Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Mon 18 Dec 2017, 20:50:27**

They are going out of bidness.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2017 ... costs.html

Japan power companies face surging nuclear fuel recycling costs

Quote:
The cost of recycling spent nuclear fuel has surged since Japan started using such fuel in 1999, Kyodo News learned Saturday, adding to questions about the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Japan already is struggling with the sustainability of nuclear power generation using recycled fuel called mixed oxide, or MOX, which has resulted in a stockpile of nearly 50 tons of plutonium, with only a few reactors currently using such fuel. The MOX fuel is produced by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and reusing extracted plutonium and uranium. Japanese power companies send their spent fuel to France for reprocessing. According to data from the Finance Ministry and other sources, the price of one MOX fuel unit imported in 1999 by the predecessor company of Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. was 230 million yen ($2 million). The price of the recycle fuel Kansai Electric Power Co. bought in September this year exceeded 1 billion yen. While power companies do not disclose MOX fuel prices, sources familiar with nuclear fuel recycling business said the price includes the cost of transport, private security service and insurance. With many nuclear plants shut down due to safety concerns raised by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, only three nuclear plants -- two Kansai Electric reactors and one Shikoku Electric Power Co. reactor -- currently use MOX fuel in so-called pluthermal power generation. The pluthermal project is the only way for Japan to consume plutonium produced in the process of fuel recycling, and the country's plutonium stockpile has declined only slightly after the restart of those three reactors which can run on MOX fuel. Japan's holding of plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, has caused international concern. Japan is the only non-nuclear weapons state in the world that is carrying on with a commercial spent fuel reprocessing program.

Posted: **Tue 09 Jan 2018, 19:19:45**

A tale of two nuclear plants on Lake Michigan (all info from Wikipedia):

1) Kewaunee Power station was the 4th built in Wisconsin and the 44th built in the USA. Construction began August 6, 1968, the plant was commissioned on June 16, 1974. Operation was uneventful, there was a minor water leak on April 27, 2006, although no radioactivity was released and the plant remained operational. In 2008, application was made to the NRC for an extension of the original operating license for another 20 years, this was granted, the plant could have remained in operation until 2033, and further extensions could have been applied for and probably would have been granted.

On October 22, 2012, Dominion Resources announced they would shut down and decommission the plant in Mid-2013. Dominion's chairman and CEO said "the decision was based purely on economics. Dominion was not able to move forward with our plan to grow our nuclear fleet in the Midwest to take advantage of economies of scale". Lower natural gas costs and resultant lower electricity prices created an electricity market in which the plant could not compete. The plant came offline permanently on May 7, 2013.[2][5] Plans for decommissioning are uncertain: as a private owner rather than a public utility, Dominion cannot rely on charges imposed on utility customers by state regulators; however, the firm has a substantial reserve fund earmarked for this purpose and a cause of action against the Department of Energy for failure to remove spent fuel. There is also the chance that the energy market might improve due to economic or political changes.[2]

The SAFSTOR (SAFe STORage) nuclear decommissioning option was selected. During SAFSTOR, the de-fuelled plant is monitored for up to sixty years before complete decontamination and dismantling of the site, to a condition where nuclear licensing is no longer required. During the storage interval, some of the radioactive contaminants of the reactor and power plant will decay, which will reduce the quantity of radioactive material to be removed during the final decontamination phase. A reduced workforce will move fuel assemblies from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.[6]

Construction cost: $776.15M (2007 dollars). One 566 MW PWR which averaged 84% of rated capacity for 40 years and could probably have done so for another 40 years after that, assuming a second 20-year extensoin had been applied for and granted. Lifetime average annual power output was 3,752GWh. This was more expensive than natural gas fired power plants, not counting any expenses arising from the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas, of course.

