[JuanP]

Why do I see a government pushing ahead a timeline on a nuclear fueled project as a idea that could go terribly wrong?

Because you don't know any better!

[vtsnowedin]

Why do I see a government pushing ahead a timeline on a nuclear fueled project as a idea that could go terribly wrong?

You live in a litigious culture where lawyers run the government?

I was thinking along the lines of Chernobyl where an experiment with a nuclear plant blew the roof off.
If the scientist and engineers building that plant think it should take two years to do it right I think they should be listened to.

[Newfie]

VT,

All the road branches ahead of us have horrible traits, some more certain than others. There is no good way out at this point. Nuclear has its issues for sure. Yet it seems to be the least bad path.

[vtsnowedin]

VT,

All the road branches ahead of us have horrible traits, some more certain than others. There is no good way out at this point. Nuclear has its issues for sure. Yet it seems to be the least bad path.

Oh I'm all for building new state of the art Nuclear plants. But is has been pointed out we can not build enough of them to solve our energy problem. I do object to politicians making decisions about how to build them as those decisions should be left to the Scientists and engineers that know what it actually takes to do it right.

[Tanada]

VT,

All the road branches ahead of us have horrible traits, some more certain than others. There is no good way out at this point. Nuclear has its issues for sure. Yet it seems to be the least bad path.

Oh I'm all for building new state of the art Nuclear plants. But is has been pointed out we can not build enough of them to solve our energy problem. I do object to politicians making decisions about how to build them as those decisions should be left to the Scientists and engineers that know what it actually takes to do it right.

For a less sarcastic answer, this prototype plant is a near copy of the prototype plant built at Oak Ridge National Labs in the 1960's with more modern i.e. tougher materials used for the salt systems. When ORNL built the original it took them about two years to develop the high nickle alloy they used for the salt pipes and containment structure. Since 1967 when they finished inventing it the alloy has gone through quite a few refinement steps because molten salts are used as heat reservoirs in a lot of systems these days especially in the Solar Thermal power systems where they aim a bunch of mirrors at a tower with a big tank of salt on the top.

Because ORNL is a government lab and none of the material was classified the Chinese were given complete copies of all the plans, engineering notes and reports generated and were also sold several tons of U-233 as start up fuel for their plant way back in 2011. When they decided to go forward with the project all they needed to do was fabricate the already existing plans in modern materials, test each part for quality control and then assemble those parts as shown in the blueprints they were provided.

They are even planning according to the article I quoted in following the same testing routine ORNL used in the 1960's of starting out using lightly enriched Uranium with only a little Thorium and gradually shifting the mixture from about 20% thorium to about 80% thorium over a period of 24-36 months verifying that the test results they got from the USA are accurate.

Saddest of all ORNL made up plans for the next stage modular size 150 MWth test reactor including most of the construction plans before the Nixon Administration zeroed out the funding for the project. Those plans sat in a file for 30 years until the Chinese asked for them and they were turned over. It appears to me that the Chinese next stage reactor will be based on those same plans from ORNL and the reason they are duplicating the testing routine is to validate those plans for the next stage that was based on the ORNL results from the 1 MWth prototype test reactor they are planning to start up now.

I have met a small number of engineers and they tended to be rather conservative, to put it mildly, when it came to doing something they had never done before. First they would build exactly to plan to make sure that what they got worked as they were told it would work, then they would try tweaking it to improve things. The Chinese have shown that exact pattern with each of the reactor designs they are currently building. They purchased designs from North America and Europe and built them to the plans exactly, then they took what they learned from that and created their own "advanced concept" based on those same plans with numerous tweaks to improve different aspects and built the Chinese improved version which they own the intellectual property rights too instead of simply repeating the licensed design they built first but which requires them to pay a fee for every copy of it they build.

