Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby diemos » Tue 01 Jun 2021, 08:01:22

dissident wrote:Italy should get the credit for producing Fermi.


Fine, then let's also give Italy credit for the fascist racial laws that caused him to flee to the US in 1938 to protect his Jewish wife.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Wed 02 Jun 2021, 09:31:42

diemos wrote:
dissident wrote:Italy should get the credit for producing Fermi.


Fine, then let's also give Italy credit for the fascist racial laws that caused him to flee to the US in 1938 to protect his Jewish wife.


Cute BS. You claim the achievements of the individual as your national achievement. Are you all closet collectivists?

If you are going to engage in who owns intelligence, then clearly in the case of Fermi, it is the place where he grew up, got an education and developed as a scientist. That was not the USA.

People who claim that they are number one in everything clearly have issues. They are insecure in their supremacy. And judging by the US school system that is indeed something to be insecure about.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby JuanP » Tue 15 Jun 2021, 02:43:31

"BREST Fast Neutron Reactor: Russia Offers a New Nuclear Paradigm for Sustainable Development"
https://sputniknews.com/russia/20210612 ... velopment/

"Although nuclear energy is regarded as nonrenewable, uranium-238 remains the most common isotope of the chemical element found in nature with a relative abundance of 99 percent. As of January 2019, identified uranium resources stand at around 8 million tons of uranium metal. After implementing fuel-recycling fast reactor technology, the estimated supplies will be enough to drive the nuclear industry for thousands of years, the magazine Scientific American forecast in 2009."

"The BREST-OD-300 reactor is projected to start operating in 2026: its fuel production facility is expected to be built by 2023, while the construction of an irradiated fuel reprocessing module is scheduled to start by 2024.

"The successful implementation of this project will allow [Russia] to become the world's first owner of nuclear power technology that fully meets the principles of sustainable development in terms of environment, accessibility, reliability, and efficient use of resources", Director General of Rosatom Alexey Likhachev, believes."
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Tue 15 Jun 2021, 10:10:21

A key feature of this reactor is that it is designed to burn actinide waste. Fast neutron breeder reactors did a good job of consuming so-called waste from conventional reactors, but still produced high radiation isotope waste that needed 300 years to fully decay. The BREST-300 will be the first fully integrated reactor and fuel reprocessing plant.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 16 Jun 2021, 21:45:22

dissident wrote:A key feature of this reactor is that it is designed to burn actinide waste. Fast neutron breeder reactors did a good job of consuming so-called waste from conventional reactors, but still produced high radiation isotope waste that needed 300 years to fully decay. The BREST-300 will be the first fully integrated reactor and fuel reprocessing plant.


It is a bloody shame the NIMBY crowd of ignorant buffoons have delayed this day from its first opportunity for implementation over four decades ago when the IFR project was killed by John Kerry and President Clinton.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16290
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Thu 17 Jun 2021, 00:07:21

Tanada wrote:
dissident wrote:A key feature of this reactor is that it is designed to burn actinide waste. Fast neutron breeder reactors did a good job of consuming so-called waste from conventional reactors, but still produced high radiation isotope waste that needed 300 years to fully decay. The BREST-300 will be the first fully integrated reactor and fuel reprocessing plant.


It is a bloody shame the NIMBY crowd of ignorant buffoons have delayed this day from its first opportunity for implementation over four decades ago when the IFR project was killed by John Kerry and President Clinton.


I cannot understand the political insanity in the USA. It looks like "nuclear" is a Pavolvian trigger term for millions of brainwashed lemmings who can't tell the difference between any nuclear technology. France is afflicted by the same sort of lemmings who succeeded in sabotaging the Superphenix program. Let's kill the nuclear tech that cleans up waste can be made not to have hydrogen explosion meltdowns, because we don't like nuclear waste and worry about nuclear meltdowns.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are impossible with lead cooling and have a vanishingly small risk with sodium cooling. But even a meltdown in a sodium cooled plant will not spread radiation since there is no hydrogen explosion. This blew the 2000 ton lid of the RBMK core at Chernobyl and blew out the containment structures at Fukushima. Lemmings think that the China Syndrome is physically plausible. They have no idea, and do not care to inform themselves, that any corium lava will dissolve concrete and soil into itself and naturally lose criticality. But one does not even need concrete and soil to contain the corium. The core catcher at the base of the unpressurized vat in fast neutron reactors is effective in this job since it is composed of boron nitride or similar.

In addition to total lack of awareness about what fast neutron breeder reactors are, we have the fear mongering about terrorists stealing plutonium from such reactors. How, by processing the core? GTFO. Here I have to admit that there is some risk of terrorists intercepting fuel bundles sent for reprocessing. These terrorists would have little chance of stashing them in some van to smuggle out of the country since they would get radiated to death first while trying to handle them. No van or tractor trailer can be easily adapted for such an operation and would have no chance of escaping interception. Any risk would have appropriate security measures in place. Much like all existing reactors have them, since terrorists can break in an cause meltdowns. I have not heard of a single such incident even if only attempted.

Meanwhile there is no hysteria about coal plants which spew mercury, thorium and uranium into the air. Even with the obsolete pressurized water reactor accidents the death toll is vanishingly small compared to the death toll from coal power.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby JuanP » Sat 19 Jun 2021, 20:00:03

"U.S. Needs Nuclear Power To Hit Climate Targets: Granholm"
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News ... nholm.html

""DOE already works across the nuclear sector, which includes some of you. We work with you and we work with you on projects to reduce the operating costs and increase revenues from the nuclear fleet, and with this budget we've put USD175 million into these modernization efforts," she said.

"A lot of it is going into developing and deploying new and improved fuels to enhance performance and to reduce costs. And we're going to keep doing everything that we can to encourage our partners in the states to keep their reactors online."

At the same time, the administration is looking into new nuclear power technology and has earmarked some $700 million for tapping their "huge potential"."

Less than US$1 billion for domestic nuclear energy modernization, research, and development. Yet we waste around US$1 trillion every year on weapons, military bases in foreign countries, and bombing, attacking, invading, occupying, manipulating, controlling, and interfering with other countries. Imagine what we could do for the USA if we invested our tax dollars and eternally growing debt at home on productively solving our domestic problems instead of creating problems abroad.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Tue 22 Jun 2021, 13:35:50

Indeed, the $700 million is nothing considering the pricing in the US for any high tech activity. This money is going to be spent on summarizing mothballed research and work by other countries. In other words, it is a stupid delaying tactic. If the US government was leading as opposed to pandering to anti-nuclear lunatics, it would allocate several billion dollars to restart old projects or adopt established designs such as sodium cooled unpressurized vat reactors.

A litmus test for how serious the US government is about getting serious with nuclear power is removing Carter's insane ban on fuel reprocessing. This is not an optional capability if they are serious about nuclear power.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 15 Jul 2021, 13:07:33

"World’s first modular mini-reactor to be built in China"
https://www.rt.com/business/529195-worl ... tor-china/

"China has launched the construction of the world’s first multi-purpose small modular reactor in the country’s southernmost Hainan province. Work on Linglong One, also known as ACP100, began on Tuesday, Xinhua reports.

Linglong One is a pressurized water reactor with a capacity of 125 MW – the first small commercial onshore modular reactor or SMR to be constructed in the world. After being launched, the SMR will be able to generate enough power to meet the energy demands of approximately 526,000 households annually.

It has been developed by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and will be part of China’s Changjiang nuclear power plant. The project was first introduced back in 2010, with construction, which was originally scheduled for 2017, postponed due to regulatory setbacks.

In 2016, Linglong One became the first SMR to pass a safety review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

SMRs can be used for power generation and heating, as well as seawater desalination. Such reactors are infinitely less expensive than traditional nuclear installations, and their construction and deployment takes much less time. Logistics are also an advantage, with small sizes allowing modular reactors to be delivered and set up for operation in any remote area."

I believe that all forms of nuclear energy are needed in the short and medium term future. I wish we could have avoided the use of nuclear energy altogether, but with 8,000,000,000 fools in the world we don't have a choice.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Thu 15 Jul 2021, 15:54:42

I tried to look up what 125 MW refers to but it must be the electrical output. That means that this plant has a thermal output of 125/0.42 = 297 MW. This does not make it first and certainly not that small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_f ... er_station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200

The authorities of Yakutia approved the placement of low-power nuclear power plants in Ust-Yansky Ulus

The authorities of Yakutia approved the placement of a low-power nuclear power plant in Ust-Yansky Ulus, which will reduce the cost of electricity for residents of the district by half and provide the Kyuchus deposit with reserves and resources of about 200 tons of gold. The corresponding order is published on the website of the Government of Yakutia.

"Approve the Declaration of Intent to Invest in the construction of a low-power nuclear power plant based on the RITM-200N reactor unit with a capacity of at least 55 MW in Ust-Yansky Ulus of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), approved on December 24, 2020 by the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom, and agree to the placement of a low-power nuclear power plant with the RITM-200N reactor unit on the territory of the Ust-Yansky Ulus (district)municipal district"The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), in the district of the municipality "Ust-Kuiga settlement“ Ust-Yansky ulus (district) or in the immediate vicinity of the Kyuchus deposit, " the document says.

Earlier, the head of the republic Aisen Nikolaev noted that the low-power nuclear power plant will give "a qualitative boost to the development of the Arctic regions of Yakutia, stimulate the development of industry in Ust-Yansky Ulus and increase the standard of living of local residents."

According to Rosatom, the designed NPP is characterized by compactness and modularity, a shorter construction period and high safety standards, and the service life is at least 60 years. It is expected that its construction will allow to reduce almost twice the cost of electricity in Ust-Yansky ulus. In the future, it is possible to establish the production of environmentally friendly hydrogen for the needs of transport and industry on the basis of the station, according to the corporation.

Source: https://news.ykt.ru/article/119767
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 15 Jul 2021, 22:09:31

In addition to the more modern Russian examples cited by Dissident the USA began operating the Shippingport 60 MWe reactor in 1957. If Admiral Rickover had won his fight with the AEC it would have been a standard model for modular commercial power reactors all over the world but the Utilities all wanted much larger generating capacity because when one crew of on duty operators can generate 600 MWe instead of ten 60 MWe modular plants the labor cost savings are substantial.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16290
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Thu 15 Jul 2021, 22:41:23

Hi Tanada,
good point on labor costs. Are todays SMR's mainly those battery ones? Or could today's SMR's have the ongoing concerns of labor costs to MW instead of GW? Interesting point - it's so bleeding obvious but I hadn't really considered it.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 16 Jul 2021, 00:21:56

eclipse wrote:Hi Tanada,
good point on labor costs. Are todays SMR's mainly those battery ones? Or could today's SMR's have the ongoing concerns of labor costs to MW instead of GW? Interesting point - it's so bleeding obvious but I hadn't really considered it.


Based on claims I have seen the containment structures for SMR are supposed to be so simple, cheap and foolproof that the lower construction time and cost compensates for the increased labor cost. Personally I have my doubts about that given the NRC tendency to constantly increase regulation standards. The anti crowd will demand expensive containment structures no matter how safe the design being built is.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Fri 16 Jul 2021, 01:15:49

The nuclear power industry has been heavily damaged by anti-nuclear hysteria. Lots of technology and innovation got mothballed or not advanced thanks to these ignorant, fearful loons. Dying from pollution aerosols (nanoparticle size range which can damage DNA in the nucleus) is OK, but mention "radiation" and all brain function defining human intellect is shunted to primitive reflex mode of a muscle.

The ship nuclear power plants developed by the USA, USSR/Russia and others should have been used for power generation decades ago. The focus was initially on large scale power delivery. This would have branched off into medium and small scale power. But then we had the anti-nuclear movement setting the tone from the 1970s. That shut down the momentum.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Gmark » Tue 27 Jul 2021, 20:37:28

Tanada wrote:In addition to the more modern Russian examples cited by Dissident the USA began operating the Shippingport 60 MWe reactor in 1957. If Admiral Rickover had won his fight with the AEC it would have been a standard model for modular commercial power reactors all over the world but the Utilities all wanted much larger generating capacity because when one crew of on duty operators can generate 600 MWe instead of ten 60 MWe modular plants the labor cost savings are substantial.


I read a biography of Rickover and was impressed.

Rickover ensured that the procedures were set so well, that 'human' problems were very rare. Probably rarer than any other system.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Brown's Ferry, were all caused by the operators not following their own procedures. Fukushima could also be attributed to human error, since they did know that the emergency generators were in the basement and wouldn't work if it flooded, and while they had the work scheduled to move the generators, they just didn't get around to it.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests