The Nuclear Power Thread

[bhobba]

Legislators are writing the rules, not engineers. Those have been mostly disasters.

Having worked for the government for 30 years, when people complain about politicians and retreat to the side of politics they identify with, what is often happening is not politics; it is mandarin public servants protecting their rears. It's the process-oriented culture that the PS mostly adopts rather than a result-oriented one. It's their risk avoidance bias. Eventually, it is difficult to tell exactly when; it all falls like a house of cards. Surprisingly, the senior people in the PS know this (and I, too, was surprised when I found this out) and have attempted to do something about it, but to no avail. I spoke to one lady working on one such attempt (called management in the 90s), and she said they should not have even bothered. A recent example is during the pandemic, rules were established for interstate travel. Of course, there were exceptions. Some cases were obvious exceptions but were rejected. They were reported in the media. Our Premier (like a US state governor) was hammered. Anyway, she finally actually looked closely at the unit approving these exceptions. In a moment of actual honesty (rare for politicians - they often spin everything and anything) admitted the issue was a tick-and-flick culture in the unit, not looking at each case as a whole.

I get the feeling our energy system is heading down the same path. Like the Covid exceptions, the government will be forced to correct the bureaucratic ineptitude, but when and how bad it eventually gets, who knows.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

what is often happening is not politics; it is mandarin public servants protecting their rears.

I disagree. The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

Think of all the technical questions you answer here on PF. Suppose we assigned not you, but public servants to answer those questions? That's the wrong choice regardless of the attributes of public servants.

 

[bhobba]

The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

I see your point. The right people, who are fearless, should be advising the government. The issue is that the culture of covering your rear and pleasing your employer often does not lead to fearlessness, so, as you correctly say, they are the wrong people.

Not always, of course. I remember a Q&A episode where an engineering advisor of a previous prime minister, who also was on the panel, pointed out several 'porkies' the previous PM was espousing. The previous PM response was - that does not sound right. The problem was, being the previous advisor, he got his facts from the same source. This was a case where the previous Public Servant did the right thing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

Before you can answer this, you need to figure out what kind of thing it is that is to be decided.

If the thing to be decided is a technical question, like "what possible failure modes are there for nuclear reactor design X, and how can they be mitigated?", then that is a technical question that should be decided by technical means.

But if the thing to be decided is "how should country A generate energy?", that is not a technical question (although answers to a bunch of technical questions can certainly be relevant to it). It's a social question. Technical experts are not any better qualified to decide social questions just because they're technical experts.

The underlying issue with trying to decide social questions is whether or not there are any people who are "qualified" to decide them. But even without answering that question, it seems evident that bureaucratic institutions are generally not well structured to address such questions. That is what @bhobba is observing.

 

[PeterDonis]

The right people, who are fearless, should be advising the government.

This assumes that (a) such "right" people exist at all, and (b) the government will act appropriately on their advice. But the experience you describe suggests that (a) is rare, and (b) virtually impossible.

 

[bhobba]

This assumes that (a) such "right" people exist at all, and (b) the government will act appropriately on their advice. But the experience you describe suggests that (a) is rare, and (b) virtually impossible.

Unfortunately true. The example I gave of an engineer on a Q&A panel was after he was the advisor to the previous PM.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

But if the thing to be decided is "how should country A generate energy?", that is not a technical question (although answers to a bunch of technical questions can certainly be relevant to it). It's a social question. Technical experts are not any better qualified to decide social questions just because they're technical experts.

Technical experts can take guidance from nontechnical masters, yet still retain the decision making power.

For example, the infamous Enron gaming of the California energy market in 2000-2001. Rules were created with social goals in mind. The CA legislature enacted them into statute law, and never listened to engineering advice to "leave that to the experts." The rules were riddled with loopholes that Enron exploited. Just because the motivation is social, that's no reason to allow those with no expertise make the rules.

Diversity of supply strongly influence reliability. The legislature can mandate type of generation, and mandate cost ceilings, and mandate reliability performance, and wind up with a tangled mess of contradictions. We need engineers to sort out the trade-offs, and usually the result does not include 0% or 100% weight of any factor.

Another consideration is that technical rules may need frequent or rapid tweaks. The severe cold weather shortages in Texas illustrate that. The Texas legislature enacted power grid rules written into laws and expected them to remain fixed for a decade or more. If they instead delegated the authority to groups of experts, small tweaks in the rules might have occurred dozens of times per year in the earliest years.

On the Federal level, Congress delegated drug decision power to technical experts at FDA. Every time a bureaucrat, or a President, overrides decisions of the experts, a major brouhaha results.

Legislatures sometimes retain technical experts to draft laws for them. That is a better than lawyers doing technical work, but worse than authorizing technical experts to have the authority to make rules.

p.s. I can't resist this true anecdote. The reason the California Legislature ignored engineering advice was that the day they scheduled a hearing to hear from the experts, it was the same day that O.J. Simpson in a white Bronco evaded police. The experts testified to an empty room, and no follow-up hearing was ever scheduled. The consequences were widespread brownouts in 2000-2001. Would we accept that excuse from engineers?

 

[PeterDonis]

Technical experts can take guidance from nontechnical masters, yet still retain the decision making power.

This might work ok if the issue is technical, but those kinds of issues are the easy ones. The hard issues are social issues, not technical issues, and, as I said, technical experts don't have any special expertise on such issues. Indeed, I'm not sure anyone has special expertise on such issues, certainly not when it comes to imposing rules on society as a whole. Your Enron gaming example illustrate what happens when that is tried. I don't think "leaving it to the experts" would have helped because there aren't any experts in the social issue that was in play.

The only way we know of to bypass such things is to not have rules imposed from above at all, but instead let the free market work; in a free market, people with technical expertise exercise it directly, by, for example, building power plants that generate energy more cheaply and thereby capturing more market share legitimately, because they are better serving customers. The free market is not perfect, but its failure modes are much less severe than the failure modes of top-down dictated "public policy".

 

[PeterDonis]

On the Federal level, Congress delegated drug decision power to technical experts at FDA. Every time a bureaucrat, or a President, overrides decisions of the experts, a major brouhaha results.

But the major brouhaha is not because those are the only times the FDA makes bad decisions; it's just because that particular kind of bad decision is much more newsworthy given the incentives of the media. When the FDA delays authorization of beta blockers for ten years in the US as compared to Europe, thereby causing, according to their own numbers on beta blocker effectiveness, well over 100,000 fatal heart attacks that could have been prevented, nobody hears about it; but bad decisions like that are arguably even more costly overall than the ones that get the media hype.

 

[artis]

But if the thing to be decided is "how should country A generate energy?", that is not a technical question (although answers to a bunch of technical questions can certainly be relevant to it). It's a social question. Technical experts are not any better qualified to decide social questions just because they're technical experts.

I could argue that it actually is a technical question. If we take the constitutions of most stable democracies at face value then politicians should merely be the "managers" of the will of their electorate, so the electorate decides that say 50% of it wants to "stay as is" and 50% wants only renewables.
If the politician wants to be fair to his people then he basically needs to make a meeting of experts and say to them straight, this is what the people want, how do we make it real?The problem of course why this doesn't work like that is because people often don't know or don't care about issues like these and others want energy production means that are not sustainable in the long term etc, so the politician becomes a kind of mediator and equalizer between all the involved parties. The politician basically needs to manage both the engineers involved and the society voting for him. A job I believe that can only be done correctly by a brave, wise and honest individual. Now it just happens to be that most who make it to politics lack either one of those traits or all of them.

The typical outcome is that the politician/s does neither of what society wants nor what the experts say.
Piles of examples of this happened during last two years of the pandemic.
But on a lesser degree they happen all the time in other fields.

The usual result is wasted budget funds.

 

[PeterDonis]

If we take the constitutions of most stable democracies at face value then politicians should merely be the "managers" of the will of their electorate

But if we take those constitutions at face value, the electorate does not vote on individual issues (except in the rare case of a direct referendum). The electorate only votes for representatives. There might be opinion polls taken by private entities on various issues, but those aren't part of the constitution and elected representatives have no constitutional duty to pay any attention to them.

The typical outcome is that the politician/s does neither of what society wants nor what the experts say.

While I don't disagree with this as a description of the typical outcome, I don't think the reason is quite what you say. I think the reason is simpler: since people only vote for representatives, not on individual issues, and since any individual's vote has only a very, very small chance of being the actual deciding vote in any given election, and since obtaining accurate information on what candidates will do in office on every issue is very costly, voters rationally choose not to bother, and base their votes on very simple and easily findable characteristics like political party affiliation or declared positions on a single "hot button" issue. Since those things correlate only very weakly, if at all, with actual effectiveness, we get governments that are very ineffective and wasteful.

