Breeder reactors appear to offer a solution. The issues I see are that of the circa four breeder reactors built, only Russia’s BN-600 is still operational. The others were shut down either for safety or economic issues. They aren’t proving to be a solution for the generation of nuclear fuel.
The 2nd issue is that Gen IV plants, as I understand, are theoretical. I don’t know of any being built. These may be needed sooner than later but they aren’t here yet. Will we find a working solution soon enough?
Since I assume this is the US version of the Oil Drum, the 3rd issue is that of the Gen-III reactors, or for that matter any reactors, non-are being built in the US. Of the 34 reactors currently under construction, almost all are in Asia. It's good that there is a technology solution that might help meet my energy needs, but how is Nuclear going to help the US and me when none are being built here?
Not related to Breeders or Gen-III reactors, but since Nate Hagen points out that the US hasn’t built a reactor since 1971 and that the (per his “Figure 8”) vast amount of expense of a reactor is at the end of life of the reactor, aren’t our 104 US reactors ready to be dismantled? Is that what his Figure 8 means by "storm?" Who’s going to pay the expense of the dismantling of these reactors? Where do we get the electricity to offset their loss? Do we have to pay to dismantle these while paying to build new ones?
Lastly, doesn’t the reduction of 104 reactors in the US put a lot of fuel on the market for other countries that are building reactors?
The issues I see are that of the circa four breeder reactors built, only Russia’s BN-600 is still operational. The others were shut down either for safety or economic issues. They aren’t proving to be a solution for the generation of nuclear fuel.
Two breeder reactors besides the BN-600 are currently in operation
They are the French Phénix (not Super-Phénix} which has been in operation since the laye 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
And the Indian Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) which has been in operation since October 1985. A second Indian fast breeder, the Indian Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is expected to go into operation in 2010. The Indians expect to build 4 more by 2020. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/07/stories/2005090704781300.html
A second Indian commercial fast breeder design, the Fast Thorium Breeder Reactor (FTBR) being developed at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center. http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3390
Why did you chose to ignore India's very advanced breeder reactor program?
I did not overlook the French Phénix.
It was shutdown in 1996 as the wikipedia webpage your reference accurately states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
I am aware of the nuclear developments in India. Everything I read about the Indian reactors is "test", "planned" or "developed." Once India passes the test and planning phase and has an operational plant, as Russia does, they can be counted as having a working reactor. India may not succeed, just as the US, French, UK and others have failed with their FBRs. Russia’s BN-600 is only one of four FBRs built by Russia still operational. We may look back at India as we do the others.
The "hinduonnet.com" link you reference no longer works.
The "India Defense" link talks about the theory of India's FBRs using Thorium. Perhaps one day this will be great. I can only hope.
The "indianexpress.com" link points to China’s and India's attempts to build FBRs.
Many countries are very interested in FBRs. Japan was also not mentioned, but they are working hard in this area as well. The Germans are also quite active in the field, albeit not in Germany.
For now, Fast Breeder Reactors, creating more fuel than they consume, is still my hope. They have yet to be proven safe and economical and reside, from one I can see, in the realm of test, planned and developed.
You have mistaken the Super-Phénix which was shut down in 1996 with the Phénix which is expected to be shut down in 2014. The Indians have bred thorium in their their test fast breeder, and the plan to breed thorium in the prototype fast breeders as well as in their "thorium" commercial breeder design. Since the Indians have operated their test breeder for over 20 years, and are building a prototype commercial reactor, I would say they passed the test. Why are you so skeptical about the capacity of the Indians to develop an advanced technology? If the Russians can succeed in developing the BN-600 why not the Indians?
I am not a particular fan of the liquid sodium fast breeder, which I think has proven a difficult to master in practice. Better, far safer, and technologically less arduous approaches are to be found in fluid fueled reactors, Like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or the Liquid Chloride Breeder Reactor. But I do not doubt, that a Liquid Sodium fast breeder can be made to work.
The Phénix is a prototype. It is used to develop scaleable projects like the Super-Phenix and others. Under the title of "Successful Breeder Reactors" I would not give France the gold medal. My sense is the Russia's B-600 is also a prototype that is kept functional for themselves and other countries to study. The holly grail of nuclear energy is the FBR, humankind just doesn’t have a viable FBR solution yet. This is my perception.
India is attempting to make great strides forward. It is only natural for each of us to protect our own interests. In the case of India, the US, Germany, Russia and France were the first to take the lead in nuclear power. India is working hard to find an independent nuclear power system, free from the west. Since they haven't achieved the ultimate Thorium reactor or FBR, they are reliant on the west, the US, Russia, France, and Germany for their fuel. These countries have their interests to protect. This is my perception.