So to sum up, this reactor is closely based on an already proven design, and the whole thing would easily fit in a site that was forty feet deep and twenty feet across. The reason for the depth is to allow gravity drainage in the event of a problem into the reserve tanks that are designed to stop any reaction from continuing. This is done by things like having a liner and baffles made of control rod material like boron or cadmium alloy steel that will soak up spontaneous neutrons and prevent any chain reaction from taking place. It only takes about 1 kg of fissionable material to power a reactor this small for a month and in the original design they had a feed system where they could add more fissionable material if necessary in case the breeding ratio was not high enough to self fuel due to the small core size. In the ORNL experiment they started out with pure Uranium and when they switched over to experiment with a thorium core they removed the Uranium chemically and replaced it with a mix of Thorium and Plutonium. They adjusted the enrichment ratio by later adding a little more Plutonium, something like 100 grams to boost the ratio of fissionable to fertile because Thorium has a greater affinity for absorbing neutrons than Depleted Uranium does, more than double in fact. That meant that the original Plutonium enrichment wasn't quite enough because the Thorium soaked up more of the free neutrons. Once they got the balance right the test reactor produced a breeding ratio of 1.01. IOW for every 100 Plutonium fission events the chain reaction continued and 101 Thorium atoms absorbed a neutron starting the transmutation process to form Uranium-233.

Ideally with one of these reactors colocated with each cluster of conventional nuclear power plants you could constantly burn up the plutonium produced in the conventional pressurized water reactors and use the produced Uranium-233 to enrich the recycled Uranium that makes up 95% of spent nuclear fuel back up to the industry standard of 4.4% enrichment with the last 0.6% being make up depleted Uranium pre stockpiled on site. In that fashion the nuclear "island" or cluster of plants would only need to import cheap Thorium which is a byproduct of rare earth mining. They burn up all their reactor grade Plutonium as it is made and recycle their Uranium until it is all used up improving there mine to power ratio from 0.5% of the energy in natural Uranium to on the order of 80% of the Uranium energy being released by fission over however many cycles it takes with the last 20% being the internal energy consumed by the system to operate all the stages of the nuclear cluster. China does not have a lot of rich Uranium ore but their rare earth mining has already stockpiled decades worth of thorium byproduct that will let them rapidly expand their molten salt system if the prototype works as expected in both this stage and in the advanced modular stage design they already got from the USA back in 2011. If it works as expected they can stop buying uranium completely because the fuel they already have on hand along with the natural uranium they have on long term contract will be more than enough if they do not have to use gas centrifuge enrichment to make it reactor ready. Just take your natural uranium, add 4.4% bred U-233 as oxide powder, stir completely and then make it into pellets to turn into fuel rods.

This is the path the USA turned away from in 1971. You can fix blame wherever you want for the decisions made back then but the reality is with this system and the million tons of depleted Uranium the USA already has stockpiled we could shut down every mine on the planet for several decades just while we work through that stockpile while also expanding our number of reactors to replace all fossil fueled electricity production. The Chinese are planning to skip the 50 year lag the USA chose to follow. Once they get factories set up to mass produce modular reactors they can ship them out to existing coal power plants and once they are installed turn off the coal plant and have the modular reactors use the same feeds into the electrical grid already in place. Most of the jobs at a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant are the same, an electrical worker or security guard is the same, only the 2% of the labor force working in the control room and the refueling specialists are different.

[vtsnowedin]

I consider my last post cautious not sarcastic. But you post is most informative and I have little to disagree with it.

[Tanada]

I consider my last post cautious not sarcastic. But you post is most informative and I have little to disagree with it.

Sorry VY my first response was about living in a lawyer run litigious society which was rather sarcastic, I was talking about my response, not your comment.

[vtsnowedin]

I consider my last post cautious not sarcastic. But you post is most informative and I have little to disagree with it.

Sorry VY my first response was about living in a lawyer run litigious society which was rather sarcastic, I was talking about my response, not your comment.

