The Nuclear Power Thread

[zapperzero]

Well some modern variant of the original Thorium molten salt reactor as built at Oak Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten...tional_Laboratory_Molten_Salt_Breeder_Reactor

An interesting read. Would your modern variant also include a neutron-generating core of U-235? Again, what design are we talking about, here?

I liked the references best. Here's one:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5538
It's a study on disposal issues. One of the issues discussed is that UF6 may have outgassed from the cold salts mixture. Another is a chemical method for the removal of Plutonium.

 

[mheslep]

An interesting read. Would your modern variant also include a neutron-generating core of U-235? Again, what design are we talking about, here?...

Some kind of neutron source, perhaps a fissionable material like low enriched Uranium, is needed to start a Thorium reactor. The source starts the process of breeding Thorium into U233, but once started the source is soon burned up and no longer needed.

 

[Borek]

Some kind of neutron source, perhaps a fissionable material like low enriched Uranium, is needed to start a Thorium reactor. The source starts the process of breeding Thorium into U233, but once started the source is soon burned up and no longer needed.

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?

In tons of Uranium, there is always a neutron source.

 

[Astronuc]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?

In a core of fresh fuel, as is the case in the first cycle, and usually in the second cycle, where the max burnup is low, yes one uses startup sources to provide sufficient neutrons to the detection systems.

In fresh or first cycles cores, there are primary neutron sources, e.g., PuBe, RaBe, AmBe or more commonly these days Cf(252)Be, that use (α,n) reactions, in which an alpha from Pu, Ra, Am or Cf fuses with the Be nucleus to form an excited C¹³, which then emits a neutron and becomes a C¹² nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_neutron_source

The added benefit of Cm is spontaneous fission.

After at least 3 annual cycles, or 2 18-mo or 24-mo cycles, there is sufficient TU elements, or radioisotopes of Pu, Am, Cm to have sufficient spontaneous fissions to produce the necessary neutron activity to monitor the approach to criticality.

Otherwise there is a secondary source of neutrons (Sb-Be) which uses activation of Sb-123 to produce Sb-124, which decays to Te-124, and in the process a 1.7 MeV gamma is emitted which induces photoneutron emission. The secondary source produces neutrons during the second and third cycles of a young reactor, until there is sufficient TU inventory.

In tons of Uranium, there is always a neutron source.

A core of fresh U has very little neutron activity. So a neutron source is added.

One of the objectives is to ensure that a prompt criticality (or rather prompt supercriticality) will not occur.

 

[mheslep]

Don't you need a neutron source to start uranium reactor as well? Or at least to start it in a reasonable time?

I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor. The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a high neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium into fissionable U-233.

 

[zapperzero]

I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor. The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a dense neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium into fissionable U-233.

The Oak Ridge experiment was run to test (among other things) the feasibility of a mixed U-Pu core as a neutron source for a thorium breeder reactor. I should add, perhaps, that this means the actual breeding and separation process was never tested there.

 

[zapperzero]

Indian documentary about their thorium AHWR experiment. It is being run on a mix of PuO2/ThO2 and UO2/ThO2 elements.

 

[mheslep]

In a core of fresh fuel, as is the case in the first cycle, and usually in the second cycle, where the max burnup is low, yes one uses startup sources to provide sufficient neutrons to the detection systems.

In fresh or first cycles cores, there are primary neutron sources, e.g., PuBe, RaBe, AmBe or more commonly these days Cf(252)Be, that use (α,n) reactions, in which an alpha from Pu, Ra, Am or Cf fuses with the Be nucleus to form an excited C¹³, which then emits a neutron and becomes a C¹² nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_neutron_source

The added benefit of Cm is spontaneous fission.

After at least 3 annual cycles, or 2 18-mo or 24-mo cycles, there is sufficient TU elements, or radioisotopes of Pu, Am, Cm to have sufficient spontaneous fissions to produce the necessary neutron activity to monitor the approach to criticality.

