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 rockdoc123 » Sun 25 Aug 2019, 22:58:38

One of the big problems with nuclear plants is that they construct them to be extra strong with grossly excessive concrete and structure which then makes them expensive to demolish at the end of the plants life.


which is always added into the equation looking at NPV for any investment of this nature. We are talking about a long lifetime for these operations so the decommissioning costs generally are small in comparison to the total revenues. Nobody ignores either dismantling or reclamation costs in their analysis and they realize that under todays laws they can't just walk away and still remain a going concern.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 merged

Unread postby eclipse » Mon 26 Aug 2019, 00:39:08

MaqFot wrote:One of the big problems with nuclear plants is that they construct them to be extra strong with grossly excessive concrete and structure which then makes them expensive to demolish at the end of the plants life.


Well, the next generation that don't use water will not have to protect against 150 atmospheres of pressure, so they'll be smaller and cheaper cores and won't need crazy containment domes. But even today's Light Water Reactors that DO need expensive safety domes are cheaper than coal which you have to pay for twice; once in the electricity bill and once in the health bill. And that's not even counting climate change!
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 26 Aug 2019, 08:09:30

Build a reactor at near projected budget and in the time frame expected and get back to me.

.........The units have suffered several delays and cost overruns. The certified construction & capital costs incurred by Georgia Power for these two new units were originally $14 billion, according to the Seventeenth Semi-annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report in 2017.[10] This last report blames the latest increase of costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[11] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[2] Upon completion of Units 3 and 4, Vogtle will become the largest nuclear power station in the United States. ........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_El ... ts_3_and_4

But who cares about a few extra $billons and years beyond time projections when the rate payers are energy slaves with little choice?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re:

Unread postby eclipse » Mon 26 Aug 2019, 21:56:57

Tyler_JC wrote:You are missing the point, how many BTUs of energy does it take to get 1 BTU of uranium from seawater. If that number is less than one, it does not make sense to engage in that activity.

Think about it.

If the entire economy was converted into energy production with a return on energy investment 5, at the end of the day, we would have 5X the starting economy. If we converted the entire economy into energy production with a return on energy investment of .5, at the end of the day we would have .5X the starting economy.

Any form of energy that has an EROEI of less than one will result in waste. We are better off using oil energy to fuel our economy, not waste it on uranium from seawater.

They make things like large pool dongles and dangle them for 6 months to a year. The tides do the work, dragging the uranium to the U-attracting dongle, not the other way around. And each dongle can collect something like 1kg of uranium in that time period. 1 kg of uranium in a breeder reactor is a whole LIFETIME of energy for one person, including charging their electric cars and manufacturing airline fuel from seawater.
Can you explain to us all how dangling a dongle can POSSIBLY cost that much energy? [smilie=5bomb.gif]
The dongles are made from these artificial sponges.
When you get good news, ask all the usual peaknik questions, but there comes a time when you can just accept it!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ear-power/
Image
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 31 Aug 2019, 12:51:04

If Congress approves...in other words Crook Gates wants to get into the looting the dipshits just like Crook Musk. The dunces on this thread will probably get all horny knowing they're being looted once again but who cares, right? Its just fake money.

https://crosscut.com/2019/08/rebirth-nu ... s-approves

Gates traveled to Washington, D.C., in January to lobby congressional members for support of advanced reactors, including TerraPower’s venture. He told them that he would personally invest $1 billion and raise another $1 billion from private investors to go with federal funds to build a pilot plant,....blah blah blah

Sure he will. But he needs about $10 billion from the broke gubamint first...you know so he can "build" a nuclear reactor that will never actually see the light of day.

TerraPower hopes to get a breed-and-burn reactor — 500 megawatts or less — up and running at a yet-to-be-selected location in the U.S. in the 2025 to 2027 time frame,

Theres that date, 2025 again. Gee, thats about the time the power will go off in Bankrupt America. I guess that idiot Gates has a plan like idiot rockdoc...aka there is no plan.
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 31 Aug 2019, 17:25:14

How much fuel has the Department of Energy "breeded" in its entire existence?

