Advanced Nuclear Reactors

[Puppycow]

Bill Gates is building one. I'm interested!!

In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation

Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated.
. . .

Gates told the audience at the groundbreaking that they were “standing on what will soon be the bedrock of America’s energy future.”

“This is a big step toward safe, abundant, zero-carbon energy,” Gates said. “And it’s important for the future of this country that projects like this succeed.”

Advanced reactors typically use a coolant other than water and operate at lower pressures and higher temperatures. Such technology has been around for decades, but the United States has continued to build large, conventional water-cooled reactors as commercial power plants. The Wyoming project is the first time in about four decades that a company has tried to get an advanced reactor up and running as a commercial power plant in the United States, according to the NRC.

It’s time to move to advanced nuclear technology that uses the latest computer modeling and physics for a simpler plant design that’s cheaper, even safer and more efficient, said Chris Levesque, the company’s president and chief executive officer.

TerraPower's Natrium reactor demonstration project is a sodium-cooled fast reactor design with a molten salt energy storage system.

. . .

I think fusion power is sort of a pie-in-the sky idea. Maybe they'll figure it out someday, but stuff like this could be done right now. Maybe not as sexy as fusion, but it has the advantage of being actually feasible with current technology.

Most light-water nuclear reactors are essentially 1950s-era technology. This is a more advanced design.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor

Advantages
All fast reactors have several advantages over the current fleet of water based reactors in that the waste streams are significantly reduced. Crucially, when a reactor runs on fast neutrons, the plutonium isotopes are far more likely to fission upon absorbing a neutron. Thus, fast neutrons have a smaller chance of being captured by the uranium and plutonium, but when they are captured, have a much bigger chance of causing a fission. This means that the inventory of transuranic waste is non existent from fast reactors.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'd like to draw attention to this phrase: Such technology has been around for decades
Nothing revolutionary about this.
Also of note: fast neutrons lead to much higher irradiation of the material of the reactor, which means shorter lifespan or higher maintenance, and higher decommissioning costs.


But more importantly, there is nothing carbon-neutral about Nuclear Power until there is a concept from Mining, building, decommissioning and long-term storage that adds up to be carbon neutral AND is competitive to other carbon-neutral energies.

I think it's irresponsible to build reactors using a cent of public money until the companies and agencies that created radioactive horror sites have cleaned the up, or at least started to, with financing in place to finish the job.

IMO, this is just another case of corporate welfare to satisfy a billionaire's dream of saving the world singlehandedly.

 

[Puppycow]

IMO, this is just another case of corporate welfare to satisfy a billionaire's dream of saving the world singlehandedly.

Saving the world is not a bad goal.

Gates has enough money that if he wanted to just keep it all for himself and live out his life in a gold mansion like Scrooge McDuck he could do that if he wanted to. I'm glad that he has chosen another path.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'd like to draw attention to this phrase: Such technology has been around for decades
Nothing revolutionary about this.
Also of note: fast neutrons lead to much higher irradiation of the material of the reactor, which means shorter lifespan or higher maintenance, and higher decommissioning costs.


But more importantly, there is nothing carbon-neutral about Nuclear Power until there is a concept from Mining, building, decommissioning and long-term storage that adds up to be carbon neutral AND is competitive to other carbon-neutral energies.

I think it's irresponsible to build reactors using a cent of public money until the companies and agencies that created radioactive horror sites have cleaned the up, or at least started to, with financing in place to finish the job.

IMO, this is just another case of corporate welfare to satisfy a billionaire's dream of saving the world singlehandedly.

In the US, the worst nuclear accident was Three Mile Island. Radioactivity levels there are now safe.
What 'radioactive horror sites' are you referring to?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ah yes, Bill "I don't plant trees" Gates. Made his billions producing software that required ever more power hungry computers that are straining the electricity grid. They're powered by coal you know - not 'green' at all! And the motors in hard drives use rare earth metals that are mined in the Congo by child slaves. Laptops are worse. Powered by lithium-ion batteries that catch fire and only last a few years before they end up in landfill. They're the reason the World's running out of lithium!

He promoted the paperless office to 'save trees', but has anyone ever calculated the environmental cost of all that e-waste?

Bill Gates says he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in renewables, but he's a liar. When you tally up all the CO₂ emitted to amass his enormous fortune, it's obvious that he isn't paying nearly enough to offset it.

 

[3point14]

I think it's irresponsible to build reactors using a cent of public money until the companies and agencies that created radioactive horror sites have cleaned the up, or at least started to, with financing in place to finish the job.

I think it's irresponsible to keep building generators that release tonnes and tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and use irreplaceable fossil fuels.

 

[wobs]

But more importantly, there is nothing carbon-neutral about Nuclear Power until there is a concept from Mining, building, decommissioning and long-term storage that adds up to be carbon neutral AND is competitive to other carbon-neutral energies.

The carbon cost of nuclear is about the same as solar & wind. If you want cost competitive, then you don't want to rely solely on intermittent sources. I know wind etc are currently cheap, but when you have to install huge over capacity and storage to rely on such systems, the cost advantage vanishes. In fact it is uneconomic in the extreme

Its also taking up to 15 years to install solar farms in the UK, not least because of the Green party.

I think it's irresponsible to build reactors using a cent of public money until the companies and agencies that created radioactive horror sites have cleaned the up, or at least started to, with financing in place to finish the job.

We need to build as many as we can very quickly. The politics of fear are getting in the way.

Once you have a design, built, you can replicate that design far quicker.

 

[Puppycow]

Ah yes, Bill "I don't plant trees" Gates. Made his billions producing software that required ever more power hungry computers that are straining the electricity grid. They're powered by coal you know - not 'green' at all! And the motors in hard drives use rare earth metals that are mined in the Congo by child slaves. Laptops are worse. Powered by lithium-ion batteries that catch fire and only last a few years before they end up in landfill. They're the reason the World's running out of lithium!

He promoted the paperless office to 'save trees', but has anyone ever calculated the environmental cost of all that e-waste?

Bill Gates says he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in renewables, but he's a liar. When you tally up all the CO₂ emitted to amass his enormous fortune, it's obvious that he isn't paying nearly enough to offset it.

What did you use to type that screed?

Maybe it was all tongue-in-cheek. I hope so.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In the US, the worst nuclear accident was Three Mile Island. Radioactivity levels there are now safe.
What 'radioactive horror sites' are you referring to?

not what I was talking about, so I will file this under "gaslighting".

Uranium Mining Sites, as well as nuclear research and atomic bomb construction sites such Hanford are a pure nightmare that will take a hundred years and many hundreds of billions to make safe enough that it won't contaminate the water and air.
You can forget about actually making it safe to use ever again.

And, of course, the private companies responsible for the hazard caused by mining have refused to pay for clean-up.

Maybe the ecologically responsible, or in fact sane, thing to do is to demand that the entire lifecycle of a nuclear power plant is planned and paid for before we allow more to be build.

 

[wobs]

And, of course, the private companies responsible for the hazard caused by mining have refused to pay for clean-up.

Presumdely, you feel the same way about rare earth mines used for renewables?

Of course some mines extract both uranium and rare earth metals, so would you rather the uranium just goes to waste?

 

[Planigale]

The carbon cost of nuclear is about the same as solar & wind. If you want cost competitive, then you don't want to rely solely on intermittent sources. I know wind etc are currently cheap, but when you have to install huge over capacity and storage to rely on such systems, the cost advantage vanishes. In fact it is uneconomic in the extreme

Its also taking up to 15 years to install solar farms in the UK, not least because of the Green party.



We need to build as many as we can very quickly. The politics of fear are getting in the way.

Once you have a design, built, you can replicate that design far quicker.

That is the argument for small modular reactors that the UK is currently pursuing. They can be 'mass' manufactured in a factory and the modules connected on site. Decommissioning can follow a similar process with a central decommissioning site. I think this is a realistic solution to moving the UK towards a carbon neutral future in combination with wind, wave, tidal and solar.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

 

[lionking]

How does the cost stack up against mass solar, wind and other renewables? In Australia at least, the equation comes out in favour of renewables. And for those believing these can’t replace base load generators, neighbourhood batteries are being rolled out.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

not what I was talking about, so I will file this under "gaslighting".

You can file this under anything you like, but that's not what gaslighting means.

Uranium Mining Sites, as well as nuclear research and atomic bomb construction sites such Hanford are a pure nightmare that will take a hundred years and many hundreds of billions to make safe enough that it won't contaminate the water and air.
You can forget about actually making it safe to use ever again.

And, of course, the private companies responsible for the hazard caused by mining have refused to pay for clean-up.

Maybe the ecologically responsible, or in fact sane, thing to do is to demand that the entire lifecycle of a nuclear power plant is planned and paid for before we allow more to be build.

There now! That's better! If you say what you're talking about, then people will know what you're talking about. Keep it up!
Now, about the evidence for these claims....

 

[wobs]

How does the cost stack up against mass solar, wind and other renewables? In Australia at least, the equation comes out in favour of renewables. And for those believing these can’t replace base load generators, neighbourhood batteries are being rolled out.

Depends on what scale.
Currently renewables are cheaper, but that doesn't account for the over capacity one would need if you went 100% wind/solar/storage.

As I said earlier, even if you have cheap wind & solar, this advantage is wiped out when you try to run your entire grid on it, as the cost of storage and the over capacity you need makes it uneconomic.

Especially in somewhere like the UK, where the highest demand is in the depths of winter, when the days are shortest. We had a deep freeze event once during this time in 2010, and the wind also dropped for weeks.

 

[Puppycow]

Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixSCZwFCQlc



An interesting feature of this reactor design is that it can vary its output and store up heat in the molten sodium that can be used sort like a battery. This makes it an excellent pair for intermittent renewable energy like solar and wind. The reactor can store up energy when output from the renewable energy is high and release it when the the renewable energy is off-line.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

https://energy.stanford.edu/news/sm...es-highly-radioactive-nuclear-waste-new-study

Small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste, new study finds

original article:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119

 

[rjh01]

Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixSCZwFCQlc



An interesting feature of this reactor design is that it can vary its output and store up heat in the molten sodium that can be used sort like a battery. This makes it an excellent pair for intermittent renewable energy like solar and wind. The reactor can store up energy when output from the renewable energy is high and release it when the the renewable energy is off-line.

The downside of this type of reactor is that it will be very expensive to build. Plus take a long time. She mentioned it will be finished in 2030. Most other ways of generating electricity would take far less time.

 

[wobs]

The downside of this type of reactor is that it will be very expensive to build. Plus take a long time. She mentioned it will be finished in 2030. Most other ways of generating electricity would take far less time.

Wind takes longer in the UK:

Renewable energy developers have accused the government of a “lack of vision” in planning the grid. They have expressed concerns that wait times of up to 15 years

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ction-delays-low-carbon-projects-ofgem-energy

 

[ahhell]

not what I was talking about, so I will file this under "gaslighting".

Uranium Mining Sites, as well as nuclear research and atomic bomb construction sites such Hanford are a pure nightmare that will take a hundred years and many hundreds of billions to make safe enough that it won't contaminate the water and air.
You can forget about actually making it safe to use ever again.

And, of course, the private companies responsible for the hazard caused by mining have refused to pay for clean-up.

Maybe the ecologically responsible, or in fact sane, thing to do is to demand that the entire lifecycle of a nuclear power plant is planned and paid for before we allow more to be build.

You are correct about the mines of course but thats true of almost every mine for almost every material we mine.

On the the other bit, bomb and research sites, can you name one that was primarily owned and operated by a private entity? Hanford, like most others was and is a federal government concern.

Anyrate, I'm curious about this "high tech" reactor, the principle advantage of a cold water reactor, pressurized or boiling is that they have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity, literally the hotter the water gets, the less reactive the reactor gets. It's one of the failings of chernobyll, they had the opposites. Is that true of gates new design?

Also, we need nuclear if we intend on getting of fossil fuels anytime soon. Pretty much all sources of electrical power have environmental problems. Renewables are all subject to the whims of nature. We need vastly increased storage if we don't have nukes or fossil fuels in the mix as well. All of the storage options have environmental impacts as well, and mining will be needed for all of the possibilities. That's not just a problem with nukes.

 

[crescent]

Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixSCZwFCQlc



An interesting feature of this reactor design is that it can vary its output and store up heat in the molten sodium that can be used sort like a battery. This makes it an excellent pair for intermittent renewable energy like solar and wind. The reactor can store up energy when output from the renewable energy is high and release it when the the renewable energy is off-line.

Molten sodium isn't limited to nuclear power. The big solar-thermal sites west of Las Vegas also use them so that they can continue to generate power when power demand peaks in the evening. Realistically, anything that generate electricity could use that electricity to heat up that sodium, like a different sort of battery.