Quite alright.
I'm getting to the age where a post five or six up thread is forgotten and a re-quote is needed or I totally miss the train of thought.
Funny that I can remember most of Nursery rhymes from my childhood.
" When he said legs I thought he said kegs and I ordered two big fat ones.
When he said noses I thought he said roses and I asked for a big red one.
When he said brains I thought he said trains and I missed mine."

[C8]

The Chinese are planning to skip the 50 year lag the USA chose to follow. Once they get factories set up to mass produce modular reactors .

This could have always been done in the US. The fleet of nuke subs the US has are, by definition, modular. Modular nukes can be floated outside cities to give them power- this avoids all the time consuming earth moving, permits, lawsuits, etc. Political forces have nuked nuclear power- not technical ones.

The 50 year lag was caused by liberal anti-nuke activists (funded by FF companies) and celebrities. Democrats are essentially the blame for the mass CO2 emissions that followed from them stopping clean nuclear power.

[vtsnowedin]

The 50 year lag was caused by liberal anti-nuke activists (funded by FF companies) and celebrities. Democrats are essentially the blame for the mass CO2 emissions that followed from them stopping clean nuclear power.

I don't know about that conspiracy theory of the fossil fuel companies funding the anti nuke activist.It might be true, but I suspect the truth lies more in them defending their own products openly and above board with out any underhanded funding of opposition parties.
I suppose someone will write a book about it someday and include what ever facts and figures they can dig up researching the topic.

[Tanada]

The 50 year lag was caused by liberal anti-nuke activists (funded by FF companies) and celebrities. Democrats are essentially the blame for the mass CO2 emissions that followed from them stopping clean nuclear power.

I don't know about that conspiracy theory of the fossil fuel companies funding the anti nuke activist.It might be true, but I suspect the truth lies more in them defending their own products openly and above board with out any underhanded funding of opposition parties.
I suppose someone will write a book about it someday and include what ever facts and figures they can dig up researching the topic.

Here is an infamous example from the anti-nuclear power campaign of the 1980's in New York. If you look at the disclaimer at the bottom left of the real world ad published in newspapers and magazines around New York it says

Sponsored in the public interest by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island...

The same kind of ads were run in multiple communities targeting different power projects. The dirty little secret is Nuclear has an energy density of around 1 million times the chemical energy on a mass by mass basis. One gram of Uranium or Plutonium fully fission releases the same energy as 1 ton of hard coal or crude petroleum. When the fossil industries figured out that mining for coal and drilling for oil could never compete on a level playing field they lashed out with every tactic they could invent or find to deny, delay or destroy the Nuclear industry. In a way I can't blame them back then about ten million people were employed mining or drilling for fossil fuels. Nuclear could replace them all with a work crew of about ten thousand presuming we needed enough fission fuel to power both the electric grid and synthetic fuels as drop in replacements for liquid fuels in ICE equipment they were looking at losses in the billions and they fought back.

Today after decades of warnings about climate change the public is looking more at the no CO2 aspects than the scare tactics of old and most heavy industries in North America have been offshored so many of the jobs they were protecting 40 years ago are not around to protect in 2022.

[vtsnowedin]

As I suggested ,openly and above board. And there was no electric powered car alternative back then. Still isn't much of an electric powered airline industry.

[Tanada]

As I suggested ,openly and above board. And there was no electric powered car alternative back then. Still isn't much of an electric powered airline industry.

True, and the energy density advantage of synthetic liquid fuels, especially for aircraft, makes battery flight only viable in short range applications. If you are commuting Chicago to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Saint Louis or Saint Paul then sure you can pack in enough batteries to make a safe trip with a margin for bad weather making you divert to a neighboring airport. On the other hand Chicago to London or Mumbai or even Anchorage is IMO permanently out of reach of a single hop battery pack light enough to carry a reasonable passenger load.

On the other hand with an 80% fission powered grid plus fission process heat for industry you can power up synthetic fuel production like NASA wants to use on Mars to convert CO2 and H2O into synthetic jet fuel and fly wherever the planes can carry you on carbon neutral fuel.

[Tanada]

Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars

Fast Facts

The Department of Energy manages 54 million gallons of nuclear and hazardous waste at its Hanford site in Washington state. DOE has treatment options for some of its low-activity waste:

Vitrify it—immobilize it in glass (current plan)
Grout it—immobilize it in a concrete-like mixture (potential option)

Grouting the waste could save billions of dollars, and several facilities could dispose of it. But DOE faces legal challenges if it tries to dispose of grouted waste.

We recommended that DOE look at disposal options for grouted waste and suggested that Congress consider clarifying DOE's authority to manage and dispose of low-activity waste.

Highlights
What GAO Found

Several potential options exist for disposing of grouted supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford site. (Grout immobilizes waste in a concrete-like mixture.) Specifically, two commercial and two federal facilities present minimal technical challenges to accepting grouted LAW. The commercial facilities—Clive Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in Utah and Waste Control Specialists in Texas—are licensed to receive similar waste. The federal facilities—Hanford's Integrated Disposal Facility and the Nevada National Security Site—face regulatory constraints and other challenges to disposing of grouted supplemental LAW.

Disposal costs and health and environmental risks vary among the four potential disposal facilities, but disposing of Hanford's supplemental LAW as grouted waste could cost billions less than disposing of it as vitrified waste, which is DOE's current plan. (Vitrification immobilizes the waste in glass.) DOE estimated that vitrification and disposal of the waste would cost between $21 billion and $37 billion. GAO estimated grouting and disposal would cost between $11 billion and $13 billion (see figure) and may be faster. DOE has begun exploring how to dispose of grouted Hanford waste, but it has not analyzed a range of options as GAO and DOE best practices recommend. As a result, DOE is likely missing opportunities to reduce risks, expedite treatment, and save tens of billions of dollars.

DOE faces legal challenges in selecting a disposal site if it grouts supplemental LAW. For example, before DOE can consider alternatives to vitrification, it must show it can manage Hanford's tank waste as a waste type other than high-level waste (HLW) because it is currently required to vitrify at least a portion of the HLW. DOE is testing alternative treatment and disposal options, but DOE officials told GAO that if they continue with the testing, they expect the effort to be the subject of litigation. Clarifying DOE's authority to manage Hanford's supplemental LAW as low-level waste and transport it outside Washington State for disposal could help save tens of billions of dollars by allowing DOE to pursue less expensive disposal options.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOE oversees the treatment and disposal of 54 million gallons of nuclear and hazardous waste at the Hanford site in Washington State. Hanford's tank waste is currently managed as HLW; however, more than 90 percent of the waste's volume has low levels of radioactivity. DOE plans to vitrify a portion of Hanford's LAW, but it has not made a decision on how to treat and dispose of the roughly 40 percent referred to as supplemental LAW. In May 2017, GAO found that grouting supplemental LAW could save tens of billions of dollars and reduce certain risks compared to vitrification. However, little is known about disposal options for grouted LAW.

GAO examined (1) what potential disposal options exist for grouted supplemental LAW, (2) what is known about the costs and environmental risks of potential disposal facilities and the extent to which DOE has assessed them, and (3) the challenges DOE faces in selecting a disposal method. GAO reviewed technical reports on DOE's waste disposal strategies at Hanford, compared DOE's approach to best practices, and interviewed DOE officials and disposal facility representatives.

Skip to Recommendations
Recommendations

Congress should consider clarifying two issues, including DOE's authority to manage and dispose of the tank waste as other than HLW, consistent with existing regulatory authorities. GAO also recommends that DOE expand the potential disposal options it assesses to include all facilities that could receive grouted supplemental LAW. DOE concurred with GAO's recommendation.

LINK

[Doly]

On the other hand with an 80% fission powered grid plus fission process heat for industry you can power up synthetic fuel production like NASA wants to use on Mars to convert CO2 and H2O into synthetic jet fuel and fly wherever the planes can carry you on carbon neutral fuel.