 

[artis]

And we have a title on CNN , but I wonder what the actual data will look like.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says​

 

[Imager]

I read the actual announcement is tomorrow. (Tuesday, 12/13)

 

[artis]

I read the actual announcement is tomorrow. (Tuesday, 12/13)

Well CNN couldn't wait

 

[Astronuc]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A high-tech nuclear energy project in Wyoming, backed by the U.S. Department of Energy and Bill Gates, is delayed by at least two years and a U.S. senator said it showed that the United States needs to reduce reliance on Russia for a special fuel for such reactors.

TerraPower, a venture founded by billionaire Gates said last year its $4 billion Natrium plant would be built in Kemmerer, a remote Wyoming town where a coal plant is set to shut in 2025. The 345-megawatt plant will likely be delayed for at least two years until 2030, the Casper Star Tribune said late on Tuesday, citing a TerraPower spokesperson.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-backed-high-tech-nuclear-150539075.htmlNot quite true - Fusion Is Nuclear Power Without the Meltdowns and Radioactive Waste
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fusion-nuclear-power-without-meltdowns-184708908.html
There will be radioactive material for which safe disposal will be required.

Wherever there are neutrons, there will be transmutation via neutron capture, and the result is a radionuclide.

 

[Astronuc]

Some useful information on fuel dimensions, design characteristics and uncertainties.
Benchmarks for uncertainty analysis in modelling (UAM) for the design, operation and safety analysis of
LWRs
Volume I: Specification and Support Data for Neutronics Cases (Phase I
https://one.oecd.org/document/NEA/NSC/DOC(2013)7/en/pdf

 

[Astronuc]

FLUKA and its history
http://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=history&mm2=1

Of particular interest to me is Electron and photon transport (EMF) from the standpoint of effects on structural materials in nuclear energy systems and accelerator targets.

The original EGS4 implementation in FLUKA was progressively modified, substituded with new algorithms and increasingly integrated with the hadronic and the muon components of FLUKA, giving rise to a very different code, called EMF (Electro-Magnetic-Fluka). In 2005, the last remaining EGS routine has been eliminated, although some of the structures still remind of the original EGS4 implementation.

I am also interested in other radiations, e.g., protons, alpha particles, nuclei, subatomic particles, as well.

 

[dlgoff]

I am also interested in other radiations, e.g., protons, ...

Astronuc
One of the coolest things I did while at the University of Kansas was working with the 4 MEV proton van de graaff accelerator.

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc
One of the coolest things I did while at the University of Kansas was working with the 4 MEV proton van de graaff accelerator.

What research was using protons?

It's interesting to read comments about low or high energy and what value is mentioned. For some, anything in the MeV range is high energy, while others, e.g., those using colliders are looking at GeV and TeV ranges. Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays have even greater energies.

I visited a tandem Van de Graaff at U of Texas back in the 1970s. I can't remember if I was in high school or early years of university.

These days I'm looking at radiation effects on structural materials, and one issue is taking results of experiments using protons and comparing to results one would expect from neutrons and other radiation. Turns out the even with the same dpa, the responses are different. However, in some neutron fields, one can find proton damage from (n,p) reactions, and presence of He from (n,α) reactions.

 

[dlgoff]

What research was using protons?

The professor I was working with was looking at X-ray fluorescence. I gave a little talk at a district Student Physics Society meeting on Trance Element Analysis by Heavy Ion Induced X-ray Fluorescence. The targets were biological samples. I had the data from the detectors stored on an old IIRC IBM machine. I wrote a Fortran program that would calculate the area under the emission curves which would be the Parts/Billion of the trace element in the sample. We would ash/concentrate the sample and would use Silver as our reference (energy). At first the targets were made by putting a thin film of carbon over a metal slid with a whole in it. But they would burn up really quick. At that time in my life, my father worked at DuPont and he got me some new film they were making (can't remember what it was called now) that could handle the proton beam.

edit: My professor was trying to get some grant money from the NIH. Years after I graduated, I ran into him at my barber shop and asked him what ever happen with the project. He said he and a graduate student made some good progress at the University of New Mexico. I could never find any papers about the research though.
edit-2: I remember what that film was called now. It was called Kapton.

Kapton was invented by the DuPont Corporation in the 1960s.

 

[Astronuc]

Westinghouse’s ADOPT 6-percent enriched U fuel nears U.S. deployment
From Fri, Mar 17, 2023

Westinghouse Electric Company announced on March 14 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the use of the company’s Advanced Doped Pellet Technology (ADOPT) fuel pellets in U.S. pressurized water reactors. That approval brings the company closer to loading lead test assemblies containing ADOPT accident tolerant fuel pellets in Unit 2 of Southern Nuclear’s Vogtle plant.

Lead test plans: Southern Nuclear announced in January 2022 that it had signed an agreement to load four lead test assemblies into Vogtle-2 in “the first planned installation of enrichments of uranium-235 greater than 5 weight percent in a domestic commercial reactor.” According to Westinghouse, the agreement calls for “licensing and manufacturing in 2023.”

High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) includes uranium enriched to between 5 and 19.75 percent U-235, above the traditional 5 percent threshold for commercial reactors. The fuel pellets that are to be installed at Vogtle-2 contain uranium enriched to 6 percent—1 percent higher than the current license limit. According to Westinghouse, “Through its increased uranium density, ADOPT fuel . . . enables U.S. customers to improve fuel cycle economics and extend their operating cycles.”

The current maximum enrichment limit for commercial LWRs is 5.00%, and folks typically use a maximum of 4.90 or 4.95%, just to be sure the 5.00% limit is not exceeded.

 

[NTL2009]

Westinghouse’s ADOPT 6-percent enriched U fuel nears U.S. deployment
From Fri, Mar 17, 2023The current maximum enrichment limit for commercial LWRs is 5.00%, and folks typically use a maximum of 4.90 or 4.95%, just to be sure the 5.00% limit is not exceeded.

What is the reason for the enrichment limit? How much of any efficiency improvement is offset by the higher enrichment process?

Perhaps these can't be answered in such a way that a lay person could understand, in that case "because" will suffice! :)

 

[Astronuc]

What is the reason for the enrichment limit? How much of any efficiency improvement is offset by the higher enrichment process?

Facilities that make enriched fuel and facilities that use enriched fuel must perform criticality analysis on their processes to ensure under normal and off-normal operation, the system will not experience a criticality accident, which could expose workers to neutron and gamma radiation. By imposing an enrichment limit, the analysis is bounding, up to that enrichment. As the enrichment increases, it takes less material (uranium) to reach criticality under the various special circumstances, and usually that has to do with aqueous solutions of uranium compounds. Most of the time, the systems are processing enriched uranium oxides, and there are strict limits on much material can be stored in close proximity to other material, and various hypothetical situations like a severe rain storm that floods the storage area, or manufacturing area, or if there is a fire, what would happen if water was sprayed on the fire.

The higher enrichment allow fuel to reach a higher burnup, so increasing enrichment from 5% to 6%, for example, means roughly a 20% increase in burnup capability, or using fewer assemblies in a batch/reload.

Research reactors have traditionally used highly enriched material (~93%) dispersed in aluminum or Zr-alloy. However, over the past couple of decades, there has been an effort to eliminate the highly enriched fuel with so-called 'high-assay, low-enriched U' fuel, or HALEU, with a 20% limit. Some advanced reactor and fuel designs will be using HALEU - probably up to 19.75% enrichment.

 

[gmax137]

Just to add to @Astronuc 's reply, "higher burnup" means the plant is replacing fewer fuel assemblies at each refueling. This may save them operating costs. There is a delicate balance between the enrichment level (which costs money) and the number of fresh fuel assemblies (which also costs money, above and beyond the cost of the uranium itself). The power companies that operate the plants and the fuel vendors who supply the fuel have teams of nuclear engineers who work constantly to optimize the design of the upcoming batch of fuel.

Also, over the years the fuel cladding designs have improved such that the fuel can be run longer (higher burnup) without cladding corrosion or other problems cropping up. So back in the day, there was no reason to use 5% enrichment since the fuel would be removed before the higher enrichment would provide any benefit. Modern cladding materials allow the core design to take advantage of higher enrichment.

The 5% limit is, as far as I know, an arbitrary value selected in the past.

This all was not really my area, so if I have led the OP astray here, I hope @Astronuc or other PF'ers will jump in and correct my woolly thoughts.

 

[Astronuc]

Also, over the years the fuel cladding designs have improved such that the fuel can be run longer (higher burnup) without cladding corrosion or other problems cropping up. So back in the day, there was no reason to use 5% enrichment since the fuel would be removed before the higher enrichment would provide any benefit. Modern cladding materials allow the core design to take advantage of higher enrichment.

I've worked with some utilities who have been using up to 4.95% enriched fuel since more than 20 years ago. Their plants did a full uprate from the original ~3450 MWt to 3685 MWt. The fresh fuel batch sizes were about 84,85, or maybe 88,89 depending, and cycle lengths were up around 530 EFPD give or take (for 18 month cycles). Lower power density PWR plants (14x14, 15x15, and 16x16 fuel) have opted to run 24-month cycles out to 660 to 700+ EFPD, and most BWRs have opted for 24 month cycles. BWR fuel uses variable and zoned enrichment in the fuel assembly lattice, and I have seen 4.90 enriched fuel used in the highly enriched fuel rods.

 

[Astronuc]

Finnish EPR enters regular electricity production
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-enters-regular-electricity-production

Test production has been completed at the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) EPR in Finland and the plant has now started regular electricity production, operator Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has announced. TVO said the reactor will soon be declared to be in commercial operation.

OL3 attained first criticality on 21 December 2021 and was connected to the grid on 12 March 2022. The EPR, a 1600 MWe pressurised water reactor, then entered a phase of test production during which some 3300 tests were conducted and more than 9000 test reports collated.

The completion of test production was initially delayed after material that had detached from the steam guide plates was found in the turbine's steam reheater in May, which required inspection and repair work. Later, in October, damage was discovered in the internals of the feedwater pumps located in the plant's turbine island during maintenance and inspection work.

The plant was operated at full capacity for the first time in late-September last year [2022].

TVO announced on 16 April that test production at the plant had been completed and regular electricity production has now started.

OL3 will produce about 15% of Finland's total electricity consumption, while the Olkiluoto plant as a whole will generate about 30% of the country's electricity.

In the US, "Vogtle unit 3 began supplying its first electricity to the grid on 1 April, Georgia Power announced. The AP1000 reactor - the first new reactor to start up in the USA since 2016 - is scheduled to enter commercial operation by mid-year."
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Grid-connection-for-Vogtle-unit-3

Meanhile, in Germany, the last 3 remaining nuclear plants are shutdown! The smoking steaming towers of Isar II, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II reactors were to shut forever by midnight on Saturday as Berlin enacts its plan for fully-renewable electricity generation by 2035.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ermany-closes-last-nuclear-plants-2023-04-14/

Isar-II, Emsland and Neckarwestheim-II are three Konvoi plants, which use 18x18 fuel lattice.

 

[bhobba]

Do you know if this is real?
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/2023/04/12/first-look-at-tokamak-energy-fusion-power-plant/

If so it will be transformational.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

Do you know if this is real?

It's probably as real as any other fusion program. They apparently have some partnerships with ORNL, PPPL, UKAEA and others. One would have to review the CV of the principals to see if they have any affiliation Culham or other fusion program.

https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/202...rototype-to-be-built-at-ukaeas-culham-campus/

So apparently they have some connection with the Culham Centre.

 

[Astronuc]

Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has issued an acceptance certificate to the Areva-Siemens consortium for the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) EPR, which began regular electricity production on 16 April. It said the 1600 MWe reactor is scheduled to enter commercial operation on 1 May.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/TVO-accepts-Olkiluoto-EPR-ahead-of-commercial-oper

The Areva-Siemens consortium constructed the OL3 plant under a fixed-price turnkey contract. They have joint liability for the contractual obligations until the end of the guarantee period of the unit. Construction of Olkiluoto 3 began in 2005, with completion of the reactor originally scheduled for 2009, but the project has had various delays and setbacks.

OL3 attained first criticality on 21 December 2021 and was connected to the grid on 12 March 2022. The EPR, a 1600 MWe pressurised water reactor, then entered a phase of test production during which some 3300 tests were conducted and more than 9000 test reports collated.

"The last phases of trial operation have been analysed and the project has been completed," TVO declared.

"The plant unit ordered with a turnkey contract has been accepted as received today," TVO said. "The final acceptance of the plant unit takes place after the end of the two-year warranty period. Even after that, the plant supplier's warranty responsibilities continue in certain parts for a maximum of eight years."

TVO said OL3 will enter commercial operation on 1 May, "which means, among other things, that the capitalisation of project costs will be stopped and the recording of depreciation will begin".

 

[Astronuc]

Once upon a time in the desert . . .

The KIWI/NERVA reactors were epithermal based on a graphite core, which contained highly enriched U dispersed in the graphite matrix. The KIWI test times were many minutes, not the hours or days needed for a long mission. A beryllium reflector would be problematic from the standpoint of high energy gamma rays (E > 1.64 MeV) from certain nuclides in the core, and boron (B-10) would be problematic with respect to the (n,α) reaction, in which B-10 disintegrates (fissions). KIWI's maximum power was 1 GWt; the last test (in 1964), a restart of KIWI-8, lasted 2.5 minutes with a calculated 750 seconds. The theoretical I^sp = 834 seconds in vacuo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications)

 

[Astronuc]

Useful information in the reports here
Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Co-operation (WPEC)
https://www.oecd-nea.org/download/wpec/A good paper on "A Rate Theory Model of Radiation-Induced Swelling in an Austenitic Stainless Steel"
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4362/2/4/34

I've worked with two of the authors.

 

[artis]

A rather interesting discussion about the generalities of the topic and the already here mentioned Finland's new reactor
The problem that I see in the faces of the participants of this otherwise interesting discussion is that each is holding on to their beliefs, which as true as they may be, is not in itself a fully rational position given that each approach to energy has it's flaws and drawbacks which at times can only be corrected by the use of the other methods, the very methods each participant seems to downgrade.

 

[Astronuc]

Useful information on LWR/VVER water chemistry issues

RADIATION PROTECTION ASPECTS OF PRIMARY WATER CHEMISTRY AND SOURCE-TERM
MANAGEMENT (April 2014)
https://one.oecd.org/document/NEA/CRPPH/R(2014)2/En/pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Companies say they're closing in on nuclear fusion as an energy source. Will it work?​

Fusion power could change the world. If it worked, it would grant humanity eye-watering quantities of electricity without producing any greenhouse gas emissions. The warming of the planet would slow, environmental pollution would drop, and energy would be cheaper than ever.

"We can generate electricity, theoretically, at much lower costs than we currently generate it now," he says. "And do it without fossil fuels."

Lofty promises. Obtaining deuterium fuel is expensive, and tritium even more so. The capital cost of a power plant will also be significant, and disposal of activated structural materials will be a substantial cost.

 

[gmax137]

Thanks @Astronuc that was an interesting read.

"We can generate electricity, theoretically, at much lower costs than we currently generate it now,"

I wish them well, but there's a sticky word in there...

 

[Astronuc]

Not sure about starting a thread on current R&D in Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTR) until I do some more homework, but there are various paper studies and some experimental work.

Thermal, Fluid and Neutronic Analysis of an LEU Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Core
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190029258

Multiphysics Simulation of the NASA SIRIUS-CAL Fuel Experiment in the Transient Test Reactor Using Griffin​

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/17/6181?type=check_update&version=2

 

[Astronuc]

US NRC - Increased Enrichment
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/power/atf/technologies/enrichment.html

In the near term, 5 to 8% enrichment may be found in some fuel designs, and more likely 5 to 6%. I just reviewed a specification for 5 to 8%. Previously, I'd reviewed a standard specification for 5 to 20% (for HALEU).

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Vogtle-unit-to-test-6-enriched-fuel

Uranium is enriched while in the form of UF₆, so the enrichment facilities and containers must be designed to accommodate the greatest enrichment. This involves criticality evaluations and plant designs that exclude moderating materials from the enriched material. Equipment must be separated to prevent critical configurations.

Subsequent forms of U, as in UO₂ or other compound or alloy, are subject to the same considerations. One also has to address transportation, including hypotheticals - e.g., truck carrying assemblies crosses a river or body of water and the bridge fails or the trailer or load goes off the bridge into the water. Can the containers maintain a subcritical configuration?

 

[Astronuc]

Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO), Olkiluoto NPP
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/TVO-eyes-extended,-expanded-use-of-Olkiluoto-units

BWR Units 1 and 2 - which were first connected to the grid in September 1978 and February 1980, respectively - currently meet 15% of Finland's electricity demand. Olkiluoto-3 (Unit 3) a 1600 MWe unit provides another 15% of the electricity to Finland.

The investments, it said, have also enabled power uprates of the units from their original capacities of 660 MWe (net) to the current 890 MWe.

In addition to the operating licence extension, TVO said it has also looked at opportunities to further uprate the power of the units. An uprating of 80 MWe is being investigated for both units, increasing power levels from 890 MWe to about 970 MWe. This would mean an annual production increase of 1.2 TWh, TVO noted.

Many LWRs were designed with a margin of 20%, and better/refined methods and calculations have enabled uprates of up to 20% at many plants in the US. Some retrofitting was needed for the increased capacity. Margins to safety limits are preserved/maintained.

https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2024/4718828.html

This is the highest production volume ever in the history of Olkiluoto. It was naturally due to the fact that instead of two plant units, there are now three units operating in regular electricity production.

After the start of regular production at Olkiluoto 3, the unit was only out of production for under four days.

The most recent of the plant units, Olkiluoto 3, already produced 1.9 TWh of electricity in 2022 when it was still undergoing the test production phase. Actual regular electricity production was started at OL3 in the early hours of the morning on 16 April 2023.