Otherwise there is a secondary source of neutrons (Sb-Be) which uses activation of Sb-123 to produce Sb-124, which decays to Te-124, and in the process a 1.7 MeV gamma is emitted which induces photoneutron emission. The secondary source produces neutrons during the second and third cycles of a young reactor, until there is sufficient TU inventory.

Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

 

[zapperzero]

Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

Where would you put your accelerator? And then? Wave it around like a flashlight?
What would you do with it after the chain reaction starts?

 

[mheslep]

Where would you put your accelerator? And then? Wave it around like a flashlight?
What would you do with it after the chain reaction starts?

Same place one would place another spontaneous fission based neutron source? These things are ion tubes and they are not necessarily large.
http://www.nsd-fusion.com/14mev.php

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc - I'm curious as to why neutron generators using fusion of D or T targets via acceleration are not considered for fission reactor startup. It seems there would be a large advantage in being able to control or stop neutron generation during installation in the reactor by the flip of switch (the accelerator voltage), likewise with transportation issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

The neutron sources induce fission in the fuel, so they have to be in the core. There are primary startup sources, and secondary sources. The primary sources are based on (alpha, Be or SF), while secondary sources are based on photoneutron reactions. When possible, operators of LWRs do 'sourceless' startups, i.e., they use the SF of transuranics isotopes in the fuel instead of non-fuel sources.

DT-based n-generators use high voltage (keV), and that's not something one wants in a reactor core. Other than control rods, which are withdrawn from the core (above in a PWR and below in a BWR), what goes into the core stays in the core during operation. Anything in-core gets irradiated with neutrons, and therefore activated.

 

[mheslep]

The neutron sources induce fission in the fuel, so they have to be in the core.

By 'in the core', do you mean contained inside the diameter of a Zirc alloy fuel rod, or simply collocated?

DT-based n-generators use high voltage (keV),

Yes.

and that's not something one wants in a reactor core.

Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation? Still it seems with the normal MeV particles hurtling around that a contained, and on/off controllable, high voltage source might almost be an afterthought.

Other than control rods, which are withdrawn from the core (above in a PWR and below in a BWR), what goes into the core stays in the core during operation. Anything in-core gets irradiated with neutrons, and therefore activated.

Of course. Likewise with the metal in the control rods. We're not talking about my lunch but a neutron generator, which at the moment are most often used (AFAICT) miles underground for well logging in oil&gas exploration.

 

[zapperzero]

Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation?

Water with ions in it. You get the picture. Isolated electrical connectors would have to be strung through holes in the RPV and left there for a year.

I can see the point in designing a new type of reactor, perhaps one that uses "spent" fuel, based on your idea. But it seems too much trouble to go through when a simple (albeit highly-radioactive) metal rod serves just as well.

 

[jim hardy]

FWiW

regarding that neutron source for reactor startup

it's for practical considerations.

Thought experiment

a "cold clean core" of uranium with no fission products doesn't make very many neutrons by its natural fission because its half life is so long.
So your instrument will only indicate a lone neutron every once in a while.

That'd be an unsafe condition in which to pull control rods, because what if in between lone neutrons you pulled the rods too far?
Next lone neutron that came along might start a runaway chain reaction that'd get away from you before you could put rods back.

So you never start up a reactor until there's enough neutrons for good indication on your neutron counter.

That may well require an external source of neutrons.
Neutron sources are not big or complex or expensive.

In our school's little swimming pool style research reactor we used a source about the size of a soda can. It contained polonium and beryllium, emitted 10^6 neutrons/sec.
It hung by a wire on a peg in one corner of the pool. (We found out nylon string doesn't do well around neutrons)
Before startup we'd move it so it dangled by core, and make sure the neutron counter responded to that. After reactor was critical we put it back to side of pool and hung it on its peg.

Now - a soda can on a wire is a whole lot simpler than a particle accelerator.

The power reactor i worked at later had , in the assemblies adjacent the startup neutron detectors, one fuel pin loaded with a neutron source instead of uranium.
but that was in the sixties... yesterday when i was young.

old jim

 

[Astronuc]

By 'in the core', do you mean contained inside the diameter of a Zirc alloy fuel rod, or simply collocated?

