The Nuclear Power Thread

[artis]

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."

Yes this is a known fact about the lack of containment for RBMK's and the positive void coefficient, although after 1986 all existing RBMK's were retrofitted to decrease void coefficient and increase safety systems and make sure workers cannot make such blatant mistakes as before.
That being said then in 2011 Fukushima happened , quite frankly can we even calculate the risk of a well maintained and retrofitted RBMK having a destructive event VS any other Gen 2 reactor in operation even with a containment?

I do realize the RBMK flaws and any way we slice it it's history and no new block will ever be built.

 

[Astronuc]

British engineering group Rolls-Royce has announced the establishment of a new business - Rolls-Royce SMR Limited - for the deployment and commercialisation of its small modular reactor (SMR) technology. The announcement follows the securing of GBP210 million (USD285 million) in funding from the UK government, matched by more than GBP250 million of private investment.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce-secures-funding-for-SMR-deployment

There are 3 main thrusts in the nuclear power (reactor) industry at the moment: 1) large power reactors (ostensibly for base load), 2) small modular reactors (SMRs), and 3) microreactors for remote areas or mobile deployment. The splits are based on MWt/MWe and/or mass of fissile content in the core. Almost all proposed commercial designs use straight UX as opposed to U,PuX or U,ThX, where X is some other element(s), e.g., O₂, N, C, Si, CO, Zr, Mo, . . . .

 

[Astronuc]

An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises aiming to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-021-03401-w/index.html

Long derided as a prospect that is forever 30 years away, nuclear fusion seems finally to be approaching commercial viability. There are now more than 30 private fusion firms globally, according to an October survey by the Fusion Industry Association (FIA) in Washington DC, which represents companies in the sector; the 18 firms that have declared their funding say they have attracted more than US$2.4 billion in total, almost entirely from private investments (see ‘Fusion funding’). Key to these efforts are advances in materials research and computing that are enabling technologies other than the standard designs that national and international agencies have pursued for so long.

I remember when commercial fusion was 10 years down the road. Then a decade later, it was still 10 years down the road. Forty years later, it may be 10 years about - maybe.

The latest venture at Culham — the hub of UK fusion research for decades — is a demonstration plant for General Fusion (GF), a company based in Burnaby, Canada. It is scheduled to start operating in 2025, and the company aims to have reactors for sale in the early 2030s. It “will be the first power-plant-relevant large-scale demonstration”, says GF’s chief executive Chris Mowry — unless, that is, its competitors deliver sooner.

We'll see as things heat up.

 

[artis]

I remember when commercial fusion was 10 years down the road. Then a decade later, it was still 10 years down the road. Forty years later, it may be 10 years about - maybe.

It's easier to just say it's 30 years away , because then you have to say it less often. And after almost 30 years people might even forget you have ever said so...It's more convenient that way.

 

[russ_watters]

I remember when commercial fusion was 10 years down the road. Then a decade later, it was still 10 years down the road. Forty years later, it may be 10 years about - maybe.

According to the article the standard wisdom is now 30 years. It seems like as time goes by it gets further away. Unless one of these startups succeeds.

If these projects hold significant promise, why are we bothering with ITER? Because nobody knows if they hold promise, because they are being done under a veil of secrecy, away from the skeptical eye of the scientific community. Smells fishy to me.

 

[Dale]

Unfortunately for the fusion power crowd, even 10 years from today for a first viable prototype is probably effectively too late.

We are at a point where there is a recognized global need for clean power at the same time that global energy demand is increasing as existing 3rd world countries modernize their economies and global populations are still rising. As the 3rd world modernizes, their population will stabilize as will their demand for energy. At that point the global energy infrastructure will probably already be largely “clean”, so the demand for new clean energy technologies will drop.

I don’t see how a power technology that is still in early development today will play any major role in the future. The economic opportunity is now and technologies that are available now will be used now.

That said, it is sad that fission will probably be reduced for largely political reasons at this time when it is a well proven technology that could really help with simultaneous power decarbonization and power expansion.

 

[Astronuc]

If these projects hold significant promise, why are we bothering with ITER? Because nobody knows if they hold promise, because they are being done under a veil of secrecy, away from the skeptical eye of the scientific community. Smells fishy to me.

Inertia of large projects.

Back in April 2018, 3.5 years ago.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/

 

[russ_watters]

Inertia of large projects.

What I'm asking is if there really is any significant confidence that any of these private reactors will succeed. Remembering Lockheed's effort:

The project began in 2010,[6] and was publicly presented at the Google Solve for X forum on February 7, 2013. In October 2014, Lockheed Martin announced a plan to "build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year with a prototype to follow within five years".[7] In May 2016, Rob Weiss announced that Lockheed Martin continued to support the project and would increase its investment in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor#History

Still waiting for an announcement that the 2015 test succeeded.

 

[artis]

If these projects hold significant promise, why are we bothering with ITER? Because nobody knows if they hold promise, because they are being done under a veil of secrecy, away from the skeptical eye of the scientific community. Smells fishy to me.

Exactly , what is more interesting is that some of them (the private concepts) use the same methods just with different arrangement. I remember Lockheed made a lot of "hot air" with their design and somehow we don't hear anything anymore nor we see this technology being implemented into "secret military vessels". Oh I see you've beat me to it...
When fission physics went silent back in the 40's , it wasn't for long when everyone knew why it had been so... A bright flash appeared over the horizon.

At that point the global energy infrastructure will probably already be largely “clean”, so the demand for new clean energy technologies will drop.

I'm not sure I would agree. I think there simply aren't that many "clean" energy options from a physics perspective to begin. I don't see how that situation will change anytime soon. Given energy consumption will increase beyond population increase (E vehicles etc) just goes to make this point stronger.

 

[Dale]

I think there simply aren't that many "clean" energy options from a physics perspective to begin.

Why would we need more options?

Given energy consumption will increase beyond population increase (E vehicles etc) just goes to make this point stronger.

Increased consumption doesn’t require more options, simply more implementation of existing options.

 

[artis]

@Dale I simply meant to say that given our clean energy options without nuclear are not enough to cover our whole demand , nuclear will be on the table irrespective of how long from now.
This equally applies to fusion I think, the moment it will prove itself viable economically it will see a market I think.
Anything that gives something of real value has a market I believe.

 

[Astronuc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor#History

A citation [7] from that article - https://news.yahoo.com/lockheed-say...fusion-energy-project-123840986--finance.html

What I'm asking is if there really is any significant confidence that any of these private reactors will succeed.

It's hard to say. Have they thought of something that others haven't? Or, have they realized a better piece of technology?

I suppose they look at SpaceX, and think, "we could be the next SpaceX" of fusion/nuclear.

There are something like 30 small startup groups looking at microreactors and medium or modular reactors. There groups like Terrapower that has transformed itself, teamed up with other like GEH, and received tens of millions of $ from the federal government to establish a demonstration plant. I believe X-energy is another recipient of federal $.

Then there are groups like Transatomic that went bust.

 

[Astronuc]

Nice summary of US commercial power reactors - by plant, core size, reactor vendor, and startup, license expiration and shutdown dates.

https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnftab2.php

 

[artis]

Speaking of US nuclear reactors , a farewell to Crystal River which went into planned maintenance in 2009 but never "recovered" due to problems as it seems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_River_Nuclear_Plant

And then CDI made a nice and smooth ending just yesterday. A beautiful video especially the beginning.

 

[etudiant]

A citation [7] from that article - https://news.yahoo.com/lockheed-say...fusion-energy-project-123840986--finance.htmlIt's hard to say. Have they thought of something that others haven't? Or, have they realized a better piece of technology?

I suppose they look at SpaceX, and think, "we could be the next SpaceX" of fusion/nuclear.

There are something like 30 small startup groups looking at microreactors and medium or modular reactors. There groups like Terrapower that has transformed itself, teamed up with other like GEH, and received tens of millions of $ from the federal government to establish a demonstration plant. I believe X-energy is another recipient of federal $.

Then there are groups like Transatomic that went bust.

Surely the long pole in the tent is management, not technology.
Space X is management intensive, not technology limited. Senior people get fired for non performance and the CEO, the richest man in the world, lives in a $50k home by his Boca Chica proof site. That is what management should be, deeply engaged in the creation of the product.
The various fusion and nuclear start ups all are focused on the technology, perhaps correctly, as no one has actually demonstrated an economic fusion plant or a really cost effective fission facility. However, that seems disjointed to me, because it requires investors to believe that the resulting design will be so much better than what is available that the customers will flock. Barring government order, which always has strings attached, that seems an unlikely outcome.

 

[Astronuc]

NuScale Power has announced plans to merge with Spring Valley Acquisition Corp to create a new "first of its kind" energy company to accelerate the commercialisation of NuScale's small modular reactor (SMR). The new publicly listed company will be named NuScale Power Corporation and is projected to be 60%-controlled by NuScale's current majority owner Fluor Corporation.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/NuScale-merger-to-accelerate-SMR-commercialisation

 

[etudiant]

Just hope that fear drives Fluor to move the ball forward.
There are very few examples of large US companies actually innovating.
Perhaps the fear of death because of climate change will help Fluor look at alternatives.

 

[Astronuc]

Old, but useful in terms of insights into the knowledge at the time.
Clement J. Rodden, ANALYSIS OF ESSENTIAL NUCLEAR REACTOR MATERIALS, USAEC, New Brunswick Lab., AEC, NJ (US), 1964
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4844185-analysis-essential-nuclear-reactor-materials

 

[russ_watters]

This just in:

A giant donut-shaped machine just proved a near-limitless clean power source is possible​

On Wednesday, however, scientists working in the United Kingdom announced that they more than doubled the previous record for generating and sustaining nuclear fusion...

...a record-breaking 59 megajoules of sustained fusion energy over five seconds on December 21 last year. Five seconds is the limit the machine can sustain the power before its magnets overheat...

Experts say the results prove that nuclear fusion is possible, and no longer a pipedream solution for the climate crisis.

Ehh?

I'm so sick of the fusion hyperbole. And as an added slap in the face of the Earth's climate they threw in some bonus anti-fission sentiment.

 

[berkeman]

Yeah, +1 on the hyperbole. I did find this part a little funny though...

The tokamak in Oxford, called the Joint European Torus (JET), has been subject to such extreme heat and pressure that this experiment is likely the last it will cope with.

 

[russ_watters]

In reversal, French President announces plan to build 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...o-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

Note: he's up for re-election so I would assume this is not a done deal unless he gets re-elected, but I don't know how that works.

 

[atyy]

This just in:

Ehh?

I'm so sick of the fusion hyperbole. And as an added slap in the face of the Earth's climate they threw in some bonus anti-fission sentiment.

It's for 500-1000 years from now, when we start running out of fission fuel.
Edit: Just glanced at the CNN report :( I think one can hardly complain about Fox News any more after that.

Here's a news report in Science.
European fusion reactor sets record for sustained energy
World’s largest tokamak paves the way for ITER with a capstone run of pulses using power-producing tritium
https://www.science.org/content/article/european-fusion-reactor-sets-record-sustained-energy

 

[Astronuc]

It's for 500-1000 years from now, when we start running out of fission fuel.
Edit: Just glanced at the CNN report :( I think one can hardly complain about Fox News any more after that.

Here's a news report in Science.
European fusion reactor sets record for sustained energy
World’s largest tokamak paves the way for ITER with a capstone run of pulses using power-producing tritium
https://www.science.org/content/article/european-fusion-reactor-sets-record-sustained-energy

From the article: “To see shots in which it sustains high power for a full 5 seconds is amazing,” . . .

But then, "Researchers had to put roughly three times as much energy into the gas as the reaction produced."

I took my first course in fusion engineering 40 years ago. We still aren't there yet!

Also from the Science article

The $25 billion ITER, funded by China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States, is due to start operation in 2025 but won’t produce large amounts of power until 2035, when it is due to start burning the energy-producing isotopes deuterium and tritium (D-T).

Ten years from the start of operation? What does 'start of operation' mean? Heating the plasma?

 

[bhobba]

Ten years from the start of operation? What does 'start of operation' mean? Heating the plasma?

Same pattern. We are just ten years away from fusion power. How many decades has that been going on? I drank the kool-aid when young. But time subdues the follies of youth. Don't get me wrong - of course, I support research into fusion - just not the hype.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

From the article: “To see shots in which it sustains high power for a full 5 seconds is amazing,” . . .

But then, "Researchers had to put roughly three times as much energy into the gas as the reaction produced."

That is a weird business where the best thing that can be said is that (at their peak) a -200% gross profit was maintained for 5 seconds. And that achievement is described as “amazing”.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm so sick of the fusion hyperbole.

Me too, but I'm more annoyed.

“To see shots in which it sustains high power for a full 5 seconds is amazing,” . . .

Consider that in 500 days, roughly a moderate-to-high capacity 18 month cycle (CF ~ 0.914), there are 4.32 E7 seconds. The 5 seconds is a burp.

A high capacity cycle would be more like 530 EPFD (4.5792 E7 seconds) out of a possible 547 calendar days (with a 17 day outage), or a CF ~ 0.97. Some plants operate on a 2 year cycle, or 660 to 700 EFPD out of 730 calendar days, or CF ~ 0.90 - 0.96.

Some nuclear plants have remained on annual cycles or 290-350 EFPD out of 365 days. NPP outages can be accomplished within 15-20 days, but some may take longer (major equipment service/repair, or abundance of cheap hydropower in the spring).

 

[anorlunda]

One thing seems certain. We will see more sensational headlines announcing breakthroughs and significant milestones. Many more such headlines. Many many more.

However, the arrival of commercial fusion power is not at all certain.

 

[Dale]

The 5 seconds is a burp.

Or a better than average fart.

 

[artis]

I remember many years ago reading this forums and some of the members that participate now had bit better feelings towards fusion power if judged by rhetoric alone, now it seems even that has changed, sometimes you can simply judge something by the attitude of those that are knowledgeable about the issue...

Oh and when I said many years ago I meant about 10 years or "just around the corner" ago.

 

[atyy]

https://actu.epfl.ch/news/epfl-and-deepmind-use-ai-to-control-plasmas-for-nu/
EPFL and DeepMind use AI to control plasmas for nuclear fusion

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning

 

[russ_watters]

I remember many years ago reading this forums and some of the members that participate now had bit better feelings towards fusion power if judged by rhetoric alone, now it seems even that has changed, sometimes you can simply judge something by the attitude of those that are knowledgeable about the issue...

Oh and when I said many years ago I meant about 10 years or "just around the corner" ago.

When I joined PF around 20 years ago I was in my 20s and hadn't yet had the opportunity to watch decades of spectacular, record-breaking breakthroughs. Seeing so much success over the past few decades has left me jaded. At the time I thought "maybe this next 30 years will be the one?" Seems unlikely now.

 

[artis]

When I joined PF around 20 years ago I was in my 20s and hadn't yet had the opportunity to watch decades of spectacular, record-breaking breakthroughs.

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was the accidental discovery that Li7 also undergoes fission with fast neutrons producing an "alpha", Tritium and a additional neutron greatly boosting a thermonuclear bomb's yield and this was with "Castle Bravo" back in 1954,

Oh yes almost forgot...

1997 JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.

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

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs,
Well NIF has done some good stuff with implosion but I fail to see how that approach can ever lead to a viable commercial energy plant instead of being just a good tool for weapons research, the same could be said about Z pinch with metallic liners (Sandia labs et.al.) because there again the repetition rate is slower than a snail, unless of course we find a way to create implosion net gain fusion with a implosion technique that has a fast repetition rate and is capable of more than "breakeven" during each shot.

 

[anorlunda]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?

The better question would be the number of headlines claiming breakthroughs. Unfortunately, the search engines aren't good at finding things that old. Especially pre-1994.

 

[artis]

The better question would be the number of headlines claiming breakthroughs.

Exactly, but then again that was my point, the headlines have been quite few, but the actual physics that would bring us to a working device , I can't recall anything spectacular at all well there has been slow seemingly steady progress but then again there had to be since we started from nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was...

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs...

Exactly, but then again that was my point, the headlines have been quite few, but the actual physics that would bring us to a working device , I can't recall anything spectacular at all well there has been slow seemingly steady progress but then again there had to be since we started from nothing.

It isn't clear to me if you understood my snark. My point was that the recent spate of breakthroughs is hyperbolic and not as big of a deal as the newspapers or even many researchers are claiming. Obviously such "breakthroughs" lose their luster over time. And as said it's harder to research news articles before the modern internet. However, here's a list of several dozen advancements in fusion research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion

If you'd like, I can write a few sample headlines for them. I do remember one breakthrough specifically though, from 1989 that was probably the first thing I'd ever heard about fusion when I read about it in Time Magazine...though their coverage was less than favorable.

 

[valenumr]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was the accidental discovery that Li7 also undergoes fission with fast neutrons producing an "alpha", Tritium and a additional neutron greatly boosting a thermonuclear bomb's yield and this was with "Castle Bravo" back in 1954,

Oh yes almost forgot...

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

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs,
Well NIF has done some good stuff with implosion but I fail to see how that approach can ever lead to a viable commercial energy plant instead of being just a good tool for weapons research, the same could be said about Z pinch with metallic liners (Sandia labs et.al.) because there again the repetition rate is slower than a snail, unless of course we find a way to create implosion net gain fusion with a implosion technique that has a fast repetition rate and is capable of more than "breakeven" during each shot.

If I understand correctly, NIF has at least demonstrated that a fusion reaction can produce more energy than the energy delivered, even in small scales. That's kind of a big deal in my mind. I think the media misrepresents the results though, because the overall system efficiency is much less than one. ITER will be more interesting, as it is expected to have a 10x energy gain, but again, it depends on what one is measuring.

 

[artis]

NIF has at least demonstrated that a fusion reaction can produce more energy than the energy delivered, even in small scales.

For that we did not need NIF, we know from theoretical physics and past research that certain elements can undergo fusion reactions that are exothermic (Ones below, lighter than Iron), other fusion reactions are endothermic, the difference is that exothermic reactions release energy, aka the fusion process end products yield more energy than the energy needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

The whole problem is in maintaining the conditions for the reaction for long enough or maintaining the plasma from touching any physical barrier. Or having the plasma pressure and temp high enough for long enough so that the fusion reaction rate would be meaningful.

I think the media misrepresents the results though, because the overall system efficiency is much less than one.

This is the problem, not that fusion can be exothermic, we know it is, the problem of confining the "hot potato" and keeping it hot , all systems have losses , the plasma heating and confinements systems take up a lot of energy, so far our tiny fusion result has not been able to overcome that huge input required.

Now that I think of it, fusion is basically the only power production method known to us that requires so much input power, all other methods whether wind or solar or hydro or fission or fossil fuels require very little to no input power. This makes me wonder whether fusion can ever be economic at all because what good is a power plant that produces say 1000 MWe on the grid side but then pulls in some 500 or more MWe from that same grid at the same time. All that extra power used requires extra switchgear/transformers, wires, not to mention the reactor vessel itself which would be very expensive (thinking a tokamak for example), if the estimates of the Tokamak builders are correct we would need a very large tokamak in order for the power produced VS power consumed ratio to be usable practically. But a very large tokamak is a huge investment and I bet for the same money one can have double the generating capacity if not triple from an ordinary fission plant with a decades proven design and plans that have been approved by regulators. Who knows how this will play out...

 

[Astronuc]

Tokamak Energy of the UK announced it has demonstrated a world-first with its privately-funded ST40 spherical tokamak, achieving a plasma temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius, the threshold required for commercial fusion energy.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Tokamak-Energy-achieves-crucial-plasma-temperature

https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/what-is-fusion-and-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-achieve

 

[Astronuc]

The United States has just 93 operating power reactors at this writing. The fleet last numbered 93 in 1985, when nuclear generation topped out at 383.69 TWh, less than half of the 778.2 TWh produced in 2021.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-38...ctors-a-smaller-fleet-invested-in-the-future/

Many early vintage, smaller units were shutdown between 1976 and 2000, while larger capacity units were brought online; one large unit (Trojan) and two moderate size units (Shoreham and Rancho Seco) shutdown prematurely.

[CODE title="Shutdown of US NPPs (1976-2000)"] Unit Net Elec Year
Humboldt Bay 65 MWe 1976

Indian Point 1 265 MWe 1980
Lacrosse 50 MWe 1987
Shoreham 849 MWe 1987
Rancho Seco 918 MWe 1989
San Onofre 1 436 MWe 1992
Trojan 1130 MWe 1992 largest unit
Yankee Rowe 175 MWe 1992
Haddam Neck 560 MWe 1996

Maine Yankee 870 MWe 1999
Big Rock Point 67 MWe 2000[/CODE]

 

[bhobba]

Many early vintage, smaller units were shutdown between 1976 and 2000, while larger capacity units were brought online; one large unit (Trojan) and two moderate size units (Shoreham and Rancho Seco) shutdown prematurely.

Out here in Aus slowly, but surely, people are starting to realize baseload power can't be supplied by wind, solar, hydro etc., i.e. so-called renewables alone. They are part of a future power mix, 100% sure, but future energy sources must include at least a serious discussion of nuclear. We are now getting atomic subs from the US and UK, indicating a more realistic public attitude may eventually emerge. There is no way IMHO Australia, or nearly any other country, can meet their stated emissions targets without nuclear. This is becoming more critical in Aus as coal power plants are being shut down instead of nuclear power plants being shut down. It was thought gas would take up the slack, but that is now proving problematic due to rising costs.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

This is becoming more critical in Aus as coal power plants are being shut down instead of nuclear power plants being shut down. It was thought gas would take up the slack, but that is now proving problematic due to rising costs.

One of the most obscure professions in the world is power systems reliability engineer. In the US, they work at regional councils. Their job is to examine in detail the topology and the properties of the grid and all power sources, and to consider all credible things that may or may not happen in the future. It's hard to imagine any professional work more boring and less recognized.

My point is that reliability engineers, not executives, not politicians, not activists need to make those critical decisions. It sounds like in Aus, politicians took over.

 

[Astronuc]

I listened to a presentation at work on Advanced Reactors, and part of the presentation was a page from IAEA's Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS). It's a decent resource for identifying current designs.

https://aris.iaea.org/

The database includes:
Water-cooled Systems (PWRs, BWRs, SCWRs (supercritical water-cooled reactors), HWRs, and iPWRs (integrated PWR, e.g., IMR (Mitsubishi), Nuscale, SMART (KAERI))
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/PWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/BWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SCWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/HWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/IPWR.html

GCR (Gas-cooled (graphite-moderated, epithermal) reactors), GFR (gas-cooled fast reactors)
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/GCR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/GFR.html

LMRs (liquid (molten) metal-cooled, e.g., SFR (sodium-cooled fast reactors) and LFR (lead-cooled fast reactors)
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SFR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/LFR.html

MSRs (molten salt reactors), which could be fluoride-based (e.g., FLiBe, FLiNaK, NaFBeF, NaFZirF, . . .) graphite-moderated (thermal/epithermal), or chloride-based (e.g., LiCl-KCl, LiCl-RbCl, (NaCl,KCl)-MgCl₂, . . . ) fast reactors. SMRs maybe homogeneous, in which fuel salts are in solution of non-fuel salts, e.g., LiF-Be (FLiBe), NaF-BeF, or LiCl-KCl (e.g., ThorCon), or heterogeneous, in which the fuel is encapsulated and physically separated from the non-fuel salt coolant (e.g., Kairos).
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/MSR.html

SMRs (small modular reactors) with a variety of coolants and fuels
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SMR.html

https://www.ornl.gov/content/fluoride-salt-cooled-high-temperature-reactors
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454917301391

Topical Report Submittal for Reactor Coolant for the Kairos Power Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor - https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1907/ML19079A325.pdf

Assessment of Candidate Molten Salt Coolants for the NGNP/NHI Heat-Transfer Loop (ORNL/TM-2006/69)
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1360677

Each has their technical challenges related to fuel chemistry and performance, fuel cycle management, reactivity control, fuel-coolant interactions, radiation effects (degradation and transmutation) of structural alloys, structural alloy-coolant interactions (chemical dissolution, corrosion, erosion, 'crud' deposition), . . . . , and ultimately, spent fuel, special nuclear material (SNM) and waste disposition, in which disposition means handling, potential reprocessing and storage, and ultimately deposition in an as-yet undefined/undetermined repository.

