The Nuclear Power Thread

[russ_watters]

Interesting. Why do you think that?

I think it will be expensive.

 

[Dale]

I think it will be expensive.

I don’t know for sure the arguments on the other side, but I think that the idea is that your fixed costs will indeed be high but your variable costs will be low.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting. Why do you think that?

I'm not answering for Russ, but with respect to "To me it seems more likely at this point that even if fusion can be made to work it will still be a bust," 1) one would have to define what "to work" means, and 2) even if it made to work, there is the matter of the supply chain infrastructure.

Unless "made to work" means beyond a marginal net energy generation, the process may be uneconomical, and in the case of point 2), the fuel supply (copious quantities of deuterium and/or tritium) may render the process uneconomical. I can't find the price for D₂ gas, which is probably more than $1000/kg, and T₂ is considerably more expensive.

Pricing from one supplier, a 10 or 25 l, would cost about $158K/kg for 10L to $134 K/kg for 25 L. Buying in bulk, e.g., railroad tank car, would be considerably less expensive. Pricing such fuels for fusion systems will attract attention.

Edit/update: I corrected the first work in the second paragraph from 'If' to 'Unless'. A marginal gain in net energy over input would most likely uneconomical.

 

[russ_watters]

I don’t know for sure the arguments on the other side, but I think that the idea is that your fixed costs will indeed be high but your variable costs will be low.

Sure. And for fission, hydro, solar and wind too. The question is, how high?

Fusion is really difficult to make work. Difficult typically means expensive. And over the past 50 years we've found out it is more difficult than expected. More difficult typically means more expensive.

A secondary issue is that fusion will not play a role in the upcoming climate change fight unless we lose. If we win the climate change fight, fusion will be an additional energy transition that no longer has an urgent need. If we lose, and fusion becomes viable then, then fusion I will be an awesome, transformative technology that arrived too late to save New York.

 

[gmax137]

I don't recall ever seeing a full-plant design concept. I mean aside from the particle physics and magnets. How do you get the heat out? Do you boil water and use a Rankine steam plant to turn the generator?

Unlike a fission plant, it seems to me you wouldn't need the containment, or all of the core-flooding and decay heat removing safety systems (and their supporting systems, emergency diesels, safety grade ultimate heat sink, redundant controls, on and on). Not only avoiding those construction costs, but also the monthly surveillance testing on all that stuff throughout the plant life.

With no fissionable materials on site, you don't need a huge security staff.

I can't find the price for D2 gas, which is probably more than $100/kg, and T2 is considerably more expensive.

What does that translate into in $/MW-hr? And how much energy does it take to create the "fuel grade" D2?

 

[bhobba]

So can you explain what this "vast reward" is and on what basis you are so confident in it?

The fuel is virtually limitless here on earth, with little or no pollution.

But I take your point. Engineers, economists, actuaries etc., would need to do a detailed cost-benefit study comparing it to other energy sources available when and if it eventually happens. So a better way of expressing it would be that many people think it can be a transformative technology.

On second thought, it is good you raised it. I am critical of aspirations like carbon neutral by 2030 without a detailed cost-benefit analysis. Only in that way can an informed decision be made by the citizens in a democracy. Further comment would be political. All I will say is I have seen elections lost here in Aus because politicians did not do that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

I don't recall ever seeing a full-plant design concept. I mean aside from the particle physics and magnets. How do you get the heat out? Do you boil water and use a Rankine steam plant to turn the generator?

Well it hasn't been invented yet, but there are some speculative schematics out there about how it might work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Technical_considerations

Ultimately, yes, it'll spin steam turbines.

Unlike a fission plant, it seems to me you wouldn't need the containment, or all of the core-flooding and decay heat removing safety systems (and their supporting systems, emergency diesels, safety grade ultimate heat sink, redundant controls, on and on).

It wouldn't need those systems per se, but given the exceptionally extreme, difficult to maintain conditions of the reactor, the extra systems required for fusion may be more complex than for fission. It also points to a potential for fusion power to be dangerous and unreliable.

 

[russ_watters]

The fuel is virtually limitless here on earth, with little or no pollution.

That's nice, but the same can be said for solar and wind. And, depending on your framing criteria, fission too.

But I take your point. Engineers, economists, actuaries etc., would need to do a detailed cost-benefit study comparing it to other energy sources available when and if it eventually happens. So a better way of expressing it would be that many people think it can be a transformative technology.

On second thought, it is good you raised it. I am critical of aspirations like carbon neutral by 2030 without a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

Yes, and it's really hard to accurately estimate the cost of something that hasn't been invented yet. Aspirational technologies are always championed by optimists. Sometimes they are right, often they are not.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think that the idea is that your fixed costs will indeed be high but your variable costs will be low.

That is my understanding as well. For fission power, fuel costs are a much smaller percentage of total life cycle costs, and initial capital investment is a much larger percentage, as compared with chemical fuels. This would be expected to be even more extreme in the case of fusion since the energy yield per unit mass of fuel is larger for fusion than for fission. So even if the cost per unit mass of fuel is several orders of magnitude higher than for chemical fuels, the impact of fuel costs on total life cycle cost can still be competitive. Also, fuel costs would be expected to decrease if fusion power became widespread and there was a large economic incentive to find more efficient ways of obtaining fusion fuels. (The same can be said for fission fuels, of course.)

That high initial capital investment, of course, is what has made fission power much less attractive in countries like the US, where there is a high risk of not recovering that investment for various reasons that are too long to fit into the margin of this post. But if those risks were lower, the economic case for making that high initial investment would be stronger. At least if appropriate attention is paid to the fact that the time horizon of the investment is so long--the plant would be expected to operate for many decades and the net present value of the investment would have to be assessed accordingly. One of the major risks with that is that we humans in general don't seem to be very good at properly evaluating investments with such long time horizons.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't recall ever seeing a full-plant design concept. I mean aside from the particle physics and magnets. How do you get the heat out? Do you boil water and use a Rankine steam plant to turn the generator?

Once upon a time (late 1970s, early 1980s), there was a STARFIRE commercial fusion reactor concept.

STARFIRE reference commercial tokamak fusion power reactor design​

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6187212...ommercial-tokamak-fusion-power-reactor-design

STARFIRE: a commercial tokamak fusion power plant study​

Volume I, Chapter 1-11, ANL/FPP-80-1 - https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6679109-starfire-commercial-tokamak-fusion-power-plant-study
Volume II, Chapter 12-23 and Appendices - https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6633213-starfire-commercial-tokamak-fusion-power-plant-study

From Volume I, 2.3.1 Reactor Configuration (page 46 of 875 in pdf).

The reactor delivers 1200 MWe to the grid in addition to providing 240 MWe for recirculating power requirements. The reactor operates with a continuous plasma burn and develops 4000 MW of useful thermal power.

A lot of wishful thinking went into that.

And there is this - https://fti.neep.wisc.edu/fti.neep.wisc.edu/ncoe/timeline/mfe/US22b1.html

and more recently - https://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/uw-m...or-fusion-energy-research-at-wendelstein-7-x/

And that is just one university. There are other university programs, e.g., Princeton, MIT, . . . .

A lot has happened since then, and the funding situation for fusion research is considered volatile for any given institution. U of Wisconsin was kind of a leader until they weren't, and it was not unique to UW.
Archived site for U of Wisconsin, Fusion Technology Institute.
https://fti.neep.wisc.edu/fti.neep.wisc.edu/index.html
from: https://energy.wisc.edu/research/uw...versity-wisconsin-fusion-technology-institute

Since then, the cost of raw materials has increased. I attended separate meetings with AREVA/Framatome, GE (GEH) and Westinghouse back around 2000 during which presentations were made on their next generation (Gen-III+) LWRs. An estimated cost was about $1 billion per unity. A few years later it was about $2 billion per unit, then by the end of the decade about $5 billion to $7 billion, and that is with government guarantees and subsidies. As of about 2019/2020, "Units 1–2: $8.87 billion (1989 USD) ($16.2 billion in 2019 dollars) Units 3–4: $25 billion (estimated)", or about $12.5 billion per unit, and they are not quite finished. Similarly, the costs for the EPR in Europe, Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3, were WAY over budget. Both Westinghouse and AREVA were driven into bankruptcy (for these plants and other problems) and were restructured. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

Unlike a fission plant, it seems to me you wouldn't need the containment, or all of the core-flooding and decay heat removing safety systems (and their supporting systems, emergency diesels, safety grade ultimate heat sink, redundant controls, on and on). Not only avoiding those construction costs, but also the monthly surveillance testing on all that stuff throughout the plant life.

With no fissionable materials on site, you don't need a huge security staff.

There is no fission, unless they put a breeding blanket of ²³⁸U on the periphery. There have been fusion-fission hybrid concepts. Even without fission, one may have large quantities of tritium both as a fuel and as a product. For d+d -> t + p, roughly about 50% of the time. That has to be contained somehow. They could also breed T in blankets of Li, which requires a secured facility.

The containment building has to withstand any hypothetical accident, e.g., a magnet quench, or other fault. For example, Superconducting Magnet Explosion
https://ehs.berkeley.edu/news/superconducting-magnet-explosion

A 9.4 Tesla superconducting magnet, used for mass spectroscopy in a campus laboratory recently suffered a catastrophic failure. The incident was apparently caused by over-pressurization and failure of the liquid helium (LHe) chamber. Although there were no injuries because the incident occurred during off-hours, the potential for significant injury due to the venting of LHe into the facility was present. There was also significant damage to equipment associated with the magnet.

A magnet achieves superconductivity (zero resistance to electrical current) when it is bathed in LHe. If for some reason the magnetic coil starts to resist the electrical current, it heats up, causing an explosive expansion of the LHe. This expansion of gas is vented through a large bore vent, sealed by a membrane called a "rupture disk". This process of explosive venting is known as a "quench".

It is a concern but on a larger scale for a power reactor system.

What does that translate into in $/MW-hr? And how much energy does it take to create the "fuel grade" D2?

I think I was editing my post when you quoted. I had raised my cost estimate for D₂ to more than $1000/kg.

I'll have to do some calculations, and look into the second question. Obviously, the Canadians produce copious amounts of deuterium for the heavy water CANDU reactors.

As an undergrad and graduate student, I was keen on fusion and fast reactor technologies. Professionally, I ended up working mostly in LWR technology (fuel and core components, and materials) and some special nuclear applications.

 

[artis]

As an undergrad and graduate student, I was keen on fusion and fast reactor technologies. Professionally, I ended up working mostly in LWR technology (fuel and core components, and materials) and some special nuclear applications.

I guess it's like that old saying "if your not a socialist in your 20's you have no heart but if your not a capitalist by the time you are 30 you have no brain..."
Fusion has that dream like attraction to it much like many alternative energy ideas have, in reality I would tend to agree with what has been said here by @russ_watters and others that the high cost and complexity might mean fusion instead of being the "workhorse" of energy will be just "another horse" or "another brick in the wall".

My personal thoughts are that while the most popular Soviet derived design "tokamak" is rather simple in it's basic idea, the complexity of the auxiliary equipment needed to keep things in working order is very high.
The need for cryostats and shielding, RF heating, a giant transformer etc makes everything expensive and huge.
Not to mention the energy out VS energy in, unless you get more than twice out I fail to see how one can have a return on investment if for example you get 1.2...something out vs having to put exactly 1 back in.
Also the lifetime of the equipment is in question due to the high neutron flux. I don't know how long they estimate the tokamak to survive but I myself would think it would be shorter than the lifetime of a mature fission reactor like the PWR.

 

[green slime]

Awesome thanks to Russ_watters for articulating better than I could, some of my concerns.

 

[Astronuc]

The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has opened its new nuclear Fusion Technology Facility at the Advanced Manufacturing Park in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UKAEA-opens-new-fusion-research-centre

The Fusion Technology Facility will house a range of test rigs, including the Combined Heating and Magnetic Research Apparatus (CHIMERA) device, which is being designed and built by Jacobs and Tesla Engineering Limited. The CHIMERA test rig is said to be the only device in the world that has the ability to test prototype components in an environment that simulates the conditions inside a fusion power plant. Within the UKAEA facility, component prototypes will be subjected to a combination of high heat and magnetic field within a vacuum environment, as well as thermal cycling.

Meanwhile, Tokamak Energy of the UK announced it has demonstrated a transformative magnet protection technology that improves the commercial viability of fusion power plants, delivering higher performance than alternative magnet systems. It said results from the latest tests validate a revolutionary approach to scaling up high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets, which are highly resilient to plasma disruptions.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Tokamak-Energy-develops-new-magnet-protection-tech

 

[Astronuc]

Completion of unit 4 of the Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant in Ukraine will be accelerated by the use of major plant components in storage since the construction of new reactors at VC Summer in the USA was cancelled. The head of Energoatom toured Westinghouse warehouses to inspect the condition of the AP1000 components.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Components-for-Summer-headed-to-Ukraine

That's one way to recover some of the cost.

 

[artis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytskyi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

It seems the backbone to that station are two VVER 1000 units built back in the USSR, two more VVER blocks were intended but never finished after the dissolution of the USSR, apparently they wanted to finish the original unfinished VVER's but for some reason terminated the deal with the Russians. So I guess they are now pursuing to finish the blocks with the help of a Korean firm. What I don't understand is which type of reactor are they trying to finish there?
Given they have started VVER are they now fitting an AP1000 in that frame?
It seems so

 

[Astronuc]

Given they have started VVER are they now fitting an AP1000 in that frame?

Outside of the core, PWR components are fairly generic, except for key dimensions, e.g., main/primary piping dimensions. Otherwise, there can be some adaptation. The balance of plant is essentially agnostic with respect to the core geometry. The steam generators do not care from where the heat originates, but one would try to match the heat flux and change in enthalpy in primary and secondary systems - within reasonable tolerances.

On the other hand, the pressure vessel head, with control elements, and core internals are very specific to the core/fuel assembly designs.

 

[gmax137]

What I don't understand is which type of reactor are they trying to finish there?

From the link
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Components-for-Summer-headed-to-Ukraine

Kotin signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with Patrick Fragman, Westinghouse president and CEO, last week which foresaw the completion of Khmelnitsky 4 "using AP1000 technology." The reactor started out as a VVER design in 1987 but construction stalled at 28% completion.

I'd like to know more about this too.

 

[artis]

Well given the 4th block was only 28% completed maybe they will buy the whole AP1000 auxiliary as well as the core vessel. I understand the plant in US was canceled so everything is up for grabs including reactor vessel.
But I guess we need more information to say for sure
https://www.foronuclear.org/en/updates/news/ukraine-will-build-westinghouse-reactors/

Based on this and other sources I suspect that they will finish the 3, 4 blocks with VVER and use some AP1000 parts while then they will go and build additional reactors on the site which will then be solely AP1000 by design.

 

[Rive]

Third and fourth block 'completion' a few years ago:

source

Top view
Some more pictures here

The pictures are from the time of the previous attempt of project revival.

I would say there is nothing there yet in the fourth block other than some concrete. I won't even think about 'mixing it up' - just adjust the building and go on with a complete AP1000

The status of the third block might suggest the possibility of some tweaking, but even there it might be better to wait for some components (for completing the VVER) or cutting it back first (and then go on with AP).

The building clearly requires some 'cutting back', though...

 

[green slime]

"How close is nuclear fusion power?"

 

[Astronuc]

"How close is nuclear fusion power?"

She is correct. If I recall correctly, back when I studied fusion, we were looking for a Q ≥ 20 to have plant produce net power. The power conversion (plasma energy to useful electrical energy) part was critical.

 

[bhobba]

She is correct. If I recall correctly, back when I studied fusion, we were looking for a Q ≥ 20 to have plant produce net power. The power conversion (plasma energy to useful electrical energy) part was critical.

I saw it yesterday and thought, of course. It is easy to get carried away with the potential of fusion and 'forget' things like that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

The power conversion (plasma energy to useful electrical energy) part was critical.

The three methods for transformer the plasma (thermal) energy to electric current are:
1) traditional approach of transforming thermal (heat) energy to mechanical (e.g., steam or gas turbine) to electrical (generator)
2) induction, in which the plasma expands against the magnetic field to induce a current
3) direct energy conversion through charge separation, where the electrons flow through the load to recombine with the positive charges (H or He nuclei).

Each has it's set of technical challenges.

 

[artis]

The three methods for transformer the plasma (thermal) energy to electric current are:
1) traditional approach of transforming thermal (heat) energy to mechanical (e.g., steam or gas turbine) to electrical (generator)
2) induction, in which the plasma expands against the magnetic field to induce a current
3) direct energy conversion through charge separation, where the electrons flow through the load to recombine with the positive charges (H or He nuclei).

Each has it's set of technical challenges.

Wouldn't there also be the option for a fourth way if some of the designs were to ever gain net energy , like converting produced heat to steam/gas turbine/generator + taking the plasma exhaust in the form of hot gas and introducing that directly to a turbine.
Like if for example anyone of the fusion ramjets worked as they were researched in the decades ago I could see that this would be a design capable of producing both heat as well as exhaust gas directly from fusion plasma as it recombines back to gas.
Somewhat similar to direct energy conversion only instead of catching the still hot plasma separated charges onto electrodes one allows for it to cool to recombination and uses the hot gas phase to drive a turbine.

 

[Astronuc]

taking the plasma exhaust in the form of hot gas and introducing that directly to a turbine.

No, the plasma operates in a near vacuum, with very low atomic density (~10¹⁴ /cm³). The high pressure, due to the high temperature, is accommodated by the confining magnetic field. Allowing for 'plasma exhaust' mean loss of fuel and heat, which then has to be made up through more heat input and injecting more fuel.

For energy transport, one also needs mass and momentum flow.

 

[Astronuc]

Germans asked to keep reactors in operation
15 October 2021
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Germans-asked-to-keep-reactors-in-operation

Germany's phase-out of nuclear energy will only lead to the country missing its 2030 carbon emissions target, 25 leading foreign and German environmentalists, journalists and academics have written in an open letter to the German public. They call on German politicians to be "brave enough" to change legislation to at least postpone the shutdown of the country's reactors.

PWRs Unterweser, Brokdorf, Grohnde and Phillipsburg 2 and BWRs Gundremmingen B & C are among the most efficient NPPs (LWRs) in the world.

 

[anorlunda]

Germans asked to keep reactors in operation
15 October 2021
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Germans-asked-to-keep-reactors-in-operation

PWRs Unterweser, Brokdorf, Grohnde and Phillipsburg 2 and BWRs Gundremmingen B & C are among the most efficient NPPs (LWRs) in the world.

I recall an earlier thread where someone said that Germany was also paying money to coal plants to prevent them from shutting down and the coal companies from going out of business. But I can't find the link.

 

[Rive]

That was me I think.
link

 

[artis]

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan in March 2011, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel decided it would phase out its use of nuclear power by the end of 2022 at the latest. Prior to the accident, Germany was obtaining around one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear power.

Ehh fear, where would we be without you... better off I'd say!

 

[Astronuc]

I don't want to go offroad with my rambling here but EU is also to blame, their scare from nuclear began even before Fukushima. Back in the early 2000, they literally pushed Lithuania to abandon their two Ignalina 1500MWe reactors which were operational and had years to go.
That was part of their deal with joining the EU, closing the two RBMK 1500 blocks. The simple reasoning was something like this - they were afraid of anything Russian and Chernobyl related, a very unscientific stance.
Even though the RBMK's after Chernobyl were retrofitted and monitored more closely than a top security federal prison. The Lithuanian reactors were operating without flaws, they were good to go.
When they operated they provided some 98% of all energy for that country, they were the greenest on planet topping France. My country was second after neighboring Lithuania but only thanks to our huge reliance on Hydro.

The effort to shutdown RBMKs and VVER-440s began mid-1990s after the breakup of the Soviet Union and dissolution of Warsaw Pact. It was driven by US and EU policy. In the US, the DOE established the International Nuclear Safety Program (https://insp.pnnl.gov/ ), which was basically finished by around 2003/2004. DOE stopped supporting the website in 2004.

The main concern of US and EU authorities with respect to RBMKs and VVER-440s was the lack of a containment structure and the inability to contain the consequences of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) or reactivity insertion accident (RIA), i.e., a core disruptive accident. Vessel embrittlement (somewhat related to LOCA) is another concern.

Another concern with respect to the RBMK is the positive void coefficient, which was a critical factor in the Chernobyl accident. "Reactors cooled by boiling water will contain a certain amount of steam in the core. Because water is both a more efficient coolant and a more effective neutron absorber than steam, a change in the proportion of steam bubbles, or 'voids', in the coolant will result in a change in core reactivity. The ratio of these changes is termed the void coefficient of reactivity. When the void coefficient is negative, an increase in steam will lead to a decrease in reactivity."
https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx

Preparations for the construction began in 1974. Field work began four years later. Unit 1 came online in December 1983, and was closed on December 31, 2004. Unit 2 came online in August 1987 and was closed on December 31, 2009 . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignalina_Nuclear_Power_Plant

NPPs were designed for 40-year lifetimes. Many operating NPPs (mostly LWRs) have had their operating licenses extended, but some have been shutdown prematurely for a policy (including regulatory) and/or economic reasons.