The reactor was defuelled and the usable fuel is stored in the "Moon Pool" of the nearby (and still operational) Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The reactor main and emergency cooling systems remain operational, and lake water is being circulated contunuously. Even if the station were to be abandonned, there is no longer any need to actively cool the defuelled reactor core. Tons of cooled spent fuel rods still exist at the site in buried dry cask storage, awaiting the US Government to fulfill it's promise of permanent storage - or recycling as new fuel.

Kewaunee cannot be safely reactivated and re-licensed. It falls short of current requirements for a new NRC license, and cannot be safely modified to current spec for decades to come.

2) The Point Beach Nuclear Plant is located a few miles South of the decommissioned Kewaunee plant. Again Wikipedia:

On November 28, 1966, following Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) endorsement and a brief public hearing, Alfred Gruhl, Glenn Reed, and Sol Burstein[4] turned the first symbolic spades of dirt for the official ground-breaking. In May, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued the official construction permit (number 32) for Point Beach Unit 1. The Unit 2 construction permit (number 47) was issued approximately a year later.[4]

On October 5, 1970, the AEC issued its full-term, full-power Operating License (DPR-24) for Point Beach Unit 1. The loading fuel into the reactor commenced almost immediately. On November 2, 1970, operators achieved initial criticality, with the nuclear-powered electricity being produced for days later, on November 6. Full commercial service was reached on December 21, 1970, just 49 months from the initial groundbreaking ceremony. After delays from nuclear power opponents, Unit 2 was granted a full-term, full-power operating license (DPR-27) on March 8, 1973, almost 1 1/2 years behind the original schedule.[4]

Due to steam generator tube degradation and failures caused by intergranular stress corrosion cracking, Unit 1 was operated at approximately 75-80% of full power from December, 1979 until October 1983, when replacement steam generators were installed.[5] The Unit 2 steam generators were replaced in 1996-97.[6]

In 2005, the approved the license renewal application for the Point Beach plant, extending the operating license from forty years to sixty.[7][8] in 2011, the NRC approved a 17% increase in power output (a.k.a. extended power uprate) from both units. This entailed significant upgrades to several plant systems and components, including safety-related pumps and valves, as well as the turbine-generator sets.[9]

Present nameplate capacity at Point Beach is 1182 MW. Average annual energy produced is 10,153 GWh, cheaper than natural gas. Since going online it has averaged 98.06% of capacity, and has a perfect safety record with no radioactives released. Several failures have occurred in the (multiple redundant) steam turbines, and the re-designed units are proving considerably better than the originals.

Conclusion: Both of these plants had unblemished safety records with no nuclear accidents. Both are/were regarded as good places to work by the locals. One is profitable because it has twin reactors and multiple turbine generator sets. The smaller of the two had essentially the same expenses for security and operations, but could not produce enough power to compete with fracked natural gas.

There are some beautiful beaches near to and even between these two power stations, and the area is cheap and uncrowded, and I'm interested. I'd much rather live near to one or both of these sites than any of several coal plants in the state, all of which have heavily contaminated the areas around them with toxics (including radioactives) from the stacks. This legacy of coal is a major problem from coast to coast, but mainly in the NorthEast.

Posted: **Tue 09 Jan 2018, 20:00:05**

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Posted: **Fri 12 Jan 2018, 17:10:33**

AdamB wrote:
China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

Posted: **Fri 12 Jan 2018, 20:48:27**

Armed raid on nuclear workers' housing raises fears over Brazil's two reactors

This kind of thing will occur more and more frequently with worse and worse outcome as we go further and further down the rabbit whole of societal collapse...

then all the wet dreams of 'clean, free, un-meterable nuke power' will rapidly turn into horrific living nightmares...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ctor-armed

Posted: **Fri 12 Jan 2018, 20:55:39**

dissident wrote:
AdamB wrote:
China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

Does lead corrde Titanium? I am thinking maybe a lead pool reactor with Titanium coolant pipes moving liquid zinc coolant from the core to the steam generator/heat exchanger.

Posted: **Fri 12 Jan 2018, 21:36:59**

Kalifornia is on the brink of total collapse...