Despite the year 2023 not being anywhere close to a full production year for 2023, the newest plant unit still produced by far the most electricity of all three units in Olkiluoto. OL3 produced 10.37 TWh of electricity to the national grid last year. That is 42% of the whole production volume in Olkiluoto.

 

[Astronuc]

GE Hitachi (GEH) offers the BWRX-300 SMR based on BWR technology.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-re...ties/pre-application-activities/bwrx-300.html

Note the GE Vernova identity.
https://www.gevernova.com/nuclear/carbon-free-power/bwrx-300-small-modular-reactor
https://www.ge.com/news/press-relea...or-achieves-pre-licensing-milestone-in-canada

https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BWRX-300_2020.pdf

On December 1, 2021 Ontario Power Generation (OPG) selected the BWRX-300 SMR for use at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. In October 2022, OPG applied for a construction license for the reactor. The company expects to make a construction decision by the end of 2024 and has set a preliminary target date of 2028 for plant operations.

On July 7, 2023 Ontario Power Generation chose three additional BWRX-300 SMR for construction at the Darlington New Nuclear Project in Ontario, Canada, joining the first already planned.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300. (insufficient technical information)

We'll see.https://neutronbytes.com/2023/03/26/tva-opg-synthos-green-team-up-for-bwrx300-smr/
Page shows BWRX-300 with 870 MWt with 270 MWe (perhaps net, as opposed to 30 MWe gross?) with a coolant outlet temp of 278°C.

The core has 240 fuel assemblies (possibly GNF2 or GNF3 variants); the average assembly power is then ~3.63 MWt. Some assemblies must operate a higher power, since the peripheral assemblies operate at less than core average power, as neutron flux decreases toward the core periphery. All but 12 assemblies have a control rod (BWR controls sit among 4 assemblies usually) associated with them.

The system uses natural convection in the core rather than pumped flow. The coolant is boiled in the core, steam rises, passes to a turbine, where it eventually condenses, and the water is returned to the downcomer in the reactor vessel.

More generally
https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...er-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Breakthrough Institute - their opinions (or rather that of Matthew Wald)
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/meet-ten-of-the-next-five-successful-advanced-reactors

Note that NuScale laid off about 40% of staff, and X-Energy has quietly reduced staff.

In a seminar yesterday, the presenter mentioned about 108 SMR concepts; certainly, most will not succeed - maybe 5 to 10 types. US, Canada, UK, France, Korea, Japan, Russia, China and India, all with active nuclear power programs, have multiple parties considering SMRs - lots of competition - few winners.
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/overview.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/Publications.html

 

[Astronuc]

Back in 2022 - U.S. funds projects to explore nuclear waste reprocessing​

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...xplore-nuclear-waste-reprocessing-2022-10-21/

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) - The Biden administration on Friday said it is funding projects to recycle nuclear waste from power plants including through reprocessing, a technology that has not been practiced in the United States for decades because of concerns about costs and proliferation.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, aims to develop a dozen projects to recycle the waste, also known as spent nuclear fuel, with $38 million in funding. A Department of Energy agency, ARPA-E supports research into high-risk but potentially transformational projects.

That is a low level of funding.

November 22, 2022
https://www.anl.gov/article/argonne...velop-technologies-for-recycling-nuclear-fuel

The larger project was awarded $4.9 million. It focuses on increasing the efficiency and, therefore, the economics of nuclear fuel recycling processes. Argonne, Oklo Inc. and Deep Isolation are working to improve a process that converts UNF oxide fuel to a metal that can then be processed to provide usable materials for advanced reactor fuel. The project will combine improvements in stable, next-generation anode materials and sensors used to control the process to maximize the amount of material that can ultimately be recovered.

Krista Hawthorne, the pyroprocess engineering section manager in Argonne’s Chemical and Fuel Cycle Technologies division, leads the effort.

“Improving the efficiency of fuel recycling processes will help recover and recycle valuable resource materials remaining in used nuclear fuel,” said Hawthorne. “Our partnerships with ARPA-E and industry are incredibly important to closing remaining technology gaps.”

The second project was awarded $1.52 million. With this project, Argonne researchers will develop, produce and test more efficient industrial chemical processing equipment to reprocess UNF. The project lead is Argonne radiochemist Anna Servis.

Apparently funding is continuing in the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024’’ - DIVISION D—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240304/HMS31169.PDF
It's just a matter of finding/identifying the specific line that refers to the allocation or renewal of previous authorized funds.


I listened to a presentation the other day given by some ANSTO scientists, and one topic was waste isolation. Synroc was mentioned, so that's still on the table. I looked into that as part of a course 40+ years ago.