The problem with that idea is that fission fuel isn't renewable, either. So you wouldn't be able to produce a lot of jet fuel. Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.

[AdamB]

Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.

EROEI has nothing to do with price. It is entirely an energy ratio. You should know better.

[vtsnowedin]

Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.

EROEI has nothing to do with price. It is entirely an energy ratio. You should know better.

BS. If the EROEI is low the price will be high and vice versa.
You should know better.

[AdamB]

Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.

EROEI has nothing to do with price. It is entirely an energy ratio. You should know better.

BS.

energy returned / energy invested = EROEI (mousepad feel free to check my equation )

You show me the units on that equation involving any currency on this planet and I'll stop posting here forever. You should know better to.

If the EROEI is low the price will be high and vice versa.
You should know better.

I do. My prior claim stands ready for you to please everyone on here who doesn't like an arrogant know it all participating.

And your statement can also be disproven by some pretty basic data, and while you might not be capable of figuring it out, I can find some clever 7th graders who could with nothing more than google, historical real oil prices, and the claimed decreasing EROEI ratio through time to match it against.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo

[Outcast_Searcher]

BS. If the EROEI is low the price will be high and vice versa.
You should know better.

But that clearly doesn't consistently follow.

The Russo-Ukraine war sure raised oil prices, for example, but that wasn't caused by EROEI issues, nor did it change EROEI for oil meaningfully in the short term. That was all about supply vs. demand and pressures on various distribution channels as sanctions and supply lines were impacted.

Just because something could impact the price sometimes certainly doesn't mean it normally impacts it, much less impacts it all the time.

In fact, if you want to look for a cause of low vs. high oil prices of oil (or pretty much any commodity over time), supply vs. demand is a pretty good overall proxy, not EROEI.

Off the top of my head, it seems this has been pointed out thousands of times on this site in the past 15 years or so.

[Tanada]

Alright, for what seems like the hundredth if not the thousandth time.

In purely energy returned terms a chemical bond only has about a twenty-millionth the energy of a nuclear bond.
Average chemical bonds yield between 1 Electron Volt eV to 10 eV when broken.
Chemical Bond Energies
Average Nuclear bonds yield between 198 Million Electron Volts MeV and 207 MeV when fissioned.
Fission Energy Pu-239 released

All claims that Fission is a low EROEI power source are clearly wishful luddite thinking given that all fission fuels were originally extracted using chemical energy and once the first generation was accumulated it was possible to use fission energy to charge up electrical batteries or directly power mining equipment with fission generated electricity making it self sustaining.

It is also a truism that converting energy from once form to another loses some of the energy in the conversion process. For a couple of examples, converting raw Crude Oil into petroleum products provides some 20% less net energy than if you were to burn the crude oil directly. Second example, you can convert raw lignite into synthetic diesel fuel but in this example you lose about 30% of the net energy you had in the original fuel.

Now lets take the Fission example. Fission fuel has so much excess energy inherently available that the USA declares nuclear fuel "Spent High Level Waste" after a single fuel cycle in a civilian reactor. Doing this only consumes 0.5% of the inherent energy in the raw natural uranium as mined. Using nuclear fission energy the US Navy has a proven prototyped system for processing sea water to recover CO2 and Hydrogen and put it through the Sabatier process and the Fischer-Tropsch in a combined system to produce synthetic liquid fuels that are suitable for use as jet and shipping fuel which is carbon neutral. Sure, processing these raw materials into artificial hydrocarbons is an energy intensive process. When you start with an energy source with 20 million times the basic energy value as the end product it doesn't take a math genius to see you could throw away 90% of the power and still produce abundant synthetic fuels that are carbon neutral. The main thing holding this back from happening is the abundance of cheap accessible fossil fuels, why bother producing $3.00/gallon synthetic diesel fuel when you can pull it out of the ground and refine it for $0.60/gallon and make a hefty profit even after high excise taxes?