 

[anorlunda]

Interesting. I notice that even the Russians have small modular reactor SMR ideas.
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/VVER-640(V-407).pdf

I don't expect much success in marketing those globally.

Normally, in commerce competition is the proven method to get quality and affordability. But in winning public confidence for SMRs, I don't think having 30 or more competing designs is best. At best, the public might have the patience to listen to a presentation about one design, but never dozens.

That suggests that a highly publicized international design competition plus a really big prize would be the best way for governments to promote the general concept.

 

[bhobba]

My point is that reliability engineers, not executives, not politicians, not activists need to make those critical decisions. It sounds like in Aus, politicians took over.

I was listening to a discussion from political commentators about the issue. Not one engineer on the panel. It makes you wonder. It does. Noticed similar things with Covid as well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

I was listening to a discussion from political commentators about the issue. Not one engineer on the panel. It makes you wonder. It does. Noticed similar things with Covid as well.

Thanks
Bill

The famous US news anchor, Ted Koppel wrote an apocalyptic book about the power grid causing civilization to collapse. It reminded me of Mad Max.

Lights Out: A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath​

He interviewed, CEOs, physicists, clergy, Government Ministers, scientists, ... but ne never spoke once to an engineer.

 

[Astronuc]

Contemporary nuclear supply chain issues.

Matt Bowen and Paul Dabbar - What’s at risk due to Russia’s nuclear power dominance?
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-...-risk-due-to-russias-nuclear-power-dominance/

Russia has a significant market share in many of those pieces of the nuclear supply chain through its state-owned nuclear company Rosatom. For that reason, various countries around the world are caught in a challenging situation, including the U.S. They may want to extricate themselves from buying nuclear energy supplies from Rosatom to reduce supply chain risk and to stop sending money to Russia, but at the same time, they currently rely on Russian services and materials to run their reactors.

As we [authors] laid out in a paper last month from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, various U.S. allied countries have Russian reactors in operation or under construction, including Finland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine. Those countries are at risk of their Russian-built reactors having operational difficulties or even outages without materials, equipment and services to maintain them. However, various Western manufacturing companies can over time start producing replacements to overcome that supply challenge.

The more critical issue is the uranium fuel supply chain. Since Russia only mines 6 percent of the world’s uranium, it is relatively easy for countries and nuclear power plant owners to secure other global sources of uranium ore. However, Russia controls 40 percent of the global uranium conversion market, where uranium oxide “yellow cake” is converted into uranium hexafluoride — a gaseous form needed for the enrichment process. Natural uranium has a Uranium-235 isotope content of 0.7 percent, and the enrichment process increases the U-235 content to the 3-5 percent needed to run nuclear reactors. And Russia holds 46 percent of uranium enrichment capacity. The vast majority of the 439 reactors around the world require enriched uranium fuel, . . . .

 

[Vanadium 50]

Dabbar used to be Undersecreatry of Science.

But the world has already decided - nuclear power is more evil than funding Putin's murdering women and children. Because, um, because...er...I'm sure we have a good reason.

 

[bhobba]

Things are getting bad here in Brisbane. From today's paper (precis):

'Queenslanders are being warned of possible blackouts tonight as surging power costs force the national market operator to step in and impose a rare price cap. Journalist Chris Kenny says Australia's energy crisis is a situation of our "deliberate creation". "So, the nation is in an energy crisis," Mr Kenny said. "We are short of gas for domestic use, and with global demand rising, it's too expensive, pushing up costs for industry and electricity generation. And we don't have enough electricity from other sources. We've closed down large coal-fired generators in most states, and renewables are intermittent. So prices skyrocket, supply is stretched, and our political and business leaders are in a flap."

Queenslanders are being urged to brace for potential blackouts tonight as the energy crisis on the east coast hits home. The national energy market regulator has warned there is the risk of blackouts between 5.30 pm and 8 pm on Monday after electricity generators pulled supply from the market. Skyrocketing wholesale prices forced the regulator to put a price cap in place after reaching a threshold. The price cap saw generators lower their bids into the energy market, leading to what the Australian Energy Market Operator called a "deficit in the supply/demand balance" – a risk of blackouts. The regulator is currently working to ensure this does not happen, issuing solid warnings to generators, called "Lack of Reserve notices", and has the power to direct them to generate enough supply to meet consumer demand if they fail to act. Further updates are expected as the situation develops.

Global Roam analyst Paul McArdle, who runs the Watt Clarity website, warned not meeting the supply would be "catastrophic." It is the first time in three years AEMO has had to trigger the price cap on wholesale electricity high prices, with the last instance taking place in South Australia and Victoria in 2019. It is amid the growing energy crisis in Australia, and coal and gas generators come under increasing pressure. There had been a 140 per cent increase in prices in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period last year, driven by a range of factors, both global and domestic, and they have continued to rise since then. The "high price threshold" of $1.359 million over seven days, or an average of $674.16/MWh, was reached just before 7 pm on Sunday and remained there on Monday. The cap forces the high wholesale price to drop to $300/MWh, stopping price rises from getting out of control but seeing less generation put into the market, while a separate cumulative spot price is near to being reached. Power generation prices in Queensland have been surging, forcing the market operator to enforce a rarely used price cap overnight. The regulator will review the situation at 4 am on Tuesday and extend the price cap if needed.'

This is in Australia, which has an abundance of energy sources. Coal, Gas, Uranium, Sun and Wind are plentiful. We will even be building a massive solar array in the Simpson Desert and, via undersea cable, transmit the electricity to Singapore.

This is a crisis purely bought about by mismanagement. For example, we have vast amounts of untapped gas reserves, which could power gas generators that can quickly be bought online when the sun doesn't shine, and the wind doesn't blow that power the renewables we currently have and/or are building. That is purely an interim measure until some rational long-term solution such as nuclear or whatever the future brings is worked out. WE NEED ENGINEERS, NOT POLITICIANS RUNNING THIS. Instead, we are left with economists to fill the gap:
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/energy-crisis-why-are-electricity-prices-set-rise

With all due respect to economists, they are not the profession to solve this problem.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

Did you intend the Nuclear Power thread?

I sympathize. The energy supply in Queensland has been seriously bungled.

WE NEED ENGINEERS, NOT POLITICIANS RUNNING THIS. Instead, we are left with economists to fill the gap:

You and I are singing the same song. For example, in that article you linked, the economist professor confounded energy supply with electric supply. They are related but not identical, especially regarding the real time property of the electric grid, and the forest of legislation and regulations.

But the engineers must also understand economics. A critical part of any competitive market auction is that a significant (25-35%) portion of the bidders fail to win any auction that day. Spiking and volatility occur when the number of successful bidders approaches 100%.

We assure an adequate quantity of bidders through the mechanism of ICAP, that you and I recently discussed.

Does AU have a formal ICAP market? How is the quantity of ICAP regulated?

 

[bhobba]

Did you intend the Nuclear Power thread?

Considering the prior posts, it seemed reasonable at the time. I will be happy to put it wherever the consensus thinks it should go.

But the engineers must also understand economics. A critical part of any competitive market auction is that a significant (25-35%) portion of the bidders fail to win any auction that day. Spiking and volatility occur when the number of successful bidders approaches 100%.

Of course. I should have made that clear. Several professions should collaboratively work together to solve the issue. Power engineers, like my father, must be an important part of the mix.

Does AU have a formal ICAP market? How is the quantity of ICAP regulated?

I am not an expert on this, but my understanding is that it comes under the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) umbrella. Just letting people know no blackouts happened tonight, and last-minute deals have been put in place to ensure it will not happen in the near future. Medium-term seems to be the issue. I think the AER has learned a tough lesson for the long term. Even low probability events must be catered for. We have long-term contracts for our natural gas, but they must have an emergency clause if Australia gets into real trouble. Other similar measures are likely to be needed - I just hope that people unshackled by political considerations that know what they are doing get involved.

Thanks
Bill