5 kg...thats it.

And you clods think thats your savior?

Thats your nuclear "power".
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Sat 31 Aug 2019, 18:26:37

The MCSFR can receive uranium, thorium, weaponised used plutonium, and even cut up old used fuel rods without the zirconium cladding removed! It all just goes plop, straight into the soup, without even needing to pyroprocess it first. That eliminates the 7 stage chemical preprocessing phase. Straight into the radioactive Molten Salt Soup. America has enough nuclear waste and stored thorium to run her for about 1000 years without mining any more uranium in that time, and yet we will continue to mine uranium and thorium from known land reserves for the next 50,000 years. Then uranium from seawater by just hanging particle absorbing dongles in the tides will run us for a billion years. One dongle can absorb 1 kg of uranium from about 6 months dangling. That's enough energy to run a whole human lifetime, cradle to grave, including synfuels. It's only a golf ball of waste, and it only stays radioactive for 300 years. France went 75% nuclear in 15 years. We can do this. We have the technology.
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 02 Sep 2019, 08:09:54

Unfortunately you do not have the politicians with the vision and the population with a balanced view of nuclear power. The legacy of decades of anti-nuclear hysteria.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 02 Sep 2019, 10:46:56

As Ohio Decides To Save Its Nuclear Plants, Big Oil Is Displeased

Ohio passed legislation that preserves the state’s nuclear plants. Which is good since nuclear generates over 90% of the state’s clean energy, its 600 MW of wind notwithstanding.

The Ohio Senate passed its version of House Bill 6 19-12 last week, and the House voted 51-38 this week. Governor Mike DeWine signed the legislation a few hours later. As a result, the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants will remain in operation.

“Our goal all along has been to save the nuclear plants, save the jobs but also to keep the cost of energy down for the ratepayer," said Gov. DeWine.

Contrary to critics of this bill, regional grid operator PJM released a report in June concluding that keeping the Ohio nuclear plants running would reduce electricity costs by $95 million while reducing carbon emissions by 2.3 million tons. And most other measures also favor nuclear.

“The majority of Ohio’s clean energy will remain in operation thanks to legislation passed by the legislature. Ohio’s nuclear power plants do more than churn out 90 percent of the Buckeye state’s clean power, they support 4,300 jobs and contribute $30 million per year to roads, school and public services,” said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick.

“This decision echoes support we’ve seen in New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Connecticut and reaffirms the major role that nuclear’s carbon free energy has in lowering carbon emissions.”

In fact, the world’s top climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, have all urged world leaders and environmental campaigners to stop their unscientific and ideological attacks on nuclear energy and support its expansion.

But Ohio House Bill 6 also preserves the state’s coal plants. Including coal in the bill was a political necessity to pass, and will not have much of an impact in the future. Coal will continue to decline in the state as it has done steadily for the last 15 years, although it still provides half of the state’s electricity.

No one is going to build a new coal plant in Ohio ever.

On the other hand, natural gas has been skyrocketing for the last ten years and now provides a third of the state’s electricity, having captured all of the closed coal generation. Renewables have been climbing slightly but are still only at 3%, and nuclear has been flat at about 16%.

So it’s no wonder the oil and gas industry is not happy with this legislation. Natural gas producers were planning on taking over nuclear’s share of power generation, and to continue to replace coal, leading to about 70% natural gas in the state by 2040.

Gas considers nuclear to be its main competitor. Everywhere nuclear has closed, it’s been replaced by gas, not renewables, with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in electricity prices. U.S. carbon emissions rose in 2018 by over 60 million tons of CO2, so more carbon-rich gas is not the answer - if you care about climate change. If you don’t care, then millions of cubic feet more of gas every year is fine (?)
Ohio State House of Representatives Chamber. The Ohio Legislature passed House Bill 6, and the Governor signed it, that replaces the State’s prescriptive renewable-only subsidies and green-energy mandates in favor of more general subsidies to all clean-energy sources, which includes renewables and nuclear. Unfortunately, they threw coal in there with it.