In the core, meaning within an assembly of which many the core is comprised.

Ah, I'm not sure why but could guess. Hydrogen or other fission product detonation? Still it seems with the normal MeV particles hurtling around that a contained, and on/off controllable, high voltage source might almost be an afterthought.

Any neutron source will induce fissions. It is necessary that the fissions be induced in the core for the reasons that jim hardy mentions.

Of course. Likewise with the metal in the control rods. We're not talking about my lunch but a neutron generator, which at the moment are most often used (AFAICT) miles underground for well logging in oil&gas exploration.

Well logging is a different activity. Activation analysis is achieved by neutrons activating surrounding material then using a gamma spectrograph to look at the characteristic gammas coming of the decay of radioisotopes.

In nuclear reactors, the objective is to induce fission in the core in order to maintain control of the core. When the current reactors were new, most had ex-core fission detectors to monitor power. Fresh core have very little neutron activity, so they require a neutron source to provide sufficient neutrons to the detectors so that operators can monitor the approach to criticality. Approach to criticality is achieved by pulling control rods in a BWR, and by boron dilution in a PWR (control rods are mostly pulled at startup).

A high voltage neutron source would be one more penetration into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). It is desirable to minimize the penetrations into the RPV.

It is also desirable to minimize hardware that will be irradiated, since at some point the hardware reaches its design/operating life and has to be discarded. Highly radioactive material is costly to dispose of in the required manner, although it could be held until it decays below a certain limit (which may not always be practical).

As jim pointed out, some neutron sources may have been placed in special fuel rods (that's news to me). I've always seen neutron sources in special inserts in PWR fuel, and ex-assembly locations in BWRs.

As for control rods, they typically reside outside the core in PWRs, and there is a design/operating lifetime, because the tips are pretty close to the active fuel, and the AIG gets some exposure. Swelling and the cracking of control rod tips is limiting, so sets of control rods will be replaced after about 15 years. In BWRs, the control rods are use in-core for reactivity control, and they tend to be replace more frequently. Discharged control rods will end up in the spent fuel pool for sometime until they are sent to a final respository.

From an economic standpoint, it is in the interest of a utility to minimize the radioactive material of which must be disposed.

 

[nikkkom]

I expect a neutron source such as described by Astronuc would also be required to 'ignite' the enriched uranium starter mix-in in a thorium reactor.

This would not classify as merely "neutron source" (meaning "a material or device which generates millions or billions neutrons/sec"), you need a full-fledged chain reaction driven neutron source - you need vastly higher fluxes in order to transmute sufficient amounts of Th-232.

The thorium reactor differs at startup from a uranium reactor in that it has no fissionable fuel at time zero, requiring a high neutron flux for some time to breed the sufficient thorium into fissionable U-233.

Exactly.

 

[nikkkom]

If you do the math, solar energy is not viable on the large-scale. No matter how amazing your photovoltaics are, there is simply not enough solar energy incident on the surface of the US to run the country without bull-dozing large swaths of land.

Insolation: ~1kW/m^2
PV efficiency: growing by the day, but let's assume conservatively that it will never exceed 10% for economically viable multi-km^2 installations.
Losses due to night / clouds / rain: 4/5, but let's assume higher losses: 9/10.

Thus, 1 m^2 can produce only 10W on average. 1 km^2 can produce 10 MW.

Mostly desert and dry US states:

Arizona: 295254 km^2
Nevada: 286367 km^2
New Mexico: 315194 km^2

Sum: 896815 km^2

If we would tile only 10% of this land with PV panels we'd generate 897 GW (on average). And then there are dry, inhospitable areas in Utah, Colorado and Texas if we would ever need more.

Total installed electricity generation capacity in the United States today is a bit above 1000 GW.

I think its crazy how some environmentalists love solar, but if it were to be implemented on a large scale would require the destruction of large amounts of wilderness.

You didn't do the math.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. ...

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.
.

The fear in Deutschland and the United States opens many doors for other countries. France can sell nuclear power generated Electricity to the European grid. Since their worker capacity to manufacture is not up to German standards, Germany can continue to be a major manufacturing country in the region and France can be an energy producer.

Ditto, in North America. Mexico could build a hundred nuclear power plants (Say fifty miles south of the border -- Taking into consideration the Americans who claim that living within fifty miles of a nuc plant greatly increases your chances to getting cancer or having autistic children or suppression of their immune systems...)

America can have relatively inexpensive electricity. Mexico could solve their balance of trade problem and all will be right with the world. Of course the United States will be increasing their national deficit, but that has never seemed to bother the Americans as they just pump Trillions and Trillions of electronic dollars into the global economic system.

 

[zapperzero]

The fear in Deutschland and the United States opens many doors for other countries.

It is ever so . The dangerous, polluting and/or manual labor intensive jobs get shipped to the second and third world.

 

[mheslep]

Insolation: ~1kW/m^2
PV efficiency: growing by the day, but let's assume conservatively that it will never exceed 10% for economically viable multi-km^2 installations.
Losses due to night / clouds / rain: 4/5, but let's assume higher losses: 9/10.

Thus, 1 m^2 can produce only 10W on average. 1 km^2 can produce 10 MW.

Nice rough analysis but a bit too conservative; I think going forward we'll see more like 40 W/m^2 electric output to the grid for area covered w/ panels. Average received W/m^2 is known, i.e measured, for flat plate south facing panels tilted at latitude:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_46.shtml, e.g.
Rome: 176
Houston: 197
Miami: 219
Los Angeles: 225
Honolulu: 248

The numbers are substantially higher for two axis tracking systems.

The industry is moving solidly towards affordable ~20% panels for Si crystalline, so in sunny places like LA we'd see ~40W/m^2 average generation out to the grid.

That power density yields an area of ~10000 sq mi to generate the maximum US electrical output of 1000 GW, or perhaps ~6000 sq mi to replace just the fossile fueled portion of the grid (given the storage issue can be resolved). Note that the required area does not have be new or otherwise useful land. By comparison:
o Total area, all US rooftops, residential and commercial: ~6000 sq mi
o One US military base in deserts of New Mexico: ~3500 sq mi
o Total area, US road system: ~17,000 sq mi20% panel:
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/cs/BlobS...tion/pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs

 

[edpell]

France can sell nuclear power generated Electricity to the European grid... Mexico could build a hundred nuclear power plants...

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy.

 

[Astronuc]

FYI - http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy.

If hydrogen were available, it would be better to put it in the form of various alkanes (e.g., methane), and perhaps ethanol. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis would be used.

 

[zapperzero]

As soon as synthetic fuels (say methanol) produced from hydrogen from high temperature nuclear reactors are cheap there are many countries in the world where this can be done. The product shipped to all nations with the money to buy.

There's a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

There's a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?

Actually hydrogen isn't attractive as transport fuel due to its low combustion heat per volume density.

Methanol being a one of so called “base chemicals” is widely produced now (~40 millions tons per annum) via the following reaction CO+2H2=>CH3OH http://www.topsoe.com/business_areas/methanol/~/media/PDF%20files/Methanol/Topsoe_large_scale_methanol_prod_paper.ashx
Process is very similar to Fischer-Tropsch process but uses another type of catalysts (e.g. Cu based instead of Fe or Co based).

Initial mix is made now via steam reforming natural gas (high temperature ~1000 deg Celsius):
CH4+H2O and may be O2 (if partial oxidation) => nCO+mH2+?Co2+?H2O (the quantity of last two depends on selectivity of catalyst)
If we need not methanol but need pure hydrogen for example for hydrocracking process or fertilizer (ammonia) manufacturing the second step of lower temperature process is carried out:
CO+H2O=>H2+CO2
And the second process produces very large quantity of carbon dioxide.
This is the most common for today’s level of technology and today’s parity of prices on electricity and hydrocarbons.
Today's annual production of ammonia exceeds 120 million tons http://www.greener-industry.org.uk/pages/ammonia/1ammoniaapq.htm
And so, if even not considering hydrocracking process also consuming a big quantity of hydrogen, annual production of hydrogen is not less than 3/17*120=21 million tons.

Thinking strategically, crude oil and gas will end in 30-50 years.
In process of an exhaustion of stocks prices inevitably will grow having exceeded the certain threshold when it becomes more favourable to make hydrogen via water electrolyze. And power source here – only nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.
Carbon source in this case will be only the coal gasification in which target reaction is: 2C+O2=>2CO
Manufacturing of liquid hydrocarbons fromcoal is a so called Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) process.
In this process we can produce hydrogen without usage of electricity as well via mentioned above “low temperature” process. But carbon dioxide pollution in this case will be much higher than in case we would use natural gas as carbon source (Gas-to-Liquid).

Note#1: Fischer-Tropsch process has been developed since 1925 in Germany and was used by Nazi for producing of motor fuel from coal in WW2 when they have only not large oil deposits in Romania. Production scale exceeded 5million metric tons per year.
Note#2: One of leaders in CTL process is a South African company SASOL who developed that when South Africa was being embargoed by UN by the reason of apartheid.

PS#1: Nuclear wastes are significant challenge. So, let's develop fusion producing no or much less wastes.
PS#2: I have a book written in late 40s in which is described in details how German chemicists prepared FT and other catalysts and how they build reactors. Now such information as a rule is an industrial secret (know-how) of such companies such as SASOL, Akzo Nobel, etc.

 

[zapperzero]

In process of an exhaustion of stocks prices inevitably will grow having exceeded the certain threshold when it becomes more favourable to make hydrogen via water electrolyze. And power source here – only nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.

This is economics, not physics, so strictly speaking out of the forum scope. However I think the mods will allow a reply:

It is not a given that fuel price will ramp upwards forever more, while maintaining or increasing transaction volume in the market.

IOW, at some very high price point, most people will trade in their cars for bycicles, or use mass transport, or do whatever else (including nothing!) because they simply cannot afford more fuel.

Now this price point may be above the profitability threshold for water electrolysis, or not.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

This is economics, not physics, so strictly speaking out of the forum scope. However I think the mods will allow a reply:

It is not a given that fuel price will ramp upwards forever more, while maintaining or increasing transaction volume in the market.

IOW, at some very high price point, most people will trade in their cars for bycicles, or use mass transport, or do whatever else (including nothing!) because they simply cannot afford more fuel.

Now this price point may be above the profitability threshold for water electrolysis, or not.

Your question what we should do with nuclear wastes also out of the forum scope.
And how you we can bycicles for moving cargo, excavation, flying, military? Armored bicycles? :)
Whether you want to refuse completely plastic?

Actually, economics adapts to any price. I am 47 and remember time when 1 barrel’s price was 7$ and now that is above 100.

And for example, according to SASOL company data threshold of expediency of "coal-to-liquid" technology usage is steady price above 80 $/barrel (at present price for power coal).
And what technology to use for solving of various problems depends on parity of prices.
Hydrogen via electrolyze or steam reforming depends on prices parity on electricity and natural gas.
What base chemicals (olefins or acetylene) as precursors to use for manufacturing of various organic chemical products also depend on parity of electricity, natural gas and crude oil. As in case of cheap electricity acetylene is more attractive for producing the same chemical.
And cheap electricity when oil and gas prices will grow can be produced only by nuclear plants.

 

[mheslep]

Your question what we should do with nuclear wastes also out of the forum scope.

No, nuclear waste discussion with some engineering context is not out of scope here ; I find it is encouraged in keeping with other forum rules.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

No, nuclear waste discussion with some engineering context is not out of scope here ; I find it is encouraged in keeping with other forum rules.

You are right in case if consider technical aspects.
But:

How much do you suppose this hydrogen would cost? Where would you get the carbon from? Where do you put the nuclear waste?

And I do not see here the technical aspects.

 

[zapperzero]

Actually, economics adapts to any price. I am 47 and remember time when 1 barrel’s price was 7$ and now that is above 100.

You should also remember,then, passenger cars using 25 liters of gas /100km, then. And oil-fired plants as a mainstay of power generation. And houses heated with heavy oil. And the crisis in the '70s when oil could not be had at ANY price because suddenly the main producers decided they would be better off (economically) keeping it in the ground.

Adaptation exists, to be sure, but it most certainly involves demand destruction.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

You should also remember,then, passenger cars using 25 liters of gas /100km, then. And oil-fired plants as a mainstay of power generation. And houses heated with heavy oil.

Passenger cars with gasoline consumption from 3 l/100km to 40l/100 km and may be more (such as Lamborghini, Mazeratti, Ferrari, etc.). But what? If quality of gasoline is acceptable and price is the same what a difference via which technology and from which feedstock that gasoline will be produced?

Who will run heavy oil power plants if we will have cheap and at the same time safe nuke?
Yes, for this we should increase standards of industrial safety on another – more higher level.
But in any case by increasing of oil prices nuke plants will become more competitive.

 

[Astronuc]

Shaw to sell Westinghouse stake back to Toshiba
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2060563
9/6/2011 5:07:00 PM

Toshiba Corporation is to increase its stake in nuclear power plant vendor Westinghouse Electric Company to 87%, by acquiring all of the shares held by The Shaw Group's subsidiary Nuclear Energy Holdings.
. . . .
Both Shaw and Westinghouse confirmed that the sale would have no impact on any of the four AP1000 nuclear power plants currently under construction in China or the six under contract in the United States. Bernhard said that Shaw ‘fully expects’ to continue working on future AP1000 projects.
. . . .
Once the acquisition of Shaw’s stake in Westinghouse is complete, Toshiba’s stake in the company will increase from 67% to 87%. The remaining shareholders in Westinghouse are Kazakh state-owned company Kazatomprom owning a 10%, and Japan’s Ishikawajima-Hariwa Heavy Industries with the remaining 3%.

I'd expect that Shaw has a lot of NPP experience at this point, so they are a serious player in the NPP supplier market.


In other news: A new probe, the materials analysis particle probe, or MAPP, sees materials interactions in fusion reactors
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2060554

 

[zapperzero]

But in any case by increasing of oil prices nuke plants will become more competitive.

Yes. That is true, if the oil prices keep increasing - which is by no means a given. Economic contraction may decrease demand to the point where prices (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) stagnate or even drop.

At which point, no-one would be able/willing to bear the opportunity cost of new NPPs.

 

[unassailable]

After briefly reading through this thread, it seems we are focusing strictly on nuclear fission.
What about nuclear fusion?
Does everyone think it will be beneficial to implement such a volatile source of power?
With more smaller labs researching cheaper ways to obtain a reaction, how viable will it be as a power source?

 

[mheslep]

After briefly reading through this thread, it seems we are focusing strictly on nuclear fission.
What about nuclear fusion?
Does everyone think it will be beneficial to implement such a volatile source of power?
With more smaller labs researching cheaper ways to obtain a reaction, how viable will it be as a power source?

There are numerous good fusion threads in the forum. You might search in the Nuclear Engineering forum at large for them.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Yes. That is true, if the oil prices keep increasing - which is by no means a given. Economic contraction may decrease demand to the point where prices (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) stagnate or even drop.

At which point, no-one would be able/willing to bear the opportunity cost of new NPPs.

I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

 

[mheslep]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

 

[zapperzero]

I am afraid that curling of economic activities about which you write so easily means for example that your computer won't have power supply and you will not can for example posting in the Internet.
Workplaces’ number will sharply be reduced, etc.
Nobody including you will agree with that.
Oil deposits run low. That is fact. Through 40-50-60 years oil will end at all. So, the rise of prices is inevitable.

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.
The oil IS running out. So prices rise, until some buyers are driven to bankruptcy or otherwise forced to stop buying. Then, demand falls and prices go down again. When that happens, those who invested in new production capacity that is only profitable because of high prices go bankrupt too. This will happen to the fancy new NPPs that make process heat for Fischer-Tropsch, if they are ever built.