 

[Astronuc]

COVERT TOWNSHIP — Thanks to federal funding announced Wednesday, the Palisades nuclear facility in Michigan is poised to be the first shuttered plant to resume nuclear energy generation. Officials say Palisades, and the energy it produces, will be key to meeting goals for lowering carbon emissions.

The company that owns Palisades Energy LLC, Holtec International, will receive up to a $1.52 billion conditional loan from the U.S. Department of Energy. The funding will allow the 800-megawatt-capacity plant to resume energy production, company officials and U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said Wednesday morning.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...clear-plant-nuclear-power-energy/73115767007/

Palisades is a unique PWR that uses cruciform control rods and consequently a unique fuel design to accommodate the control rods which are function between fuel assemblies rather than in particular fuel assemblies.

 

[Astronuc]

From ASTM E531.

Neutron Spectrum Calculations – neutron spectrum calculations involve two tasks: (1) determination of the neutron source distribution in the reactor, and (2) transport of the neutron source through the reactor environment to determine the neutron fluence rate distribution at the surveillance location of interest. The specific computational method applied must be validated by comparing results with measurements made on one or more representative benchmark experiments.

 

[gmax137]

Palisades is a unique PWR that uses cruciform control rods and consequently a unique fuel design to accommodate the control rods which are function between fuel assemblies rather than in particular fuel assemblies

Palisades was the first commercial NSSS provided by Combustion Engineering. The CE Nuclear brain trust in those days included a number of Argonne labs luminaries. So I always saw their fingerprints in the almost BWR like aspects of the reactor design.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how the re-licensing process goes. I'm thinking a couple of well-heeled intervenors could really throw a wrench into the works.

 

[Astronuc]

The CE Nuclear brain trust in those days included a number of Argonne labs luminaries.

I met some of those folks during projects with utilities and CE.

In Europe, more than 70 nuclear reactors have already closed down and it is estimated that dozens more will follow in the coming years. It therefore won't be long before they fall due for dismantling. Recycling and re-using the maximum quantity of materials makes it possible to reduce the ecological footprint of dismantling. And that is what this project is all about: a desire to create a circular economy in dismantling.

https://www.sckcen.be/en/news/nuclear-melting-furnace-also-receives-green-light-europe-0

Not what I expect when I read the title.

 

[Vanadium 50]

included a number of Argonne labs luminaries.

Including Marius Stan, who plated Bogdan in Breaking Bad? Can't get more famous than that.

 

[gmax137]

No, the guys I'm talking about were much earlier. Walter Zinn, Harold Lichtenberger. That era.

 

[Astronuc]

In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation
https://apnews.com/article/bill-gat...-electricity-23176f33200b22b9ede7f4ccf4f2ec3b

Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated.

Gates was in the tiny community of Kemmerer Monday to break ground on the project. The co-founder of Microsoft is chairman of TerraPower. The company applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March for a construction permit for an advanced nuclear reactor that uses sodium, not water, for cooling. If approved, it would operate as a commercial nuclear power plant.

The site is adjacent to PacifiCorp’s Naughton Power Plant, which will stop burning coal in 2026 and natural gas a decade later, the utility said. Nuclear reactors operate without emitting planet-warming greenhouse gases. PacifiCorp plans to get carbon-free power from the reactor and says it is weighing how much nuclear to include in its long-range planning.

 

[Astronuc]

Separately, apparently the NRC's SDA of NuScale's SMR is ongoing, or parts of it.
Ref: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/17/2023-05457/nuscale-power-llc
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-re...on-activities/idaho-national-labs-preapp.html

There is still interest in the concept.
https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-nuscale-power-stock-ripped-203012874.html

 

[gmax137]

In Wyoming ... Kemmerer...

In case anyone was wondering, Kemmerer is in western Wyoming, about 50 miles northeast of Salt Lake.

 

[Astronuc]

AstroVinci™ Microreactor​

https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/astrovinci-microreactor/

The AstroVinci™ microreactor leverages the features of the eVinci™ heat pipe reactor including a matrixed core design, industry leading heat pipe design and manufacturing, and integrated controls and power conversion. The AstroVinci microreactor design can support various mission types with power outputs ranging from 10kWe to 100kWe, easily addressing the power needs of on-orbit or lunar surface applications. The core is designed to run for up to 10 years to support extended mission durations. The simple design of the AstroVinci microreactor fission power system allows for the reduction of failure points, simple operation and increased reliability for the harsh environment of space.

https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/space-symposium