The Ohio Legislature passed House Bill 6, and the Governor signed it, that replaces the State’s prescriptive renewable-only subsidies and green-energy mandates in favor of more general subsidies to all clean-energy sources, which includes renewables and nuclear. Unfortunately, they threw coal in there with it.

So it’s no surprise that the American Petroleum Institute, the oil lobby, “…is disappointed in the legislature for passing this corporate bailout for nuclear and coal-burning power plants.”

Said API Ohio Executive Director Chris Zeigler, “…LS Power has already said they will halt the development of a $500 million expansion of their natural gas power plant in Luckey, Ohio because of the subsidies, and there’s no telling how much additional investment our state will now miss out on because lawmakers decided to cater to corporations over constituents.”

Aww…now it might take a little longer for natural gas to completely dominate the state’s electricity generation.

As part of the compromise bill, utilities will now be required to get 8.5% of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2026 instead of the previous target of 12.5%. Again, this will not have much of an impact since renewables only produce 3% of the state’s electricity and their federal subsidies are still intact.

Besides, preserving nuclear will do much more for the environment and lowering emissions by delaying natural gas than additional wind could do in the same time period.

The new law changes the 5 MW law for wind projects to a 20 MW law for on-site wind, making clear to Jereme Kent, CEO of One Energy, “that wind projects constructed to power a single customer at a single location are not regulated by the Ohio Power Siting Board unless the projects are 20 MW or more in size…ensuring that industrial and manufacturing plants in Ohio working to self-generate their own electricity on-site “…will no longer be limited by unrealistic regulations.”

The legislation also freezes annual increases in energy efficiency standards at the end of 2020. Utilities won’t have to operate programs that help customers reduce their energy use. Consumer advocates say the cuts to energy efficiency programs are especially harmful because their savings exceed their costs. This was a dumb addition to the law since net savings were $5.1 billion from 2009 to 2017. With this level of savings, it’s not certain utilities will stop these programs at all.

Of course, all of these are reversible. You can add back renewable targets. You can always build more gas, and we will. But when nuclear closes, it’s forever.

The oil and gas industry is looking to sponsor a statewide referendum in the 2020 legislative elections to overturn HB6 and get their fossil fuel back on track to control the state’s energy in the foreseeable future.



LINKY
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15509
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 02 Sep 2019, 10:50:54

A Very Fast, Very Safe, Very SLIMM Nuclear Reactor

Nuclear scientists and engineers have not been idle over the last decade in designing new small nuclear reactors that can’t melt down, and that will be essential to address our environmental and industrial needs in the coming decades.

Ever since the world’s top climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, urged world leaders and environmental campaigners to support the expansion of nuclear energy as essential for addressing global warming, many new smaller and modular reactors have appeared on the scene in different stages of development.

All of them show promise.

One of the latest to emerge is the SLIMM – the Scalable LIquid Metal–cooled small Modular reactor. This is a fast reactor that uses liquid sodium (Na) to cool and exchange heat, and that generates 10 to 100 MW for many years, even decades, without refueling, depending on what power level is desired. It’s very smaller version, the VSLIMM, generates 1 to 10 MW.

Its designers, Drs. Mohamed S. El-Genk, Luis Palomino and Timothy Schriener from the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies in Albuquerque, describe it thus:

"Fully passive operation with no single point failure, cooled by natural circulation of sodium during operation and after shutdown, high negative temperature reactivity feedback and redundant control and safety shutdown, walk-away safe, long life without refueling, factory fabricated, assembled and sealed, shipped to the construction site by rail, truck, or barge, installed below ground to avoid direct impact by missiles or aircraft, and mounted on seismic oscillation bearings to resist earthquakes.”