California’s last nuclear plant to close after unanimous vote by regulators

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art ... 491203.php

Quote:
California’s last nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement — will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy’s long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort. The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state’s largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California’s electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. “With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California,” said commission President Michael Picker. “We’ve looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come.” Diablo Canyon’s planned shutdown is the latest blow to America’s nuclear power industry, beset by plant closures and the cancellation of proposed reactors.

Posted: **Fri 12 Jan 2018, 21:39:34**

People, Australia canny do it.

Australia has 'missed the boat' on nuclear power

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-econ ... 4yyeg.html

Quote:
The Minerals Council of Australia has called for the country's prohibition on nuclear power to be lifted. But both critics and supporters see little future for large-scale nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix. The man who once famously called for 50 nuclear reactors across Australia, nuclear physicist and NBN chairman Ziggy Switkowski, says "the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed".

Posted: **Sun 14 Jan 2018, 16:06:21**

Russia's floating power plant clear for operation

Russian State Expert Examination Board (Glavgosexpertiza) has approved the operation of the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov. The authority said on 9 December it had approved the project in Russia's northernmost city of Pevek that is being funded by Rosenergoatom, the nuclear power plant operator subsidiary of Rosatom.

Currently moored at the Baltiysky Zavod shipyard in Saint Petersburg, Akademik Lomonosov houses two 35 MW KLT-40S nuclear reactors, similar to those used in Russia's nuclear-powered ice breakers.

Ships carrying cargo to support Akademik Lomonosov arrived at the port of Pevek, in the Chukotka district of Russia, in October last year. The plant is to be towed to Murmansk in May, be loaded with fuel in October and commissioned in November next year.

The plant is intended to replace the outgoing capacity of the Bilibino nuclear power plant in the Chukotka district. The first Bilibino unit is scheduled to be shut down in 2019 and the whole plant will be shut down in 2021.

Posted: **Sun 14 Jan 2018, 16:31:38**

Subjectivist wrote:
dissident wrote:
AdamB wrote:
China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.

Does lead corrde Titanium? I am thinking maybe a lead pool reactor with Titanium coolant pipes moving liquid zinc coolant from the core to the steam generator/heat exchanger.

Titanium should be quite resistant to corrosion by other metals. The oxide layer it forms is something else (and why welding of titanium requires a no oxygen atmosphere). One of the tricks used to operate with a lead coolant in a steel alloy pipe network is to force oxidation of the iron.

Posted: **Thu 18 Jan 2018, 21:38:05**

Welcome to the Nuclear Reactor Design Carousel...which like a jukebox that plays the same songs forever, the Nuclear Industry continually touts the same old 50 year old reactor designs.

The Nuclear Industry has a bigger problem with BAU than even Oil.

Push aside the dreadful LWR, I dare ye.

The same old junk designs aint gonna cut it.

Posted: **Thu 18 Jan 2018, 23:37:53**

NASA testing a tiny nuclear power plant the size of wastebasket that can power a Mars base.

nuclear-reactors-mars

This new design for a tiny nuclear power plant is a big breakthrough....

The same tiny nuclear reactor that can power up a Mars base or Mars Rover could also be used to power an EV or a house back here on earth.

Cheers!

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 08:38:48**

The same tiny nuclear reactor that can power up a Mars base or Mars Rover could also be used to power an EV or a house back here on earth.

Right, Planty. A coffee can full of uranium in every garage and a chicken in every pot, eh?

Please dispose of your used reactors responsibly.

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 11:32:05**

GUANGZHOU, Jan. 9 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese nuclear power operator signed an agreement Tuesday with a French energy organization to deepen cooperation on nuclear power technology.

The deal, between China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and the French Alternative Energy and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), focuses on areas such as nuclear reactor technology, advanced fuels and materials, and nuclear fuel cycles.

Under the agreement, CGN and CEA will deepen cooperation in the upstream and downstream nuclear power industry chain, including reactor life management and the concept design of the fourth-generation nuclear energy technology.

He Yu, chairman of CGN, said the new agreement will enhance bilateral exchanges in nuclear power technology and open new space for Sino-French nuclear power cooperation.

Founded in 1994, CGN is the largest nuclear power operator in China, with 39,000 employees worldwide. It focuses on the development of clean energies such as nuclear power, nuclear fuel, wind power and solar power.

The CEA is a key organization in research, development and innovation in France. Its main areas include defense and security, nuclear and renewable energy, and physical and life sciences.

LINK

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 12:05:05**

GHung wrote:
The same tiny nuclear reactor that can power up a Mars base or Mars Rover could also be used to power an EV or a house back here on earth.

Right, Planty. A coffee can full of uranium in every garage and a chicken in every pot, eh?

With time they can probably reduce the size of these amazing new little reactors even more....maybe get them down to the size of a coke can. Stick one in a house or a car or a truck and you've got all the energy you need and no CO2 emissions.

We can't keep relying on coal and oil and other FF, Gungy.

We've got a little problem with global warming happening just now---greenhouse gases emitted from burning fossil fuels are going to overheat the climate and damage the planet's ecosystem if we don't do something about it.

And Nuclear energy doesn't release CO2 or CH4.

NASA has just made a major breakthough on tiny nuclear reactors for use on their space probes that may have major implications for energy generation back here on earth.

Cheers!

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 12:36:41**

Plantagenet wrote:-snip-

We've got a little problem with global warming happening just now---greenhouse gases emitted from burning fossil fuels are going to overheat the climate and damage the planet's ecosystem if we don't do something about it.

And Nuclear energy doesn't release CO2 or CH4.

-snip-

A popular misconception. Nuclear energy does release greenhouse gasses when uranium is mined, refined, and transported. About 15% as much as coal and 6% as much as natural gas. The mining machinery is gasoline (sometimes propane) powered and the heavy trucks are fueled with diesel. Then lots of electrical energy is consumed heating the uranium hexaflouride gas incandescently hot and spinning it in high speed centrifuges to seperate the U-235 from the U-238. This last COULD be done with nuclear-sourced electricity, but in fact the majority of grid energy is FF-sourced today.

Copious amounts of water and reagent chemicals are also used in the uranium refining process. Uranium fuel is not without environmental consequences, but you can honestly say that those are relatively minor compared to FF's.

The mining and refining of aluminum is also energy-intensive, and wire insulation and fiberglas are essentially made from petrochemicals. So niether solar PV nor wind turbines are completely free from FF's when manufactured.

ALL production of all types of power generation equipment including nuclear, solar, and wind ceases when petroleum fuels go away was my point. Additionally, nuclear fuels can no longer be manufactured.

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 13:45:35**

Fortunately China is not mired in the stupidity practiced by he media and politicians in the so called advanced Democracies.

China starts work on “landmark” fourth-generation fast breeder reactor

China has begun pouring concrete for one of the world’s first “gen IV” nuclear reactors, the CFR-600, on the coast of Fujian province, about 400km south of Shanghai.

The 600MW demonstration unit, which is due to be complete in 2023, follows a 20MW experimental reactor completed in 2011. It is intended to be the prototype of a 1GW commercial reactor scheduled for around 2030.

The significance of the sodium-cooled reactor is that it points the way to the “fast breeder” fourth generation designs that are expected to be adopted by the global nuclear power industry over the next century.

It is not the only design that the Chinese industry is pursuing. Another fast breeder gen IV is being built in nearby Jiangxi province. This uses “pebble-bed” fuel and a helium cooling system.

The advantage of these reactors, which use fast neutrons to split uranium atoms, is that they are about 60 times more fuel efficient than slow reactors, they generate less radioactive waste and they can be used in a “closed cycle” system, in which waste is reprocessed into new fuel.

This last requirement is particularly important for China, which is planning a massive expansion of its nuclear fleet, but it concerned about future shortages of uranium. The China Institute of Atomic Energy, which designed the CFR-600, is envisaging an increase in output from 40GW in 2015 to 400GW in 2050, at which time it is forecast that it will account for 16% of the country’s 2,500GW installed capacity.

Speaking at the inauguration ceremony, Wang Shoujun the chairman of China National Nuclear Corporation commented: “The fast neutron reactor project has been recognised as China’s major scientific and technological nuclear energy programme, which is of much significance for the closed cycle of nuclear fuel, promoting the sustainable development of China’s nuclear energy and boosting the local economy.”

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com ... ion-fast-/

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 14:03:47**

The closed nuclear fuel cycle planned looks like this,

Light Water Reactor spent fuel created Reactor Grade Plutonium. The spent fuel is reprocessed and the plutonium and uranium recovered is used to make Breeder Reactor fuel. The Breeder Reacter burns the Reactor Grade Plutonium to make fresh high fussionable percentage Plutonium in the blanket. The blanket Plutonium is made into fresh Light Water Reactor fuel and produce power. The initial fuel goes through the figure eight pattern with the fast reactors burning the poor quality reactor grade plutonium and the light water reactors burning the fresh Plutonium and a little natural Uranium 235 that is left in the fuel.

I first saw this fuel system proposed way back around 1974 and the Chinese have skipped over all the political BS to go right for it. We could probably even make a deal to give them our spent reactor fuel so they would have a huge stock of reactor grade plutonium to draw upon.

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 14:25:39**

KaiserJeep wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
We've got a little problem with global warming happening just now---greenhouse gases emitted from burning fossil fuels are going to overheat the climate and damage the planet's ecosystem if we don't do something about it.

And Nuclear energy doesn't release CO2 or CH4.

A popular misconception. Nuclear energy does release greenhouse gasses when uranium is mined, refined, and transported. About 15% as much as coal and 6% as much as natural gas.

Actually it is completely true that electrical power generation using nuclear energy releases no CO2. Check your physics textbook---no CO2 is released when nuclear fission occurs.

You are talking about the carbon releases during Mining and refining of uranium. These are actually separate and different processes from power generation using nuclear energy. So lets look at CO2 emissions in this area as a separate question.

Obviously if we are talking about using nuclear power to reduce the use of fossil fuels, it is implicit that the idea is to shift to EVs for transportation and mining, and switch to nuclear power from coal/NG electrical power plants This will greatly reduce if not eliminate the CO2 production associated with mining and refining.

The net result is tremendously reduced CO2 emissions at every step when nuclear energy is used to generate electricity instead of coal/NG/oil.

KaiserJeep wrote: Uranium fuel is not without environmental consequences, but you can honestly say that those are relatively minor compared to FF's.

Yup. Exactly right.

KaiserJeep wrote:The mining and refining of aluminum is also energy-intensive, and wire insulation and fiberglas are essentially made from petrochemicals....
ALL production of all types of power generation equipment including nuclear, solar, and wind ceases when petroleum fuels go away was my point.

Petroleum fuels will never go completely away. But their use should be curtailed as much as possible to reduce CO2 and CH4 emissions and mitigate global warming, even if we have to use nuclear energy to do it.

Cheers!

PS: KaiserJeep---I appreciate your technical expertise as usual. Sorry to quibble with you on these points here. I suspect our viewpoints on the nuclear power issue are pretty similar, except with regards to the global warming part of the story.

Posted: **Fri 19 Jan 2018, 16:21:07**

NASA video showing how the new very small "kilopower" nuclear reactor works.

NASA kilopower reactor

They can already make these so small that one can power a toaster. The plan is send 5 or so to Mars to power the habitat.

These little reactors will also be used on deep space probes.

NASA says they are very simple and easy to build with off-the-shelf equipment all available now here in the USA. This NASA video shows how to build one.

NASA kilo power reactor construction

And, as NASA says in their video, they could easily power a household right down here on earth.

Cheers!

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

A Tale of Two Nuclear Plants

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Re: Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russi

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russi

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russi

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)