life extensions elsewhere also, is that because with time and testing they noticed that the reactors vessels (in BWR and PWR ) case don't degrade as fast as once thought?

I read that Russians are also extending their VVER reactor lifetimes but I don't think that they have changed the reactor vessels in any of those cases so assuming the original vessels.
I also read of certain RBMK reactor life extensions but here I'm not sure whether they haven't changed parts of the core since RBMK being a channel reactor can undergo change in certain parts of the core or maybe evne the full core, which IIRC was done at Leningrad NPP. But maybe you can correct me @Astronuc

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc I read about these plant life extensions elsewhere also, is that because with time and testing they noticed that the reactors vessels (in BWR and PWR ) case don't degrade as fast as once thought?

Starting in the 1980s, utilities began implementing low leakage core patterns in which high burnup assemblies were loaded on the periphery of the core. In the 1990s, some utilities started loading specially designed assemblies in which some fuel rods were replaced with stainless steel rods or Hf-absorber rods. These assemblies were asymmetrically designed with two or more rows of stainless steel or Hf-absorber rods on one side or face of the assembly, which would sit adjacent to the core barrel or baffle. The goal has been to reduce the fast flux, which integrated over time is fast fluence. That approach has been largely successful. However, some older plants have shutdown, some before reaching 40 years.

In addition to radiation effects (from fast neutrons and gammas), there are concerns about thermal aging effects. Embrittlement data are constantly reviewed and curves revised with respect to embrittlement of pressure vessels and core internals.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads...sel-task-light-water-reactor-sustainability-0

EU has a separate program from the US - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa....JRC46534/eur23449 - ames 19 - anneal-2008.pdf

I read that Russians are also extending their VVER reactor lifetimes but I don't think that they have changed the reactor vessels in any of those cases so assuming the original vessels.
I also read of certain RBMK reactor life extensions but here I'm not sure whether they haven't changed parts of the core since RBMK being a channel reactor can undergo change in certain parts of the core or maybe evne the full core, which IIRC was done at Leningrad NPP. But maybe you can correct me @Astronuc

I'm more familiar with VVER than RBMK. I know the Russians have employed pressure vessel annealing, which has been considered in the US. As far as I know, VVERs operators have adopted similar approaches to the US and EU, and in some cases, they have employed 'dummy' assemblies.

https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereactor-dosimetry-for-vvers-past-and-future/
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/39/050/39050622.pdf

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/ne...ogy-to-extend-the-life-of-a-vver-1000-6876259
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newskey-life-extension-equipment-delivered-to-armenian-npp-8121357

https://nucet.pensoft.net/article/46380/
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rosatom-launches-annealing-technology-for-VVER-100

 

[Astronuc]

AIP Conference Proceedings - ADVANCING OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENERGY FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Proceedings of the Nuclear Science, Technology, and Engineering Conference 2014 (NuSTEC2014)
https://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1659/1

An interesting paper
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916849
and another on SMRs
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4916841

 

[Astronuc]

For those interested in magnetic-confinement-based fusion:
http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/accueil/index.htm

 

[bhobba]

For those interested in magnetic-confinement-based fusion:
http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/accueil/index.htm

If we can bring it off it will be a game changer all right. Yet, of my acquaintances, most do not even know the difference between fusion and fission - all nuclear bad. Those acquaintances of course do not include those that post here.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

Plasma Science
Enabling Technology, Sustainability, Security, and Exploration (2020)
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25802/p...ology-sustainability-security-and-exploration

 

[Imager]

A useful reference - https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

The flowchart shows 67.5 Rejected Energy. My google search says, "Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel — such as gas or petrol — that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport. However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels, a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment...".

Are we really just 33% efficient?

 

[Dale]

Are we really just 33% efficient?

Yes, that is about right.

 

[russ_watters]

The flowchart shows 67.5 Rejected Energy. My google search says, "Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel — such as gas or petrol — that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport. However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels, a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment...".

Are we really just 33% efficient?

I thought that sounded confusing, so Google gives me the full quote:

Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel – such as gas or petrol – that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport. However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment, which is totally useless. For a coal fired power station, for instance, about 2/3 of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapour coming off a power-station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England.

Rejected energy is energy that isn't used for a purposeful activity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it "could be". Some can, some can't. So, some gets rejected because it is impossible to recover/re-use and some gets rejected because it is difficult to recover/re-use.

 

[gmax137]

A large modern natural gas burning plant can have a heat rate of 7500 Btu/Kw hr (that puts it near 45% thermodynamic efficiency). Very good, but it is a large stationary machine built to minimize operating cost.

Compare it to say a family car, which is built for mobility, performance, and low cost -- their thermo efficiency is probably in the 20-25% range.

 

[BWV]

Assuming transmission losses are also in that number -

http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/...electricity may,are high, around four percent.

 

[anorlunda]

Rejected energy is energy that isn't used for a purposeful activity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it "could be". Some can, some can't. So, some gets rejected because it is impossible to recover/re-use and some gets rejected because it is difficult to recover/re-use.

That's right. I once live in Västerås Sweden. Heat rejected in the power plant's condenser (plus some steam extracted at the reheat stage) warmed water from the lake. The warmed water provided heat and hot water for the homes in the city, then it melted snow on the streets, sidewalks, and bike paths, then was dumped back into the lake where it kept the harbor ice-free. That was a remarkable degree of heat recovery, but I don't know the actual efficiency.

The only disadvantage that I saw was that the home heating had a 72 hour time constant. When the weather shifted rapidly, it took 3 days for the home heating to catch up. Homeowners were not permitted any DIY adjustments to the heat flow.

Here in the USA, we call that cogeneration.

A large modern natural gas burning plant can have a heat rate of 7500 Btu/Kw hr (that puts it near 45% thermodynamic efficiency).

Modern combined cycle (steam turbine and gas turbine) power plants can achieve 62%.

 

[Astronuc]

The ORNL Fusion Materials Program
https://www.ornl.gov/division/mstd/program/fusion-materials

The ORNL Fusion Materials Program is embedded in the Nuclear Materials Science and Technology (NMST) group of the Materials Science and Technology Division, also drawing support from other groups in MSTD. The core of the Fusion Materials program is a team of scientists, engineers, and technicians who specialize in materials science and technology for nuclear applications. The research expertise of the group spans the development of novel materials, evaluation of the property changes and physical processes of radiation effects, to computational modeling and extrapolation of materials behavior in fusion energy systems. The current material systems in the Fusion Materials Program portfolio include conventional and advanced steels, nonferrous metals and alloys, ceramics and ceramic composites, and materials for magnets, plasma control and diagnostic systems.

Materials explored in the fusion materials research program have application in other nuclear systems, particularly fast spectrum systems.

 

[Astronuc]

Indian Point 3 will be shutting down permanently on April 30, 2021, after 45.5 years. IP3 received its operating license on December 12, 1975. (Source: US NRC)

https://poughkeepsiejournal-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=0392b72fe_1345d1e
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-power-plant-closing.html

There are currently 94 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States (63 PWRs and 31 BWRs), which generate about 20% of our nation's electrical use. When IP3 shuts down, there will be 93 reactors (62 PWRs, 31 BWRs) operating.

 

[anorlunda]

Indian Point 3 will be shutting down permanently on April 30, 2021

Ouch. That could cause a headache for NY's power grid. Over the years, very many proposals to bring power to NYC from upstate NY were shot down. A lot of power comes down the Hudson valley, and Indian Point's location at the southern end of that valley made it key in stabilizing the grid.

Most recently, there were two attempts to bring HVDC Canadian power underwater (down Lake Champlain, to the Champlain Canal, to the Hudson River, to Manhattan.) Both died on the vine. NYC has lots of restrictions on what can be generated inside the city limits plus restrictions on what can be brought in from outside city limits.

Of course, things may have changed since I retired, but I'll wager that the best thing to do to compensate for this shutdown is to replace it with a new power plant at the same Indian Point location.

 

[Astronuc]

Ouch. That could cause a headache for NY's power grid. Over the years, very many proposals to bring power to NYC from upstate NY were shot down. A lot of power comes down the Hudson valley, and Indian Point's location at the southern end of that valley made it key in stabilizing the grid.

The loss of Indian Point Unit 2 has been replaced by a combined-cycle gas-fired plant.
https://www.power-eng.com/gas/1100-mw-cricket-valley-ccgt-plant-starts-operations-in-ny/

It has been very controversial.

There are a couple of upgrades on the grid (two HV transmission lines) to address the bottlenecks in southern NY.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently Duane Arnold BWR has been defueled for permanent shutdown as of Aug 10, 2020. This is very disappointing. In 2010, it's operating license had been extended to 2034. It started operating the year before IP3.

Location: Palo, IA (8 miles NW of Cedar Rapids, IA) in Region III
Operator: NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC
Operating License: Issued - 02/22/1974
Renewed License: Issued - 12/16/2010
License Expires: 02/21/2034
Docket Number: 05000331

Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor
Licensed MWt: 1,912
Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4
Containment Type: Wet, Mark I

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2024/ML20240A067.pdf

The Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC, Figure 1)—a 615-MWe nuclear power plant located in Palo, Iowa—will reportedly not restart after high winds caused extensive damage to the station’s cooling towers.
https://www.powermag.com/derecho-da...tirement-of-duane-arnold-nuclear-power-plant/

A lot of effort (time and money) goes into developing and submitting a case for license renewal.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operat.../applications/duane-arnold-energy-center.html

 

[AndrewAndrew]

I for one am greatly for the use of nuclear plants. As it does release radiation, it is a very small amount. The amount of radiation from eating bananas in a year is 100x more radiation than what someone would receive living less than 50 miles from an active nuclear plant.

Along with that the dangers of a plant are very small when you really take into consideration how long plants have been active and that there is 440 some reactors in the world. As you mentioned, yes, nuclear plants do set radiation out and due to the vastly diverse locations the radiation does affect most people, the amount of radiation that people get just from the background sources such as the natural levels and cosmic rays makes up half of the radiation they receive in a year and almost 30,000x the amount of radiation that one receives from the nuclear plants.

I do understand your concern but I think that the efficiency and benefits outweigh the risks taking into account that the Chernobyl accident was also caused by misinformed employees.

 

[russ_watters]

I for one am greatly for the use of nuclear plants. As it does release radiation, it is a very small amount. The amount of radiation from eating bananas in a year is 100x more radiation than what someone would receive living less than 50 miles from an active nuclear plant.

Along with that the dangers of a plant are very small when you really take into consideration how long plants have been active and that there is 440 some reactors in the world. As you mentioned, yes, nuclear plants do set radiation out and due to the vastly diverse locations the radiation does affect most people, the amount of radiation that people get just from the background sources such as the natural levels and cosmic rays makes up half of the radiation they receive in a year and almost 30,000x the amount of radiation that one receives from the nuclear plants.

I do understand your concern but I think that the efficiency and benefits outweigh the risks taking into account that the Chernobyl accident was also caused by misinformed employees.

Welcome to PF!

It appears you are responding to a specific person, but didn't say who. Note, this is a very long and old thread.

 

[Astronuc]

Swedish utilities urge decision on final disposal of waste
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Swedish-utilities-urge-decision-on-final-disposal

Ringhals AB and Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB each issued an Urgent Market Message (UUM) to the Nord Pool power exchange yesterday morning about the potential risk of Ringhals units 3 and 4 and Forsmark units 1, 2 and 3 being unable to restart following scheduled outages - in 2024 (F2), 2025 (R3-4, F3), and 2028 (F1) - because of a lack of storage space for used nuclear fuel.

"The Swedish management model for used nuclear fuel hinges on us being able to send the used fuel for intermediate storage as soon as it is possible to do so," Björn Linde, the CEO of Ringhals AB and Forsmark Kraftgrupp, told World Nuclear News.

In the US, the DOE is supposed to take the fuel and place it in a final repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is a United States federal law which established a comprehensive national program for the safe, permanent disposal of highly radioactive wastes. Well that hasn't happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Yucca_Mountain

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7278.pdf

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/media/nwpa_2004.pdf

As a result, utilities have had to placed spent/used fuel into dry storage on-site as they fill the spent fuel pools, and they had to sue the federal government (DOE) in order to recover the costs associated with the procurement of dry storage casks and supporting infrastructure.

 

[Astronuc]

Dominion Energy's Surry units receive operating license extensions from 60 to 80 years!
https://www.virginiabusiness.com/ar...ear-power-plant-licenses-extended-to-2052-53/

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended Dominion Energy's operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 at its Surry nuclear power plant in Virginia until 2052 and 2053, respectively. A previous license extension granted in 2003 allowed the two reactors to operate until 2032 and 2033.

Edit/update:
From WNN: The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved an application by Dominion Energy's Virginia subsidiary for a 20-year extension to the operating licences of the twin-unit Surry nuclear power plant. This will enable the two 838 MWe pressurised water reactors to operate until 2052 and 2053, respectively. Surry is the third nuclear power station to receive a subsequent license renewal from 60 to 80 years from the NRC, following Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point units 3 and 4 and Exelon Generation's Peach Bottom units 2 and 3. The NRC is reviewing a similar application for Dominion’s two North Anna units and for NextEra’s Point Beach 1&2. Before all these, the NRC had renewed the licences for 94 reactors, taking them to 60 years of operational life.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Surry-units-cleared-for-80-year-operation

https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx

The original 40-year licences were always intended to be renewed in 20-year increments, as the 40-year period was more to do with amortisation of capital rather than implying that reactors were designed for only that operational lifespan. It was also a conservative measure, and experience since has identified life-limiting factors and addressed them. The NRC is now considering applications for the extension of operating licences beyond 60 out to 80 years, with its subsequent license renewal (SLR) programme. As of January 2021:

• Reactors approved (to 80 years): Turkey Point 3&4, Peach Bottom 2&3.
• Reactors under review: Surry 1&2, North Anna 1&2, Point Beach 1&2.
• Reactors expected to apply: Oconee 1, 2&3, Brunswick 1&2, Catawba 1&2, H.B. Robinson, Harris, McGuire 1&2.

 

[Astronuc]

"The Swedish management model for used nuclear fuel hinges on us being able to send the used fuel for intermediate storage as soon as it is possible to do so," Björn Linde, the CEO of Ringhals AB and Forsmark Kraftgrupp, told World Nuclear News.

07 May 2021 (WNN) - Work starts on first disposal tunnel at Finnish repository
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/First-disposal-tunnel-under-construction-at-Finnis

Excavation of the first final disposal tunnel has started at the Onkalo underground used nuclear fuel repository near Olkiluoto, Finnish radioactive waste management company Posiva Oy announced today. The repository - the first in the world for used fuel - is expected to begin operations in the mid-2020s.

Hint. Hint!

 

[Astronuc]

I missed some news in April, so I'm catching up.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/DOE-project-supports-microreactor-deployment

21 April 2021 - The US Department of Energy (DOE) is planning to build a microreactor to help researchers and end-users understand how microreactors can integrate with other technologies. The Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) liquid-metal cooled microreactor could be operational within three years.

The MARVEL design is primarily based on existing technology and will be built using off-the-shelf components allowing for faster construction, DOE has said. It will encompass a 100 kW thermal fission reactor, based on the SNAP-10A design which was developed in the 1960s as a 45 kWt thermal nuclear fission reactor for use in space missions. The sodium-cooled reactor, with natural circulation cooling, will have an operating temperature of 500-550°C and will be fuelled by high-assay low-enriched uranium from available research materials. It will use Stirling engines to transfer energy from the core to make electricity.

The focus on Stirling engines is interesting. The article does not discuss the expected electrical output, although an article published through ANS suggests 20 kWe, which is confirmed by the INL presentation below (gehinj-w15-hv.pdf). The temperature range would be useful for research on materials for some of the Gen-IV reactors. The power level (100 kWt) is rather low. In contrast, the Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR) materials test reactor has a thermal output of 100 MW.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-25...emonstrate-remote-operation-on-a-micro-scale/
https://ric.nrc.gov/docs/abstracts/gehinj-w15-hv.pdf
http://www-rjh.cea.fr/general-description.html

But then again, MARVEL is a 'micro-reactor'.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/new-marvel-project-aims-supercharge-microreactor-deployment

01 April 2021 - Scientists at the US Department of Energy's (DOE) DIII-D National Fusion Facility have released a new concept for a compact fusion reactor design they say can help define the technology necessary for commercial fusion power. The Compact Advanced Tokamak (CAT) concept enables a higher-performance, self-sustaining configuration that holds energy more efficiently, allowing it to be built at a reduced scale and cost.

The CAT concept is described in an article published on 19 March in the journal Nuclear Fusion, and was developed from first-of-a-kind reactor simulations. The physics-based approach combines theory developed at the General Atomics (GA)-operated DIII-D facility with computing by Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists using the Cori supercomputer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and is based on development and testing of the underlying physics concepts on DIII-D.

Nuclear Fusion article - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/abe4af

09 April 2021 - TAE Technologies, the California, USA-based fusion energy technology company, has announced that its proprietary beam-driven field-reversed configuration (FRC) plasma generator has produced stable plasma at over 50 million degrees Celsius. The milestone has helped the company raise USD280 million in additional funding.

Norman - TAE's USD150 million National Laboratory-scale device named after company founder, the late Norman Rostoker - was unveiled in May 2017 and reached first plasma in June of that year. The device achieved the latest milestone as part of a "well-choreographed sequence of campaigns" consisting of over 25,000 fully-integrated fusion reactor core experiments. These experiments were optimised with the most advanced computing processes available, including machine learning from an ongoing collaboration with Google (which produced the Optometrist Algorithm) and processing power from the US Department of Energy's INCITE programme that leverages exascale-level computing.

TAE said Norman nearly doubled its intended goals over an 18-month testing regime and has now demonstrated consistent performance of reaching 50+ million degrees Celsius, replicated over many hundreds of testing cycles - all in a compact machine that has very attractive economics when scaled up to a full power plant. With this most recent milestone, TAE has now unlocked the 'hot enough' conditions needed to scale to a reactor level performance.

TAE's approach to fusion combines advanced accelerator and plasma physics, and uses abundant, non-radioactive hydrogenboron (p-B11) as a fuel source.

If they can get the p-B11 cycle working, that would be a game changer!

Some of the capital will be used to begin development of a demonstration facility, called Copernicus, that will operate well in excess of 100 million degrees Celsius to simulate net energy production from the conventional Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) fuel cycle. Copernicus will provide opportunities for TAE to license its technology for D-T fusion, while scaling to its ultimate goal utilising p-B11.

 

[Dale]

The article does not discuss the expected electrical output, although an article published through ANS suggests 20 kWe, which is confirmed by the INL presentation below (gehinj-w15-hv.pdf).

I can’t see the legal/regulatory issues ever making a 20 kW nuclear power plant viable

 

[Astronuc]

I can’t see the legal/regulatory issues ever making a 20 kW nuclear power plant viable

The 100 kWt (20 kWe) is a demonstration module. I would expect micro-reactors to be larger, and perhaps be used to district heating, as well as electricity. I don't know how such a plant would be scaled up with Stirling engines. An efficiency of 20% is rather poor.

It may be more of economics as it relates to design to meet legal/regulatory (safety) requirements.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2004/ML20044E249.pdf (February 5, 2020)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is working to have an effective and efficient mission readiness for reactors that differ considerably from those currently licensed. Micro-reactors, that is, reactors that have a thermal power of no more than tens of megawatts, are one class of these advanced reactors. This report is to articulate the technical and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed for NRC to have the ability to review licensing applications for micro-reactors. Many of the issues center around the fact that a) these reactors may be operated remotely and/or semi-autonomously and b) it will be difficult to analyze risk from new, unique, technologies. Initial thoughts are given on how probabilistic methods could be used to determine risk and how the current approach for reviewing non-power reactors could be useful for micro-reactors.

My bold for emphasis.

https://gain.inl.gov/MicroreactorProgramTechnicalReports/Document-INL-EXT-19-55257.pdf
Key Regulatory Issues in Nuclear Microreactor Transport and Siting, INL/EXT-19-55257, September 2019

SECY-20-0093, POLICY AND LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO MICRO-REACTORS, October 6, 2020
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2012/ML20129J985.pdf

SECY-20-0093, Enclosure 1, Technical, Licensing, and Potential Policy Issues for Micro-Reactors
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2025/ML20254A365.pdf

The NRC has to give them serious consideration, IF there are interested parties willing to put up some support. Micro-reactors have been under consideration for several years, and I understand that the intent is to provide a power source to remote locations.

Nuclear Energy Institute, "Micro-Reactor Regulatory Issues," November 13, 2019
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19319C497.pdfIF at least one of the fusion concepts is viable, especially if it based on the aneutronic p-B11 reaction, then a lot of current nuclear technology could be short-lived. Then again, an industry devoted to p-B11, will be highly dependent on available B11.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/boron-statistics-and-information

According to Statista, "As of 2020, Turkey had the largest reserves of boron globally. Turkey has an estimated 1.1 billion metric tons of boron in reserves. The United States and Russia shared the second highest boron reserves with just 40 million metric tons."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264982/world-boron-reserves-by-major-countries/

Contrast the boron resources with uranium resources.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pre...seeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report

The world's conventional identified uranium resources amounted to 8 070 400 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) as of 1 January 2019. These represent all reasonably assured and inferred uranium resources that could be recovered at market prices ranging from 40 to 260 USD/KgU (equivalent to 15 to 100 USD/lb U3O8).

https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...ycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

I know of a program to extract U from seawater, among other programs.

 

[Mayhem]

Question: Could you use green energy to enrich uranium for reactor use? Sometimes wind mills will produce excess energy at night due to low consumption and high winds.

 

[russ_watters]

Question: Could you use green energy to enrich uranium for reactor use? Sometimes wind mills will produce excess energy at night due to low consumption and high winds.

You can use any electricity that's on the grid; even baseload nuclear energy that isn't easy to throttle.

 

[russ_watters]

I can’t see the legal/regulatory issues ever making a 20 kW nuclear power plant viable

The 100 kWt (20 kWe) is a demonstration module. I would expect micro-reactors to be larger, and perhaps be used to district heating, as well as electricity.

Well, I'll go a step further and/or clarify: I think modular construction has significant benefits for improving the existing large plant paradigm, but that's it. The legal/regulatory issues make site selection one of the biggest hurdles in plant construction, and building more small plants makes the problem worse, not better. The security issues and costs would be worse with small plants as well.

The benefit I see to small reactors is that it may be able to rapidly mass produce them in a factory, which could shorten construction and economic payback timelines. The "plant" would then be mostly electrical infrastructure, and once that's completed you could start lining/piling-up the modular reactors one at a time, connect and commission them and start generating power (and more importantly, income) faster.

 

[Dale]

I think modular construction has significant benefits for improving the existing large plant paradigm

That is a good point. Standardization and cross training would be easier, and site design would be simplified.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, I'll go a step further and/or clarify: I think modular construction has significant benefits for improving the existing large plant paradigm, but that's it. The legal/regulatory issues make site selection one of the biggest hurdles in plant construction, and building more small plants makes the problem worse, not better. The security issues and costs would be worse with small plants as well.

The benefit I see to small reactors is that it may be able to rapidly mass produce them in a factory, which could shorten construction and economic payback timelines. The "plant" would then be mostly electrical infrastructure, and once that's completed you could start lining/piling-up the modular reactors one at a time, connect and commission them and start generating power (and more importantly, income) faster.

Yes. According to the NuScale paradigm, there are two (or three) principal objectives.

1. Build a system that is inherently safe, such that is requires a much smaller plant site (and emergency preparedness zone).

2. Build a lower cost containment system by requiring less construction material than the typical Gen-3/3+ LWRs. In the NuScale system, it will be important to demonstrate that a failure of one unit will not propagate to the other units. I believe that has been done, but I have not kept up with developments for some years now.

3. Provide modular reactor units and get each up and running in order to being generating revenue ASAP.

4. If at all possible, build on existing sites already approved for an NPP, or on sites of existing fossil generation (e.g., retired coal plants), which would utilize existing infrastructure to connect to the grid.

For non-LWR systems, some are proposing a fuel system and reactor systems that will retain fission products in the event of a severe accident. Such a system requires demonstration, which I understand will be underway soon.

 

[Astronuc]

On the subject of modular reactors based on advanced concepts, i.e., modular Gen4 types, Ultra Safe Nuclear Co. is offering their Micro Modular Reactor (MMR™) system to deliver safe, clean, and cost-effective electricity and heat to remote mines, industry, and communities. Canada is interested for power at remote sites which have high costs associated with fuel delivery for local generation plants (often using diesel generation).
https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/

USNC states, "The buried reactor core consists of hexagonal graphite blocks containing stacks of Ultra Safe’s FCM™ fuel pellets. The MMR™ reactor core has a low power density and a high heat capacity resulting in very slow and predictable temperature changes."
https://usnc.com/fcm-fuel/

USNC also has a space reactor program for nuclear propulsion, and power systems for Lunar and Mars bases.
https://usnc.com/space

My guess is that General Atomics (GA) or BWXT would be involved in the fuel manufacture.

 

[etudiant]

Although the economic benefits of a small reactor appear compelling, the regulators are certainly also conscious that suicide squads are now an established aspect of terrorism.
It will be a challenge to design an effective and yet terrorism resistant SMR.

 

[Astronuc]

Although the economic benefits of a small reactor appear compelling, the regulators are certainly also conscious that suicide squads are now an established aspect of terrorism.
It will be a challenge to design an effective and yet terrorism resistant SMR.

The original designs for containment assumed that the US would never be attacked so that the plants would never experience an artillery barrage or bombing by air. Of course, all that change on September 11, 2001.

It is relatively simple to design an appropriate reinforced structure. The details are plant specific and are not disclosed publicly under Safeguards regulations.

 

[Astronuc]

Some recent work involved technology developed in the 1950s-1970s.

Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Astronuclear_Laboratory

GE had a similar unit, but I can't find the details at the moment. A fellow graduate student took a job their briefly, about 1 year, but left when work stopped due to cancellation of the program.

A little bit of trivia, "The idea for Ansys was first conceived by John Swanson while working at the Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory in the 1960s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansys#Origins

 

[artis]

@Astronuc I find it hard to believe that the US did not plan for a possible critical infrastructure attack prior to 9/11?

I mean unlike the jihadists the USSR had all kinds of missiles including ICBM's with thermonuclear warheads and I think I can bet my money that at least a dozen were aimed at the largest nuke generating plants.
Well surely no containment could withstand a thermonuke warhead but it should at least withstand a conventional missile with explosives ?
I guess it depends on the type of missile used.

 

[russ_watters]

@Astronuc I find it hard to believe that the US did not plan for a possible critical infrastructure attack prior to 9/11?

There was this:
https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test

Well surely no containment could withstand a thermonuke warhead but it should at least withstand a conventional missile with explosives ?
I guess it depends on the type of missile used.

Yeah, protection doesn't need to be absolute, just enough that the attack has to be more extreme than the damage. I live just a few miles from a nuclear plant and if someone blows it up with a nuclear bomb, it won't be fallout from the plant's fuel that kills me.

More likely a state actor attack would go after the electrical distribution, which is unprotected. Different goals.

 

[gmax137]

it should at least withstand a conventional missile with explosives ?

Why? Why should the nuclear containment be built to a different standard than any other structure? Say Hoover Dam? or The Astrodome? The NY Stock Exchange?

I'm not denying that a military attack on nuclear power plant could make quite a mess. But so could an attack on any number of other targets. And the containment buildings are already among the most robust of targets, short of underground bunkers like Mt Weather.

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc I find it hard to believe that the US did not plan for a possible critical infrastructure attack prior to 9/11?

They did, but not with a large commercial aircraft. Other, more conventional attacks were considered, and protections were in place. I witnessed these in person.

I mean unlike the jihadists the USSR had all kinds of missiles including ICBM's with thermonuclear warheads and I think I can bet my money that at least a dozen were aimed at the largest nuke generating plants.
Well surely no containment could withstand a thermonuke warhead but it should at least withstand a conventional missile with explosives ?

In most cases, a typical PWR containment would. Fukushima demonstrated some shortcomings in the older containment systems for BWRs. More modern containment systems are more like PWR containment systems.

I guess it depends on the type of missile used.

Of course.

There was this:
https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test

Aircraft are mostly light aluminum alloys with some steel and nickel-bearing alloys. The main concern is the spindle from the aircraft engines. However, that has now been considered. New methodologies and design tools have been put in place, and new plants are even more robust than existing plants.

Outside of containment, the concern would be loss of offsite power (LOOP) and loss of heat sink. That is now considered, and to some extent has been demonstrated with some recent natural disasters.

 

[Astronuc]

Just some historical material, a bibliography of LITERATURE ON LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LWR) FUEL AND ABSORBER ROD FABRICATION 1960 - 1976. I believe NSA is Nuclear Science Abstracts.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7290655

I remember when some of this stuff was relatively new, and I know and have worked with a number of authors.

 

[Astronuc]

Hopefully, lessons learned.

The US Army tried mobile nuclear power at remote bases 60 years ago, and it didn't go well
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-07-army-mobile-nuclear-power-remote.html

We have learned a lot in 60+ years.

The military boasted that the nuclear reactor there, known as the PM-2A, needed just 44 pounds of uranium to replace a million or more gallons of diesel fuel.

The PM-2A was the third child in a family of eight Army reactors, several of them experiments in portable nuclear power.

AEC, October 1968 - POWER REACTORS IN SMALL PACKAGES
https://www.osti.gov/includes/openn...Atom/Power Reactors in Small Packages V.2.pdf

 

[Vanadium 50]

The US Army tried mobile nuclear power at remote bases 60 years ago, and it didn't go well

It did not.

On the other hand, the Navy's NR-1, with a reactor the same scale, did.

 

[anorlunda]

It did not.

On the other hand, the Navy's NR-1, with a reactor the same scale, did.

Thanks for the lead. I never heard of NR-1 before. An internet search did not turn up much about the design. It is probably classified. But I did find this. This and other references hint that it was a scaled down version of the reactors used on submarine warships -- that's where Knolls' expertise was.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/nr-1.htm
The preliminary design study Rickover assigned to Knolls. By January 1965 the Schenectady laboratory had determined that a small pressurized-water-reactor propulsion plant was feasible. To no one's surprise, the study showed that the nuclear research submarine would be larger than non-nuclear research submersibles. The reactor compartment had to be a certain size to provide for space and shielding to reduce radiation levels. Shielding posed a special problem; it was not only heavy, but its weight was concentrated in a small area.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is also worth mentioning that the NR-1 reactor design was 10-15 years after the Army small reactor design. And of course, land is not sea.