The reactor has redundant and passive decay heat removal by heat pipes and natural circulation of ambient air.

SLIMM reactors are factory fabricated, assembled and sealed, shipped to the construction site by rail, truck, or barge, and are ideal for isolated and small communities, island nations and advanced bases.

In other words, it can’t melt down, is cheap to construct and only needs ordinary outside air to cool off if it does shut down quickly for any reason. With Na’s very low vapor pressure, the reactor operates below atmospheric pressure so there is no pressure vessel to worry about.

The reactor core height is not much larger than the height of a human, but it has a long chimney that can be varied in height (2-8 m, depending on the reactor thermal power). The figure shows a longitudinal cross-sectional view of the SLIMM reactor with an 8-meter-tall chimney, the reactor core, and the Na/Na helically coiled tubes heat exchanger (HEX), the primary and guard vessels separated by a small argon gap, the in-vessel control drives, and the core support structure.

The reactor primary and guard vessels are made of two identical sections. The lower section houses the reactor core and the control drives, and the upper section houses the chimney and the Na/Na HEX. Thus, the height of the chimney and that of the upper sections of the primary and guard vessels increase with increasing reactor thermal power, but using the same reactor core and control drives.

This reactor is compatible with different energy conversion technologies such as supercritical water and CO2 Brayton cycles, in super-heated steam Rankine cycles, and closed and open air Brayton cycles, so it can be used in most any electricity-generating configuration.

The smaller VSLIMM plant can use open air-turbo-Brayton energy conversion, which eliminates the need for active cooling, uniquely qualifying this reactor for use in arid regions.

This reactor is also designed to produce process heat for a multitude of industrial uses such as desalination,fracking for fissile foil, hydrogen fuel production, aluminum smelter, etc. and has a high thermal efficiency for electricity generation. It is compatible with renewable energy sources on a common grid, and can load-follow.

The SLIMM and VSLIMM have very small physical footprints and can be deployed on a portable platform or installed at a permanent site. This is ideal for isolated and small communities in dire need of energy, to help eradicate global poverty, for island nations, advanced military bases and remote sites, even on other planets. It is also ideal on floating platforms to aid in recovery after natural disasters like hurricanes.

It only takes one to two years to construct and install, and when a module is used up, it can easily be transported back to the factory. There is no reason to store either new or spent fuel on-site for any length of time.

In fact, the real time sink with any of these new reactors is the NRC licensing period, which can take many years, especially for new and different designs. So it’s critical that Congress pass bills that lower this hurdle.

S. 903, Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July, and aims to restore U.S. leadership in the civil nuclear industry by helping to develop a range of advanced reactor technologies that are clean, safe and reliable - exactly what SLIMM is.

Another bill, the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act, was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators to extend the life of the country’s existing nuclear fleet. S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act was actually signed by the President in January.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), passed in September 2018, and aims to eliminate some of the barriers to advanced nuclear and establish some of the infrastructure to get there, again something that helps SLIMM and other new designs.

The SLIMM technology is just one of many that are ready, and needed, to address our environmental and energy needs, here and around the world.

We just need to deploy them.



LINKY
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15509
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 02 Sep 2019, 12:12:30

Nice concept. When they are actually past prototype and even pre-prototype stage that will indicate the chance of them being used. People joke about nuclear fusion always being 40 years away, if you look back on all the fancy fission reactor proposals, they have the same "always in the future" problem.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Thu 19 Sep 2019, 18:30:38

dissident wrote:Nice concept. When they are actually past prototype and even pre-prototype stage that will indicate the chance of them being used. People joke about nuclear fusion always being 40 years away, if you look back on all the fancy fission reactor proposals, they have the same "always in the future" problem.