Peak-a-boo, My point is that the EROEI of various nuclear fuel/reactor combinations should be assessed. Evan if you count the BN-600 and the Phénix as prototypes, we are in effect in the stage of commercial development for the LMFBR. And that is exactly what the Indians are doing. At this point in the reactor development cycle there is little doubt that commercial LMFBRs can be made to work. My point here is not to say I like the LMFBR, because I don't, but to argue when questions - which I regard as poorly informed - are raised about the future availability of uranium. My point is this. At least 99% of the potential energy of uranium is unextracted by the current uranium/LWR system. Even if we were running out of uranium, and we are not. We possess the technology to produce nuclear power for a long time, and in addition, even if we are running out of uranium, which is not the case, we can still extract nuclear energy from thorium. Our thorium reserve will last for a very long time.
So far, the problem about breeders has been high capital costs. This is the Achilles' heel of nuclear power, and any new technology that exagerbates it is a non-starter.
Slashing capital costs is one of the most important issues for new breeder designs.
Fluid fuel reactors such as liquid fluoride reactors offer advantages in capital costs over LWRs. They're low pressure and so massive steel pressure vessels aren't required, they're more scalable for very high or low powers than LWRs. That they eliminate the fuel fabrication and complex reprocessing steps are nice also.
LFTR does appear to be one of the most promising concepts, if not the most promising.
Do you have any news on the commercialization of such reactors? The only one I know of is the Fuji project, which isn't proceeding very rapidly, and IIRC won't use continuous reprocessing to maximise the potential of the design.
Cyril R, at the moment theoretical and materials research is being conducted in several countries, but only the Fuji project is directed at developing an actual reactor. This is tragic considering the potential of the LFTR. Development of the LFTR will require an act of political will. The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that.
Here is a list of benefits from the development and adoption of the LFTR/liquid core reactor design.
. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.
3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste.
High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines.
Charles, that sounds as though it would also be good for the production of hydrogen - not that I believe in basing the economy on hydrogen production, but it could possibly be used to make things like biodiesel, which would be less volatile.
This might make problems of using nuclear reactors for peak power more manageable, as during periods of low demand the surplus might be used effectively.
US nuclear engineers have built new nukes, just not in the US. I've been at work on new overseas plants for 8 of the last 10 years.
The last two year of my career have been devoted to preparing the application for two reactors in Texas. The application was submitted 9/07 - we're working on revision 3 now. Several other applications are in the NRC's hopper and under review.
As to decommissioning, every US plant has to start a trust fund and make regular payments to fund removal at end of plant life. Last time I check, many plants have TOO much money in their funds since the investments paid off better than expected and the original cost estimates are proving too high.
I consider the US a key leader in the nuclear industry. I would put Russia, the US, France and Germany as the leaders in the Nuclear Reactor field and in that order. My perception, India is attempting to enter the arena. My sense is that they are being kept on a short leash. I am guessing China is simply applying the technologies others have developed, not trying to re-invent the wheel and working as a team player. Japan, well, they may not be showing all their hand, but they are very active as well. I stress, these are my perceptions.
I was unaware of the US Decommissioning Trust Fund. It makes complete sense. Thank you for the information.
I know the US has seven Nuclear plants planned (China 30.) I didn't look into the matter much, but if I were building a plant in the US it would be in Texas.
China has 21 reactors under or about to start construction and another 18 should start construction after that.
35 are under construction right now and that does not include Watts Bar Unit 2 being completed in Tennessee.
Watts Bar 1180 MWe reactor is expected to come on line in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Construction was suspended in 1985 and will resume late in 2008 under a still-valid permit. It will provide power at 4.4 c/kW http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
There was a net increase of 3724 MWe in capacity 1991-2003 resulted from many reactors with increases - some substantial, offset by 19 with decreases. [net increase is increased power less reduced power]
As of December 2007 over 110 uprates had been approved, totalling 4900 MWe. A further seven uprates totalling about 750 MWe are pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and applications for a total of 1690 MWe are expected by 2011.
In 1980 the average utilization for all US reactors was 54%, by 1991 it was 68%, in 2001 it had risen to 90.7% and in 2007 it was 91.8%. A major component of this is the length of refuelling outage, which in 1990 averaged 107 days but dropped to 40 days by 2000. The record is now 15 days.
Output since 1990, increased from 577 billion kilowatt hours to 807 billion kWh, a 40% improvement despite little increase in installed capacity, and equivalent to 29 new 1000 MWe reactors. Average thermal efficiency rose from 32.49% in 1980 to 33.40% in 1990 and 33.85% in 1999.
Current new build by country in order of amount of power added
China 6 reactors, 5520 MW
Russia 7 reactors, 4920 MW
S Korea 3 reactors, 3000 MW
India 6 reactors, 2976 MW
Japan 2 reactors, 2285 MW
France 1 reactor, 1630 MW
Finland 1 reactor, 1600MW
Canada 2 reactors, 1500 MW
Iran 1, 915MW
Slovakia 2 reactors, 840MW
Argentina 1 reactor, 692MW
Pakistan 1 reactor, 300 MW
35 reactors, 28798 MW (most should be completed by 2012/2013)
91 reactors 99095 MW
with approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years (by 2016)
Much of the increase is likely to be from increased reactor sizes
Sites tentatively identified by prospective investors as most likely to host 1,000-MW PWRs beginning in the Twelfth Plan may in some cases instead see construction of bigger units based on foreign technology from the US, Russia, and France, Chinese sources said last month. That could favor the AP1000 -- provided the State Nuclear Power Technology Co., Snptc, an arm of the State Council of Ministers responsible for China's future nuclear power development, succeeds in increasing the AP1000 power level to 1,400 MW. The 1,600-MW-class EPR, the biggest reactor to be built in China, but so far limited to construction of two units, could also be favored for additional construction should China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co., Cgnpc, overcome opposition to further construction by key Beijing bureaucrats. Russian industry, Chinese sources said, may now also be pushed to complete development of a 1,500-MW PWR for the Tianwan site.
As I follow your threads through this post, I find you a warehouse of knowledge. Our screen names are interesting choices, yours advancednano. I take it to mean something about smaller and better.
Mining: We know where ore or U308 is extracted. Primarily Canada and Australia. Kazakhstan is poised to become the leader. Facts on US production are unclear, the US does leaching still; however, US mining production of U308 became negligible. Now, some things I read tend to imply US leaching or mining of U308 has increased dramatically. Do you know the state of US mining of U?
Canada is projected to grow its output of U308. Anything I read indicates production in a plateau or dropping. What are your thoughts on Canada increasing production?
Do we know anything about the concentration levels of mined material in Canada or Australia? Are they decreasing?
Uranium Conversion (UF6): Converting U308 to UF6 is a gray area for me. It appears the US, through USEC, may be the world leader here. Are the same companies that enrichme Uranium the same that perform U Conversion? Who’s at the top of the list of Conversion?
Enrichment (U235): This area appears clear but it’s good to bounce information off someone. It appears Russia (Tenex) leads with 43% of enrichment. The US (USEC) has 20%. France (Avera) 19%. Germany (Urenco) 15%. Does this appear correct to you?
'Megatons to Megawatts” or “Swords for Ploughshares” deal signed in 1994. This deal expires in, I believe, 2014. Do you know if the deal is being upheld? At current U prices, the Russians may find themselves wanting to break the deal as they have with oil development deals. Did the US have to convert warheads into reactor grade U?
U Pricing: Do you know what caused the spike of U prices to spike to $133 back in 2007?
Lastly, from what I know, inventories of U are depleting. I can’t find any numbers on inventories or the rates of depletion since late the 1990’s. Do you have any information on this?
Advancednano just refers to Advanced nanotechnology as opposed to current nanoscale technology. My website used to be called advancednano but I changed it to nextbigfuture. I believe that molecular manufacturing will be developed and will massively alter human civilization.
There are currently five in-situ leaching uranium mines operating in the United States, operated by Cameco, Mestena and Uranium Resources Company, all using sodium bicarbonate. ISL produces 90% of the uranium mined in the US. Two more ISL projects are in licensing and proposal stages in the US, and two in reclamation in 2006.
Significant ISL mines are operating in Kazakhstan and Australia. The Beverley uranium mine in Australia uses in-situ leaching. ISL mining produces around 21% of the world's uranium production
Today the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan hosts the largest high-grade uranium mines and deposits. Cameco, the world’s largest low-cost uranium producer, which accounts for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates three mines and one dedicated mill in the region. Among the major mines are Cameco's flagship McArthur River mine, the developing Cigar Lake mine, the Rabbit Lake mine and mill complex, and the world's largest uranium mill at Key Lake. French-owned uranium syndicate Areva also operates the McClean Lake mill. Saskatchewan has become a hotbed of uranium exploration, with many junior exploration companies rushing to explore the highly valuable Athabasca basin.
“To effectively treat and ultimately cure CNS conditions, such as brain cancer, stroke, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, a drug needs to be able to cross the BBB,” Benoit explains. “About 95% of today’s therapeutics cannot do this, however, and must be delivered invasively via direct injection into the brain or cerebrospinal fluid, or be released from a device that has been implanted into the brain.”
Using the company’s technology, however, Benoit says NanoMed scientists can manufacture nanoparticles that mask a drug’s BBB-limiting characteristics; enable targeted delivery via BBB transporters; and provide a sustained release in brain tissue, which could reduce dosage frequency, peripheral toxicity, and adverse effects.
Yup - Nanoparticles bypass the blood-brain barrier
Molecular manufacturing is making bigger things from molecules. The current nanoparticle technology is useful but is insignificant relative to the larger potential.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles. So what is the differential risk and effect ? What is the potential harm relative to potential benefits ?
People are trying to use nanoparticles for drug delivery but are using them in targeted ways. I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
And that larger issue is? Overpopulation? Capitalists out to make a buck will do things as documented in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle? Man's willingness to screw over people who are not 'in your tribe'? What, exactly is the "larger issue"?
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles.
Oh, so then that makes man's creation of more OK then?
I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
Moore collected baseball-size gelatinous animals called salps and found their translucent tissues clogged with bits of monofilament fishing line and nurdles
So just claiming I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air. does not address the known water case, or the case of 'accidental' release. The concern over 'accidental release' is vividly demonstrated by the nurdles in the Gyre.
Brian the Westinghouse/MIT donut fuel approach potentially could pump up the AP-1000 to 1800 MWs. It probably would take about 5 years to develop, but once developed the chinese could begin to build the revised design reactors quickly.
Even without that MIT power uprate.
China is already trying to build AP1000 reactors in Sanmen and Haiyang in China will be rated at 1,250 megawatts. And the next batch look likely to be pushed ot 1400MW.
I think you are speaking of South Texas? If so, is it true that the current application was put on hold because it was not possible to come up with credible cost estimates?
No, the owners switched reactor vendors from GE to Toshiba. I followed the job and changed employers. The application was partially put on hold until we revise the sections that mention GE, use different technology, or reference GE's proprietary intellectual property. Some editorial work also needs to be done. The NRC review of the portions not requiring revision (environmental, operations, etc) continues.
Since Toshiba, Hitachi, and GE all shared the original ABWR development, most of the technology is shared.
Toshiba seems to have been able to offer better financial and contractual terms and has formed a joint venture with the prime owner, NRG, to market the ABWR in the US.
Has the application considered the effects of sea level rise on the integrity of the cooling pond there? Is a different cooling method planned for the new reactors?
The main cooling resevoir is 10 or more miles away from the Gulf of Mexico and is composed of levees. It would take more than 60 years for sea level to change that much, even according to the IPCC.
The new reactors (units 3 and 4) will share the pond with units 1 and 2. The pond (more like Lake Erie!) was originally designed for four units.
The new reactors will have their own "ultimate heat sink" safety-related cooling ponds. These will be tornado, hurricane, earthquake, fire, flood, etc etc proof.
I agree that IPCC projections don't seem to threaten the pond but the IPCC did not call its upper range an upper limit because it did not consider ice sheet dynamics. The number that look comfortable for the end of the century for planning purposes would be around 5 meters of sea level rise and to this one should add storm surge so that, if I have read the elevations correctly, there would be a threat. I know that England is beginning to address this issue in its permitting process and so I'm wondering if you have also started to look at this?
We should be deadly concerned about large asteroids impacting the ocean washing away nuclear powerplants as well. We haven't properly accounted for the risk that these scenarios paint. Also alien invasion fleets are another capital risk for nuclear power plants that we haven't properly assessed.
Nevermind the planning issues that circulates around the trillions of dollars of other installed infrastructure as only nuclear powerplants are vulnerable to these threats.
Again, your usual public display of ingorance on nuclear matters.
New nuclear power plants can't be built without substantial federal loan guarantees. Banks won't lend without them because of a long history of meltdown, failure to come on line entirely accompanied by bankruptcy, long delays owing to poor safety practices, and early closures owing to shoddy construction or poor seismic study that has dogged the industry. Because the industry has its hand out for public largess, it is very much in the public interest to know if factors that could cause default on loans have been considered. It may be more prudent to build the South Texas reactors further inland. It would be a bad thing were the loan to default just at the time we need to shift I-10, for example. $30 billion here, $30 billion there, it starts to add up.
There has been only one "meltdown" in a commercial nuclear power plant in the world, at Three Mile Island - which didn't hurt anyone. There have been a couple of partial fuel-damage accidents at prototype research reactors, too, but clearly a "long history of meltdown" is complete nonsense, especially in the context of commercial nuclear power reactors for electricity generation.
Dezakin, actually the 9/11 terrorists were attempting to attack reactors reactors when they accidentally flew their planes into the the WTC. But reactors are truly deadly. The government hushed up the fact that the Titanic struck a reactor, not an iceberg.
Breeder reactors appear to offer a solution. The issues I see are that of the circa four breeder reactors built, only Russia’s BN-600 is still operational. The others were shut down either for safety or economic issues. They aren’t proving to be a solution for the generation of nuclear fuel.
The 2nd issue is that Gen IV plants, as I understand, are theoretical. I don’t know of any being built. These may be needed sooner than later but they aren’t here yet. Will we find a working solution soon enough?
Since I assume this is the US version of the Oil Drum, the 3rd issue is that of the Gen-III reactors, or for that matter any reactors, non-are being built in the US. Of the 34 reactors currently under construction, almost all are in Asia. It's good that there is a technology solution that might help meet my energy needs, but how is Nuclear going to help the US and me when none are being built here?
Not related to Breeders or Gen-III reactors, but since Nate Hagen points out that the US hasn’t built a reactor since 1971 and that the (per his “Figure 8”) vast amount of expense of a reactor is at the end of life of the reactor, aren’t our 104 US reactors ready to be dismantled? Is that what his Figure 8 means by "storm?" Who’s going to pay the expense of the dismantling of these reactors? Where do we get the electricity to offset their loss? Do we have to pay to dismantle these while paying to build new ones?
