Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

Anyone watching the Lightbridge JV?

Lightbridge (LTBR) Presents On Anticipated Major Corporate Development - Slideshow - Lightbridge Corp (NASDAQ:LTBR) | Seeking Alpha

Yeah, I know it's posted on Seeking Alpha...but the content is Lightbridge's, not SA's...

I notice they aren't talking about Thorium any longer. I wonder if that's still in the works, or if they've given up on it.

LOL... where did they come up with 2.1kW for a rooftop array? The US average is ~3x that size...

 

[drift]

China looks like it will invest in a Thorium molten salt reactor project.
China’s plan to revive cold war nuclear tech to power warships

Others have tried and failed at this for years. We'll see...

The Atomic Energy Commission had a Thorium reactor running for about 5 years in the late 60s and as I recall it was shut down and the technology abandoned because you can't produce nuclear weapons from a Thorium reactor.

 

[Brando]

I thought so too until not that long ago, but it turns out that it's a solved problem.

First, burying it in a geologically stable area is a technically perfectly acceptable solution. Only water soluble byproducts get transported out with the groundwater, and only at the rate at which the glass the waste is turned into can dissolve. So how quickly does glass dissolve? The short answer is "rather slowly". The long-lived byproducts travel much more slowly through the ground because they bind to the rock, then get dissolved again all the time. The scientists know how quickly each substance will travel away from e.g. Yucca Mountain, and they have all decayed before getting into the closest river. This solution is scientifically acceptable, but politically unacceptable simply because nobody wants to have the waste close to them even if it can't get out. See chapter 11 of "The nuclear energy option" for calculations.

Second, this is one of the reasons for building fast reactors like the GE Hitachi S-PRISM ASAP. Fast reactors can burn stockpiled weapons material, normal fuel, natural uranium, depleted uranium and even spent fuel, and they can burn it until there is nothing left but short-lived byproducts, extracting very close to 100% of the fission energy. For comparison, LWRs can only extract less than one percent of the energy content of the mined uranium. The high efficiency reduces the waste volume by a factor of at least 20 (more than 100 if you consider depleted uranium a waste), and the waste will have decayed to radiation levels below that of the uranium ore in just three hundred years. Safe geological storage of something that goes away by itself in just 300 years is trivial.

For comparison, mercury from coal plants does not decay. It lasts forever, and we can only hope that it will in time form a chemically stable compound that will stay buried.

Fast reactors will need a lot of time to burn all the spent fuel we have already produced. On the other hand, each new fast reactor can take a full load of spent fuel as its initial core, so building them can remove a portion of the spent fuel that is currently being stored. But I think the psychological aspect of it might be as important - what used to be problematic nuclear waste has suddenly become energy for future generations. Also, there is no need to store spent fuel for millions of years anymore, we can turn all of it into energy in a few hundred years.

The Finns have it figured out. WATCH and give us your opinions.

 

[nwdiver]

The Finns have it figured out. WATCH and give us your opinions.

Agreed... nuclear has 999 problems but storage ain't one.

 

[Brando]

Storage not a problem?
Astounding. You actually watched this video and think storage is not a problem? Oh, sarcasm.
On the other hand. You are allowed to think what you want. Just suspect you didn't bother to watch.

PS- many attempts at molten salt reactors tried. There are many reasons why Utilities can't build enough of them. Internet searches will allow you to read all about them. Even complete documentaries.

 

[nwdiver]

Storage not a problem?

If it's got a solution I don't consider it to be a problem...

Kind of a moot point anyway since nuclear is hopelessly cost prohibitive.

 

[Brando]

I think the most realistic worry around nuclear power is disposal of radioactive waste, but with cheap power and reusable rockets (SpaceX) we could dispose of radioactive waste by shooting it into the sun...

Even Elon has had rockets blow up.
Imagine if the rocket had tonnes of atomic waste?

 

[ggr]

Even Elon has had rockets blow up.
Imagine if the rocket had tonnes of atomic waste?

Wow, a reply to a six year old posting! Anyway, I've since learned more orbital mechanics, and it turns out to be quite difficult to drop something into the sun. It's actually easier to send stuff out to an orbit between Venus and Earth, where it will just stay out of the way for a very long time. Yes, blowing up or crashing is a worry.

 

[Brando]

Wow, a reply to a six year old posting! Anyway, I've since learned more orbital mechanics, and it turns out to be quite difficult to drop something into the sun. It's actually easier to send stuff out to an orbit between Venus and Earth, where it will just stay out of the way for a very long time. Yes, blowing up or crashing is a worry.

and the cost per kilo ?
Blowing up or crashing just a small concern, what could possibly go wrong?

The Finlanders have the best storage, most carefully thought out. Only take a century to build and they hope it will last 100,000 years.
Planned 6 or 7 reactors and built 3 so far? Complex projects, oops, the 3rd was to go online 2009 - almost 10 years later...
Areva's Finland reactor to start in 2019 after another delay
Nuclear power in Finland - Wikipedia
Nuclear Energy in Finland | Finnish Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association
AND some years the most reliable in the world at 94% up time latest report from above link " ... and the average lifetime capacity factor to the end of December 2009 was 86.4%"
(perhaps they should get a battery backup?).
Luckily we have wind/solar/storage working well enough and improving year by year.

Atomic Reactors are just too expensive to matter. I guess as long as politicians are willing to use taxpayer money to build, they will keep building or at least start building reactors.

thanks, good luck

 

[RubberToe]

Fuel loading at first AP1000 in China delayed again due to "safety concerns":

China nuclear reactor delayed again on 'safety concerns': China Daily

I wonder if the Vogtle team is keeping an eye on this...

RT

 

[Brando]

Fuel loading at first AP1000 in China delayed again due to "safety concerns":

China nuclear reactor delayed again on 'safety concerns': China Daily

I wonder if the Vogtle team is keeping an eye on this...

RT

Thanks for the link.
AP1000 has many flaws. If the Chinese are honest, it probably won't pass safety inspections/test.

AP1000 is great for creating U-238 and Plutonium. Which are both great for nuclear weapons.

Sad to see the madness spread.

 

[nwdiver]

AP1000 is great for creating U-238 and Plutonium. Which are both great for nuclear weapons.

Do you mean U-233? U-238 is 99.3% of natural Uranium

 

[Brando]

Do you mean U-233? U-238 is 99.3% of natural Uranium

oops - U-235, sorry about that. Thanks for noticing.

good luck and all the best

 

[WannabeOwner]

Does the military actually (rather than theoretically) use spent power-plant fuel for weapons? From what I've read its not a very productive route ... and if that's the case then the military either is, or is not, making weapons, but they would be doing it without starter-material from the nuclear power industry

 

[mspohr]

Fuel loading at first AP1000 in China delayed again due to "safety concerns":

China nuclear reactor delayed again on 'safety concerns': China Daily

I wonder if the Vogtle team is keeping an eye on this...

RT

Another take on this story
Safety Problems Again Delay China's Sanmen Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Energy Project | CleanTechnica

 

[nwdiver]

Does the military actually (rather than theoretically) use spent power-plant fuel for weapons? From what I've read its not a very productive route ... and if that's the case then the military either is, or is not, making weapons, but they would be doing it without starter-material from the nuclear power industry

Not so much anymore. If anything it goes in the other direction under programs like the Mega-tons to Mega-Watts program.

I wonder if things in Georgia would be different if this had happened before the vote to continue Vogtle...
SC house votes 108:1 to fire all PSC regulators.

 

[Brando]

Does the military actually (rather than theoretically) use spent power-plant fuel for weapons? From what I've read its not a very productive route ... and if that's the case then the military either is, or is not, making weapons, but they would be doing it without starter-material from the nuclear power industry

You bring up a very interesting point. Why doesn't the military take all the waste, make weapons and then the military could take care of the waste too? Just where does depleted Uranium come from that ends up in weapons?? Not sure I have the inclination to research.

 

[nwdiver]

Just where does depleted Uranium come from that ends up in weapons?? Not sure I have the inclination to research.

By 'weapon' I assume you mean bullets? Because depleted Uranium is pretty useless in a bomb but it makes a really good bullet because it's so dense.

Tails from enrichment... we've got >400,000 tons in the US. To make ~2 tons of 5% U235 requires ~18 tons of .711% 'Natural' UF6 and produces ~16 tons of ~0.2% 'depleted' UF6. To operate 1GW for 1yr requires ~16 tons of enriched uranium... so you can see how this adds up quick.

This picture doesn't do it justice... search google maps for Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Each cylinder is a 48Y and contains ~12.4tons of UF6. Cylinders are stacked 3 high. On the plus side U238 is very weakly radioactive with a half-life of 4.7B years. The full cylinders are actually less radioactive than the empty ones...

 

[Brando]

Not so much anymore. If anything it goes in the other direction under programs like the Mega-tons to Mega-Watts program.

I wonder if things in Georgia would be different if this had happened before the vote to continue Vogtle...
SC house votes 108:1 to fire all PSC regulators.

Corruption seems totally out of control. The cost over runs of atomic reactors is only matched by highway projects, military weapons systems, infrastructure programs. beyond our imaginations

If we can't blame corruption, what would we blame? incompetence?
I thought Washington and California were bad. I didn't really comprehend that virtually all atomic reactor projects had become scams to rob the public.

 

[Brando]

'Base load' Power is a Myth used for defending the fossil fuel (and nuclear) Industries.

It's actually somewhat obvious if you stop and think about it... there are plenty of grids in the world that operate just fine without large thermal generators.

California gets almost all of it's 'on-demand' electricity from gas fired turbines. Diablo Canyon is one of the last 'base-load' plants left and it's scheduled to be shut down in 2025 without being replaced by another thermal plant.

“The only hurdle to overcome is ‘mindset’,” “There’s no technical challenge at all.” - Chairman of the China State Grid

Another Diablo Canyon shut down story. (thanks to nwdriver for original post)
Diablo Canyon closure OK'd, plan will raise customer bills
This is the last atomic reactor in California. Hopefully no accidents will happen before they close it.

side note: Japan latest estimate on Fukushima clean up $250 billion.
(which is about what they spent to build about 50 atomic reactors)
Best story on Fukushima

Hanford, WA clean up now to end by 2065 at a cost of about $165 billion.
other can mention other cleanup sites.