You know the sodium cooled EBR2 ran successfully for decades, and that Russia just opened their BN-800 sodium cooled fast breeder reactor after successfully running their BN-350 and BN-600 for decades? Indeed, we have over 400 reactor years with these prototypes and they work. Russia haven't quite 'commercialised' their BN series. Yet. That's probably mid 2025's. Reactors are much bigger, slower things to commercialise than say a new car, and new cars take long enough! But if you're ignoring the trajectory of Russia's program, India's work, and China's work in both the sodium fast and molten salt thermal spectrums, then we can't help you. It's like talking with a climate denier!

And finally, that you quote the old fusion cliche is quite telling. They are gradually chipping away at various challenges. Bit by bit, there is progress. When will they not only break even, but make a high enough energy profit to run society? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out just yet. But with standard fission and with breeder reactors like the MCSFR and uranium from seawater, we have enough power to run an advanced civilisation for billions of years. Add in a space industry and PowerSats, and who knows what we'll achieve?
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 11:15:03

eclipse wrote:
dissident wrote:Nice concept. When they are actually past prototype and even pre-prototype stage that will indicate the chance of them being used. People joke about nuclear fusion always being 40 years away, if you look back on all the fancy fission reactor proposals, they have the same "always in the future" problem.

You know the sodium cooled EBR2 ran successfully for decades, and that Russia just opened their BN-800 sodium cooled fast breeder reactor after successfully running their BN-350 and BN-600 for decades? Indeed, we have over 400 reactor years with these prototypes and they work. Russia haven't quite 'commercialised' their BN series. Yet. That's probably mid 2025's. Reactors are much bigger, slower things to commercialise than say a new car, and new cars take long enough! But if you're ignoring the trajectory of Russia's program, India's work, and China's work in both the sodium fast and molten salt thermal spectrums, then we can't help you. It's like talking with a climate denier!

And finally, that you quote the old fusion cliche is quite telling. They are gradually chipping away at various challenges. Bit by bit, there is progress. When will they not only break even, but make a high enough energy profit to run society? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out just yet. But with standard fission and with breeder reactors like the MCSFR and uranium from seawater, we have enough power to run an advanced civilisation for billions of years. Add in a space industry and PowerSats, and who knows what we'll achieve?


Look, the eclipse kook believes in a physical economy founded by:

Seawater Extraction of Uranium, hydrogen, sodium, etc.

for BILLIONS and BILLIONS OF YEARS.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

This worthless sack will soon be joining baha, Cog, and other fuckwits jumping off bridges like lemmings.
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 19:26:00

Hi Starving Lion, it's always a pleasure to start the day with my coffee and such a polite exchange online! (People can be so BRAVE when they're behind the safety of their warrior-keyboard! ;-) )
They invented breeder reactors decades ago because they vastly underestimated how much uranium there was on earth. Today's once-through reactors burn less than 1% of the fuel, but breeder reactors get 90 *times* the energy from it. Scientific American said that this stretches known fuel reserves from 200 years to over 60,000 years. https://tinyurl.com/j8x6lzf But we may not even get through all that, as uranium from seawater is almost economical compared to normal uranium mining. https://tinyurl.com/y4vbb457
This means that over geological time with normal weathering processes of erosion acting on mountain creation and continental drift, we can now access an endless supply or uranium in the oceans. Reliable safe nuclear power is now essentially *renewable* as Forbes calls it. https://tinyurl.com/y89fsymo As the Breeder Reactor wiki put it, "Adherents claim that with seawater uranium extraction, there would be enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy."
https://tinyurl.com/ztpoo65
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 01 Oct 2019, 13:39:39

Bankrupt France just released a new worthless crap reactor design that will never be built. These idiots wasted a cool billion on their ASTRID reactor they just recently scrapped...now they're at it again with more stupid shit "ready" for 2030 which is long past the time France has collapsed into total ruins...they should call it The Deadwood instead of Nuward...its just more total fraud.:

A new small modular reactor (SMR) design has been announced by the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome. The Nuward - with a capacity of 300-400 MWe - has been jointly developed using France's experience in pressurised water reactors (PWRs).