Lastly, doesn’t the reduction of 104 reactors in the US put a lot of fuel on the market for other countries that are building reactors?
Peak-a-boo
Two breeder reactors besides the BN-600 are currently in operation
They are the French Phénix (not Super-Phénix} which has been in operation since the laye 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
And the Indian Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) which has been in operation since October 1985. A second Indian fast breeder, the Indian Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is expected to go into operation in 2010. The Indians expect to build 4 more by 2020.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/07/stories/2005090704781300.html
A second Indian commercial fast breeder design, the Fast Thorium Breeder Reactor (FTBR) being developed at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3390
Why did you chose to ignore India's very advanced breeder reactor program?
China has been developing fast breeder technology since the 1960's. The Chinese are panning to build a commercial size fast breeder, scheduled to come on line in 2015.
http://www.indianexpress.com/india-news/full_story.php?content_id=87775
Charles Burton,
I did not overlook the French Phénix.
It was shutdown in 1996 as the wikipedia webpage your reference accurately states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phénix
I am aware of the nuclear developments in India. Everything I read about the Indian reactors is "test", "planned" or "developed." Once India passes the test and planning phase and has an operational plant, as Russia does, they can be counted as having a working reactor. India may not succeed, just as the US, French, UK and others have failed with their FBRs. Russia’s BN-600 is only one of four FBRs built by Russia still operational. We may look back at India as we do the others.
The "hinduonnet.com" link you reference no longer works.
The "India Defense" link talks about the theory of India's FBRs using Thorium. Perhaps one day this will be great. I can only hope.
The "indianexpress.com" link points to China’s and India's attempts to build FBRs.
Many countries are very interested in FBRs. Japan was also not mentioned, but they are working hard in this area as well. The Germans are also quite active in the field, albeit not in Germany.
For now, Fast Breeder Reactors, creating more fuel than they consume, is still my hope. They have yet to be proven safe and economical and reside, from one I can see, in the realm of test, planned and developed.
Peak-a-boo
You have mistaken the Super-Phénix which was shut down in 1996 with the Phénix which is expected to be shut down in 2014. The Indians have bred thorium in their their test fast breeder, and the plan to breed thorium in the prototype fast breeders as well as in their "thorium" commercial breeder design. Since the Indians have operated their test breeder for over 20 years, and are building a prototype commercial reactor, I would say they passed the test. Why are you so skeptical about the capacity of the Indians to develop an advanced technology? If the Russians can succeed in developing the BN-600 why not the Indians?
I am not a particular fan of the liquid sodium fast breeder, which I think has proven a difficult to master in practice. Better, far safer, and technologically less arduous approaches are to be found in fluid fueled reactors, Like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or the Liquid Chloride Breeder Reactor. But I do not doubt, that a Liquid Sodium fast breeder can be made to work.
Charles
The Phénix is a prototype. It is used to develop scaleable projects like the Super-Phenix and others. Under the title of "Successful Breeder Reactors" I would not give France the gold medal. My sense is the Russia's B-600 is also a prototype that is kept functional for themselves and other countries to study. The holly grail of nuclear energy is the FBR, humankind just doesn’t have a viable FBR solution yet. This is my perception.
India is attempting to make great strides forward. It is only natural for each of us to protect our own interests. In the case of India, the US, Germany, Russia and France were the first to take the lead in nuclear power. India is working hard to find an independent nuclear power system, free from the west. Since they haven't achieved the ultimate Thorium reactor or FBR, they are reliant on the west, the US, Russia, France, and Germany for their fuel. These countries have their interests to protect. This is my perception.
Peak-a-boo, My point is that the EROEI of various nuclear fuel/reactor combinations should be assessed. Evan if you count the BN-600 and the Phénix as prototypes, we are in effect in the stage of commercial development for the LMFBR. And that is exactly what the Indians are doing. At this point in the reactor development cycle there is little doubt that commercial LMFBRs can be made to work. My point here is not to say I like the LMFBR, because I don't, but to argue when questions - which I regard as poorly informed - are raised about the future availability of uranium. My point is this. At least 99% of the potential energy of uranium is unextracted by the current uranium/LWR system. Even if we were running out of uranium, and we are not. We possess the technology to produce nuclear power for a long time, and in addition, even if we are running out of uranium, which is not the case, we can still extract nuclear energy from thorium. Our thorium reserve will last for a very long time.
So far, the problem about breeders has been high capital costs. This is the Achilles' heel of nuclear power, and any new technology that exagerbates it is a non-starter.
Slashing capital costs is one of the most important issues for new breeder designs.
Fluid fuel reactors such as liquid fluoride reactors offer advantages in capital costs over LWRs. They're low pressure and so massive steel pressure vessels aren't required, they're more scalable for very high or low powers than LWRs. That they eliminate the fuel fabrication and complex reprocessing steps are nice also.
LFTR does appear to be one of the most promising concepts, if not the most promising.
Do you have any news on the commercialization of such reactors? The only one I know of is the Fuji project, which isn't proceeding very rapidly, and IIRC won't use continuous reprocessing to maximise the potential of the design.
Cyril R, at the moment theoretical and materials research is being conducted in several countries, but only the Fuji project is directed at developing an actual reactor. This is tragic considering the potential of the LFTR. Development of the LFTR will require an act of political will. The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that.
Here is a list of benefits from the development and adoption of the LFTR/liquid core reactor design.
. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.
3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste.
Charles, that sounds as though it would also be good for the production of hydrogen - not that I believe in basing the economy on hydrogen production, but it could possibly be used to make things like biodiesel, which would be less volatile.
This might make problems of using nuclear reactors for peak power more manageable, as during periods of low demand the surplus might be used effectively.
Unfortunately hydrogen production is one of those flat out demands that is either allways on or not if you want any efficiency.
Good demand management will have to be found somewhere else.
US nuclear engineers have built new nukes, just not in the US. I've been at work on new overseas plants for 8 of the last 10 years.
The last two year of my career have been devoted to preparing the application for two reactors in Texas. The application was submitted 9/07 - we're working on revision 3 now. Several other applications are in the NRC's hopper and under review.
As to decommissioning, every US plant has to start a trust fund and make regular payments to fund removal at end of plant life. Last time I check, many plants have TOO much money in their funds since the investments paid off better than expected and the original cost estimates are proving too high.
Joseph,
I consider the US a key leader in the nuclear industry. I would put Russia, the US, France and Germany as the leaders in the Nuclear Reactor field and in that order. My perception, India is attempting to enter the arena. My sense is that they are being kept on a short leash. I am guessing China is simply applying the technologies others have developed, not trying to re-invent the wheel and working as a team player. Japan, well, they may not be showing all their hand, but they are very active as well. I stress, these are my perceptions.
I was unaware of the US Decommissioning Trust Fund. It makes complete sense. Thank you for the information.
I know the US has seven Nuclear plants planned (China 30.) I didn't look into the matter much, but if I were building a plant in the US it would be in Texas.
There are 15 Combined license applications that have been received by the NRC
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html
34 plants from 23 applications are expected by 2010
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-n...
China has 21 reactors under or about to start construction and another 18 should start construction after that.
35 are under construction right now and that does not include Watts Bar Unit 2 being completed in Tennessee.
Watts Bar 1180 MWe reactor is expected to come on line in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Construction was suspended in 1985 and will resume late in 2008 under a still-valid permit. It will provide power at 4.4 c/kW
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
There was a net increase of 3724 MWe in capacity 1991-2003 resulted from many reactors with increases - some substantial, offset by 19 with decreases. [net increase is increased power less reduced power]
As of December 2007 over 110 uprates had been approved, totalling 4900 MWe. A further seven uprates totalling about 750 MWe are pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and applications for a total of 1690 MWe are expected by 2011.
In 1980 the average utilization for all US reactors was 54%, by 1991 it was 68%, in 2001 it had risen to 90.7% and in 2007 it was 91.8%. A major component of this is the length of refuelling outage, which in 1990 averaged 107 days but dropped to 40 days by 2000. The record is now 15 days.
Output since 1990, increased from 577 billion kilowatt hours to 807 billion kWh, a 40% improvement despite little increase in installed capacity, and equivalent to 29 new 1000 MWe reactors. Average thermal efficiency rose from 32.49% in 1980 to 33.40% in 1990 and 33.85% in 1999.
Current new build by country in order of amount of power added
China 6 reactors, 5520 MW
Russia 7 reactors, 4920 MW
S Korea 3 reactors, 3000 MW
India 6 reactors, 2976 MW
Japan 2 reactors, 2285 MW
France 1 reactor, 1630 MW
Finland 1 reactor, 1600MW
Canada 2 reactors, 1500 MW
Iran 1, 915MW
Slovakia 2 reactors, 840MW
Argentina 1 reactor, 692MW
Pakistan 1 reactor, 300 MW
35 reactors, 28798 MW (most should be completed by 2012/2013)
91 reactors 99095 MW
with approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years (by 2016)
China raised its target for 2020 to 60GW
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/highlights/2008/nucp_nw_041008.xml
Much of the increase is likely to be from increased reactor sizes
Sites tentatively identified by prospective investors as most likely to host 1,000-MW PWRs beginning in the Twelfth Plan may in some cases instead see construction of bigger units based on foreign technology from the US, Russia, and France, Chinese sources said last month. That could favor the AP1000 -- provided the State Nuclear Power Technology Co., Snptc, an arm of the State Council of Ministers responsible for China's future nuclear power development, succeeds in increasing the AP1000 power level to 1,400 MW. The 1,600-MW-class EPR, the biggest reactor to be built in China, but so far limited to construction of two units, could also be favored for additional construction should China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co., Cgnpc, overcome opposition to further construction by key Beijing bureaucrats. Russian industry, Chinese sources said, may now also be pushed to complete development of a 1,500-MW PWR for the Tianwan site.
Advancednano
As I follow your threads through this post, I find you a warehouse of knowledge. Our screen names are interesting choices, yours advancednano. I take it to mean something about smaller and better.
Mining: We know where ore or U308 is extracted. Primarily Canada and Australia. Kazakhstan is poised to become the leader. Facts on US production are unclear, the US does leaching still; however, US mining production of U308 became negligible. Now, some things I read tend to imply US leaching or mining of U308 has increased dramatically. Do you know the state of US mining of U?
Canada is projected to grow its output of U308. Anything I read indicates production in a plateau or dropping. What are your thoughts on Canada increasing production?
Do we know anything about the concentration levels of mined material in Canada or Australia? Are they decreasing?
Uranium Conversion (UF6): Converting U308 to UF6 is a gray area for me. It appears the US, through USEC, may be the world leader here. Are the same companies that enrichme Uranium the same that perform U Conversion? Who’s at the top of the list of Conversion?
Enrichment (U235): This area appears clear but it’s good to bounce information off someone. It appears Russia (Tenex) leads with 43% of enrichment. The US (USEC) has 20%. France (Avera) 19%. Germany (Urenco) 15%. Does this appear correct to you?
'Megatons to Megawatts” or “Swords for Ploughshares” deal signed in 1994. This deal expires in, I believe, 2014. Do you know if the deal is being upheld? At current U prices, the Russians may find themselves wanting to break the deal as they have with oil development deals. Did the US have to convert warheads into reactor grade U?
U Pricing: Do you know what caused the spike of U prices to spike to $133 back in 2007?
Lastly, from what I know, inventories of U are depleting. I can’t find any numbers on inventories or the rates of depletion since late the 1990’s. Do you have any information on this?
Advancednano just refers to Advanced nanotechnology as opposed to current nanoscale technology. My website used to be called advancednano but I changed it to nextbigfuture. I believe that molecular manufacturing will be developed and will massively alter human civilization.
Wise uranium has a lot of info on uranium mining
http://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html
US uranium mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach
There are currently five in-situ leaching uranium mines operating in the United States, operated by Cameco, Mestena and Uranium Resources Company, all using sodium bicarbonate. ISL produces 90% of the uranium mined in the US. Two more ISL projects are in licensing and proposal stages in the US, and two in reclamation in 2006.
Significant ISL mines are operating in Kazakhstan and Australia. The Beverley uranium mine in Australia uses in-situ leaching. ISL mining produces around 21% of the world's uranium production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uranium_mining
Canada uranium mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Canada
Today the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan hosts the largest high-grade uranium mines and deposits. Cameco, the world’s largest low-cost uranium producer, which accounts for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates three mines and one dedicated mill in the region. Among the major mines are Cameco's flagship McArthur River mine, the developing Cigar Lake mine, the Rabbit Lake mine and mill complex, and the world's largest uranium mill at Key Lake. French-owned uranium syndicate Areva also operates the McClean Lake mill. Saskatchewan has become a hotbed of uranium exploration, with many junior exploration companies rushing to explore the highly valuable Athabasca basin.
Read up on Cameco's mine from the company's site
http://www.cameco.com/operations/uranium/mcarthur_river/
The main mine is McArthur River
average ore grade of 20.5%
http://www.investcom.com/moneyshow/uranium_athabasca.htm
various new small discoveries from the junior companies
Forum found 148 million pounds
http://www.forumuranium.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=284791&_Type=&_T......
a new areva, denison mine, expected to produce 18,000 tons 2011-2013
http://www.miningweekly.com/article.php?a_id=122717
believe that molecular manufacturing will be developed and will massively alter human civilization.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/mdd/v07/i07/html/704feature_willi...
Yup - Nanoparticles bypass the blood-brain barrier
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-brain-damage...
And, alas I could not find a link to the 1950's monkey death/nanoparticle work.
Molecular manufacturing is making bigger things from molecules. The current nanoparticle technology is useful but is insignificant relative to the larger potential.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles. So what is the differential risk and effect ? What is the potential harm relative to potential benefits ?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11248&page=7
Naturally occurring nanoparticles: volcanic ash, ocean spray, forest fires etc..
http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.3280.pdf
People are trying to use nanoparticles for drug delivery but are using them in targeted ways. I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
Eric you are fixated on small negative incidents while ignoring the larger issue.
And that larger issue is? Overpopulation? Capitalists out to make a buck will do things as documented in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle? Man's willingness to screw over people who are not 'in your tribe'? What, exactly is the "larger issue"?
The world is filled with naturally occurring nanoparticles.
Oh, so then that makes man's creation of more OK then?
I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air.
And No one has a policy of taking another industrial building block - plastic nurdles - and dumping them in the sea. And yet the Pacific Gyre is full of 'em.
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Trashing-Oceans-Plastic4nov02.htm
So just claiming I am unaware of proposals to dump large amounts of artificially synthesized nanoparticles into the air. does not address the known water case, or the case of 'accidental' release. The concern over 'accidental release' is vividly demonstrated by the nurdles in the Gyre.
Alternative energy in China is in the lift, but the coal part leaves little room for optimism:
Brian the Westinghouse/MIT donut fuel approach potentially could pump up the AP-1000 to 1800 MWs. It probably would take about 5 years to develop, but once developed the chinese could begin to build the revised design reactors quickly.
Even without that MIT power uprate.
China is already trying to build AP1000 reactors in Sanmen and Haiyang in China will be rated at 1,250 megawatts. And the next batch look likely to be pushed ot 1400MW.
http://construction.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0249-260138_ITM_platts
Plus China is looking at more 1600MW EPRs and 1500MW PWR.
When the MIT power uprate rolls around it could be pushing the APR to 2100+ MW
I think you are speaking of South Texas? If so, is it true that the current application was put on hold because it was not possible to come up with credible cost estimates?
Thanks,
Chris
No, the owners switched reactor vendors from GE to Toshiba. I followed the job and changed employers. The application was partially put on hold until we revise the sections that mention GE, use different technology, or reference GE's proprietary intellectual property. Some editorial work also needs to be done. The NRC review of the portions not requiring revision (environmental, operations, etc) continues.
Since Toshiba, Hitachi, and GE all shared the original ABWR development, most of the technology is shared.
Toshiba seems to have been able to offer better financial and contractual terms and has formed a joint venture with the prime owner, NRG, to market the ABWR in the US.
Has the application considered the effects of sea level rise on the integrity of the cooling pond there? Is a different cooling method planned for the new reactors?
Chris
The main cooling resevoir is 10 or more miles away from the Gulf of Mexico and is composed of levees. It would take more than 60 years for sea level to change that much, even according to the IPCC.
The new reactors (units 3 and 4) will share the pond with units 1 and 2. The pond (more like Lake Erie!) was originally designed for four units.
The new reactors will have their own "ultimate heat sink" safety-related cooling ponds. These will be tornado, hurricane, earthquake, fire, flood, etc etc proof.
I agree that IPCC projections don't seem to threaten the pond but the IPCC did not call its upper range an upper limit because it did not consider ice sheet dynamics. The number that look comfortable for the end of the century for planning purposes would be around 5 meters of sea level rise and to this one should add storm surge so that, if I have read the elevations correctly, there would be a threat. I know that England is beginning to address this issue in its permitting process and so I'm wondering if you have also started to look at this?
Chris
We should be deadly concerned about large asteroids impacting the ocean washing away nuclear powerplants as well. We haven't properly accounted for the risk that these scenarios paint. Also alien invasion fleets are another capital risk for nuclear power plants that we haven't properly assessed.
Nevermind the planning issues that circulates around the trillions of dollars of other installed infrastructure as only nuclear powerplants are vulnerable to these threats.
Again, your usual public display of ingorance on nuclear matters.
New nuclear power plants can't be built without substantial federal loan guarantees. Banks won't lend without them because of a long history of meltdown, failure to come on line entirely accompanied by bankruptcy, long delays owing to poor safety practices, and early closures owing to shoddy construction or poor seismic study that has dogged the industry. Because the industry has its hand out for public largess, it is very much in the public interest to know if factors that could cause default on loans have been considered. It may be more prudent to build the South Texas reactors further inland. It would be a bad thing were the loan to default just at the time we need to shift I-10, for example. $30 billion here, $30 billion there, it starts to add up.
Get a grip already,
Chris
"long history of meltdown" ??!
What on earth are you talking about!?
There has been only one "meltdown" in a commercial nuclear power plant in the world, at Three Mile Island - which didn't hurt anyone. There have been a couple of partial fuel-damage accidents at prototype research reactors, too, but clearly a "long history of meltdown" is complete nonsense, especially in the context of commercial nuclear power reactors for electricity generation.
Omitting Chernobyl are we? That's rather dumb. Chernobyl was a commercial reactor.
Still, the fear of large scale disasters caused by core damage is rather unfounded.
And yet you did not list the fission plants as a target in warfare.
How, exactly, in your risk-assessing world do asteroids smack into the ocean but warfare has stopped?
Yes, because fission power plants are the only potential targets in warfare. No one would consider targetting say skyscrapers or dams. Good point.
Dezakin, actually the 9/11 terrorists were attempting to attack reactors reactors when they accidentally flew their planes into the the WTC. But reactors are truly deadly. The government hushed up the fact that the Titanic struck a reactor, not an iceberg.
The government hushed up the fact that the Titanic struck a reactor, not an iceberg.
Thanks for proving my point that the pro-nukers just make up their positions.