So overall, production plateaus or declines slowly, while more and more buyers are driven out of the market. Eventually, only plastics manufacturers will be left, they will be the last to switch to natural gas.

My computer does not have a fuel cell. If juice from the wall socket somehow runs out, I will not go "hmm, time to invest in new NPPs". I will set up a few wind turbines or solar panels on the roof of my condo so that my neighbors and I have some juice to charge up mobile phones and laptops, run a couple iceboxes in the basement maybe...

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Prices are determined not just by supply, but also demand. I think you find yourself hard pressed to find the real price of any commodity increasing over ~100 years or so of its use.
c.f. Figure 1 here on historical price of coal

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0605v2.pdf

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Ehrlich.png

Oil here:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

Thanks for my education.
But you are a little late.
Yes price forms on base of ratio on supply and demand.
And oil supply will fall down with permanently growing demand.
Do not drive car, do not grow bread, consequently do not eat, etc.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

It matters not one whit if I agree.
Employment IS at a historical low in most developed countries.

At the expense of fast developing countries e.g. China, India, Brazil, etc.
And I thought that we told about world.
And certainly personally you can try to lead primitive life. But the majority living on the planet would disagree with you and further will use the civilization blessings consuming more and more fuel and electricity.
Have Air Conditioner and do you switch it on when you hot?

 

[mheslep]

Most often fossil based power generation relies on coal or natural gas.

I do not see what is the significance of oil prices, whatever their future course could be, on the economic prospects of NPPs.

Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

 

[robinson]

I notice that solar powered electric vehicles is missing from the scenario. As is solar/wind power in general.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Roughly a third of all energy consumption goes into transportation via petroleum. Fifty years from now, or so, transportation will be largely based on either i) hugely expensive petroleum or equivalent liquefied fossil fuel, ii) electrified transportation which draws power from a grid that will still be dependent to a degree on affordable nuclear power for base load, iii) biofuel. To prevent case i), then ii) or iii) have to become (or continue to be) feasible.

Well.. 50 years from now I can quite easily envisage a smart grid with massive renewable generation...
does it matter to the NPP competitiveness right now ?

I do not think so...
what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..

a much shorter time horizon is what guides today's society

 

[edpell]

Carbon source in this case will be only the coal gasification in which target reaction is: 2C+O2=>2CO

Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.

 

[edpell]

what will in fact matter is the financial crisis felt in these hours and the effect it will have in real interest rates for major (and financially risky) projects around the world, levels of aggregate electric energy demand and so on..

China having a strong command economy component will have no problem building power plants needed for the countries survival. Remember that really big wall?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Farm waste is a good source of carbon we can also get carbon from CO2 in the air.

You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

 

[edpell]

You can get carbon anywhere from any carbon containing feedstock. But production cost of coal mined at e.g. Ekibastuz open pit http://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/289243943/ is about 5$/t. Annual production - not less than 40 millions tons and if needed, can be easily extended.

The down side to carbon from coal is that we are putting more carbon into the air. The global warming and human global warming folks say this is very bad. The up side of using a biological source is that it is NET carbon neutral. The carbon came from the air into the plant and is returned to the air to begin the cycle again.

There are a number of interesting papers from Uppsala University on peak coal.

Man, $5 per ton is cheap.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

If we consider burning, yes, more CO2 pollution in comparison with burning of e.g. natural gas.
If we consider processing into hydrocarbons of two carbon sources: farm wastes and coal, you are wrong. Firstly, coal is biological source too. Secondly, gasification of coal is very similar to gasification of biomass.
If we would produce hydrogen via electrolyze and not via the following reaction:
CO+H2O=>H2+CO2
We will have very low CO2 pollution during processing.

Yes, 5$/t of production cost is cheap and their selling price ExW (on site) is about 8-10$ depending fraction. But transported e.g. to Georgia that coal would cost about 50-60$/t. As transportation cost is very critical to cheap goods’ final price.