The partners aim to complete the basic design of the Nuward between 2022 and 2025. The design should be in the "advanced concept phase" between 2025 and 2030, during which time the design is expected to be certified and the supply chain developed. Construction of a demonstration Nuward SMR is scheduled for 2030. The construction of that unit is expected to take three years.

Late last month, media reports said that CEA had dropped development of a 600 MWe sodium-cooled nuclear reactor. CEA reportedly said it would finalise research in its Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) project this year and is no longer planning to build a prototype in the short or medium term.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles ... n-unveiled

Image
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Tue 01 Oct 2019, 20:03:42

Water reactors are yesterday's news. ThorCon will be selling for 7c / kwh soon, so I'm with you Starving Lion, I don't think this reactor will ever get off the ground.
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 03 Oct 2019, 12:39:40

Here comes the self-induced Nuclear Meltdowns in Bankrupt France:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf- ... SKCN1VX0N7

PARIS (Reuters) - At least five nuclear reactors operated by French utility EDF might have problems with weldings on their steam generators, a fault which has raised fears of closures, France’s nuclear regulator was quoted as saying.

France to give millions of residents iodine pills while EDF spots problems in six nuclear reactors

https://www.thelocal.fr/20190918/france ... r-accident

Translation: France is so bankrupt its going to nuke itself to force an evacuation of Paris to get The Shale Gas and close down all their reactors they cannot afford to operate because of declining access to oil. EDF stock has gone from $16 to $10 in the past year. Sinking like a rock in the past 6 months. EDF (and thus France) is bankrupt.

France Rejects "Easy Energy" in Their New Oil Exploration ...

blogs.discovermagazine.com › climate-change-versus-easy-energy

Dec 20, 2017 - It is locked in shale that lies with the Paris Basin. ... what's know as “shale oil” that requires hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a., “fracking”) to extract. ... their mouth is quite literally – keeping the hydrocarbons under the feet down there ...
Last edited by StarvingLion on Thu 03 Oct 2019, 13:00:12, edited 4 times in total.
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 03 Oct 2019, 12:53:09

eclipse wrote:Water reactors are yesterday's news. ThorCon will be selling for 7c / kwh soon, so I'm with you Starving Lion, I don't think this reactor will ever get off the ground.


Thorcon, who want to dump used reactor cores into the ocean about every 20 minutes of the day because their reactor is fundamentally unreliable junk. What a plan for cheap electricity. Its called ecological suicide.
Cog: "Who are these people at my door carrying poleaxes"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Thu 03 Oct 2019, 17:27:25

First, ThorCon would sell used fuel to MCSFR operators to burn the actinides - it's just worth too much.
Second, where's your evidence that that's their plan for old reactor cores?
Third, you know that as long as it is solid (like vitrified ceramic tablets or a reactor core), the bottom of the ocean is the safest place for nuclear waste... right? You know that water halves radiation every 12cms? Indeed, Dr James Hansen's "Science Council for Global Initiatives" book by friend Tom Bless recommends that we bundle up all the world's nuclear waste, every 2 years, onto the ONE barge (yes, it would all fit on one barge!) and sink it in our deepest oceans. As long as the waste is solid and a meter or so from the walls of the barge, no problem. No problem at all! Especially as fission products only stay radioactive for 300 years.
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: 422
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 00:36:02

When it comes to nuclear, I think humans are the weak link in the chain. If all nuclear plant designs were optimal and operated optimally, we never would have had a Chernobyl, 3-mile island, or Fukushima. The failure mode of nuclear is just an unacceptable risk. Even if we're talking about a so-called safe or meltdown-free design, what if through incompetence it's built wrong? What if some natural disaster happens? It's just Murphy's Law. All of the efforts to try to make sure nothing goes wrong add cost that is rarely factored in to the estimated electricity rates, plus the cost of decommissioning. So when I see these estimates, they are a complete joke. I get that we're in dire straights vis a vis global warming but the way some people simplistically promote nuclear as a panacea ignores all of the gotchas.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests