Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-02 20:50:28

For SpaceNut re #125

There is an interesting line in the article:

The plant uses metal fuel to produce heat,

It seems possible (to me at least) that the word smiths are at work here.

There is NO mention of the kind of fuel chosen for the device.

My understanding is that the NASA device uses a small quantity of highly enriched Uranium.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-02 21:41:52

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/periodic-chart.htm

https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/u.htm

Uranium is a hard, dense, malleable, ductile, silver-white, radioactive metal. Uranium metal has very high density. When finely divided, it can react with cold water. In air it is coated by uranium oxide, tarnishing rapidly. It is attacked by steam and acids. Uranium can form solids solutions and intermetallic compounds with many of the metals.

louis · 2019-12-03 04:22:43

Should be perfect for a terrorist attack - or were you planning on mounting a 24/7 military guard around it?

tahanson43206 wrote:

For the topic "Nuclear power is safe" the article at the link below should be a good fit.
It should also drive Louis bonkers << grin >>
The developers of the system described even include solar panels in their design, to show a positive attitude toward renewable energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/oklo … 00370.html
(th)

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-03 07:38:19

For Louis re #128

The concern you have expressed deserves consideration.

In the case of the NASA power package, my impression is that nuclear material will be protected on Earth.

Once a reactor is on it's way to Mars, and after landing, my expectation is that vetting of human beings who might be able to access the equipment will be sufficient to reduce the risk considerably. That said, because human beings are involved, there is (apparently) always a risk of an individual becoming subject to evil thoughts. A strong mental health regime seems necessary for humanity to safely expand away from Earth, because there will necessarily be opportunities for individuals to attack the life support systems of whatever habitat is constructed.

Science Fiction is full of stories of risks to built environments, and authors have imagined all sorts of defenses.

The Chinese are experimenting with mind control on the scale of millions of people. That may work. The jury is still very much out.

The English/American experiment with freedom is incredibly risky.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-03 20:06:27

The reality is that even terrorist would not want to die from the radiation poisoning if they ever attempted to gain access to processed fuels let along concentrated levels of the raw ore.
The security at any facility are designed to keep the near honest person away and those that plan to be dishonest will get in to them no matter what you might do to stop them. You only hope that you can with your defenses that are setup to protect the fuel.
There are many more lethal things to make use of to kill with that have way less security and most can be made from off the shelf with little restrictions.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-12 18:59:55

The article at the link below offers encouraging news for development of Small Modular Reactors in the United States.

Until now, I was resigned to the idea that the United States would remain forever behind the curve in development of the latest generation of fission reactors.

The 2023 target date seems cautious to me, but considering the history of the technology in the United States (and elsewhere) it makes sense.

https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/ne … dular.html

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-12 21:08:32

So how small is small as what Nasa is working on in the 10Kwhr is small but can run at least 5 and up homes with power.
This does not really look all that small....

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files … ies%20.pdf

https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/pur … cy-options

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

SMRs are relatively small and flexible: they have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) and their output can fluctuate in line with demand. Power plants based on these designs require less frequent refuelling, every 3 to 7 years, in comparison to between 1 and 2 years for conventional plants, and some are even designed to operate for up to 30 years without refuelling.

https://www.nei.org/advocacy/build-new- … r-reactors

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/sm … management

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-13 05:21:38

For SpaceNut re #32

Nice addition to the topic!

225 MWe would serve many communities in the United States, and certainly in the world.

Recently, while investigating the potential of wind generator operation at sea, I ran across a reference to research on pulling Uranium from the ocean.

Here is a report from 2018 about progress using inexpensive reusable fiber:

https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium-se … ers/55033/

According to the article, the supply of Uranium dissolved in the world's oceans is inexhaustible from a practical point of view.

As Uranium is pulled from the ocean by humans, according to the article, the ocean will leach an equivalent amount out of rock, to maintain the current balance.

This technology should lead to income producing activity at some point.

However, I am looking at it as a reasonable addition to the functionality of a sea based wind power methane generator system. The seawater has to be filtered to make hydrogen, so the useful dissolved chemicals might as well be collected.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-13 18:29:42

Making themsafer for consumer sales would mean being able to cut the power cable to the home. Such a device would need to produce less than a 100kwhr a day even with the largest of power hogs....I would be happy with a 50kwhr device for sure and a sabetier reactor as well to make fuel with....

Its interesting about the uranium but thats were the heavy water first came from as well so not all that surprised to find that factoid....

SpaceNut · 2019-12-14 18:09:59

One day we could make mars look as good but its going to need a change

How to Jump-Start a Micro Nuclear Reactor Industry in the US

Small and micro reactors could revitalize America’s nuclear sector—with some policy changes—argues a new paper from The Breakthrough Institute, the R Street Institute and Clearpath. Small and micro reactors, defined in the paper as reactors under 10 megawatts thermal, come with less risk than their larger counterparts. These units are two to three thousandth the size of a typical commercial reactor, with the ability to supply electricity to around 2,000 households. This is significantly smaller than the next generation of research reactors being tested around the country. NuScale Power, for instance, builds 60-megawatt units designed to operate in six or 12 packs.

I would not call that a small of micro reactor but when compared to the gigawatt units I guess is nano that we would want...

Several companies are currently working on micro nuclear reactor designs, such as Oklo, a startup in the Bay Area, and U-Battery, under development by mining company Urenco. Opening up pathways for small and micro reactor market testing will also enable companies with larger designs to build more prototypes before scaling up, said Lovering.
The advanced nuclear industry is a treacherous place. This week, nuclear reactor startup Transatomic Power shut down operations, after struggling to find a viable path for bringing its molten salt reactor designs to scale.

https://www.powermag.com/big-gains-for- … -reactors/

Possible deliverable units to military installation by 2027.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/big- … o-reactors

More than 50 U.S. companies are working on designs that are smaller, scalable, versatile and even mobile—providing far greater access to nuclear power than ever before.
Micro-reactors will likely be the first advanced reactors that we see enter the U.S. market.
American developers are currently working on gas and heat pipe-cooled designs that could debut by the mid-2020s, which will be absolute game-changers for the industry.

Heat pipes are in the kilowatt nasa design for mars.

single megawatt of electricity can power approximately 1,000 homes. That means these systems could provide up to 10,0000 homes with clean power—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—for 10 years without stopping!

only 10 years seems to be rather a short time frame of use.....

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what … croreactor

Calliban · 2019-12-14 19:41:27

Small reactors tend to have a higher capital cost per MW. They also have problems with neutron economy that push up enrichment requirements and have a negative effect on fuel utilisation.

One of the problems with nuclear power taking up a much greater share of world energy requirements is the shortage of resource available at low cost. It may not be long before breeder reactors are needed in much greater numbers. The problem here is that even with breeder reactors there is a doubling time issue. It would realistically take at least a few decades for a sodium cooled fast reactor to breed enough surplus plutonium to expand generating capacity by a factor of two. This makes the option of fusion-fission hybrid reactors far more attractive, especially if they can work using inertial confinement and high power density. Deuterium tritium fusion produces very high energy neutrons. These will fast-fission any nuclide heavier than lead.

Last edited by Calliban (2019-12-14 19:44:45)

Terraformer · 2019-12-15 09:21:02

I wonder how well polywells would function if designed to maximise neutron production, rather than trying for net energy production?

SpaceNut · 2019-12-30 13:32:39

Nuclear reactors do age and need to be limited to and when.
Sweden closes nuclear reactor after over 40 yrs of operation
one of the four nuclear reactors at its largest power station after over 40 years of operation, with operators citing a lack of profitability.

kbd512 · 2019-12-30 16:10:03

SpaceNut,

Inevitably, we're going to start burning more coal and gas as the Europeans are already doing as they shut down their nuclear reactors. In other words, they're going to pay all the lip service in the world to climate change and then "reverse" our global warming problem by burning more fossil fuels. Why? Gas is cheaper now, so why not burn more gas? Makes perfect sense to me. This is why I can't take these "green energy" religious heretics seriously. They say one thing in public and then do things that amount to the exact opposite of what they claim they're trying to achieve. When the people who live there finally wake up and realize that what they're doing isn't having the desired effect, they start blaming everyone but themselves. I guess it's impossible to admit to your own failures and move forward. One thing's quite certain though, the money to create practical and meaningful change is still gone at the end of the day.

Does this mean we can stop using climate change as a cultural / political / economic weapon to beat other people over the head with?

Our actions continually indicate that we're all but outright admitting that we're not serious about doing anything meaningful about it. We only seem to engage in crazy talk in both directions. I've yet to see any practical proposals. I'm not holding my breath on that changing any time soon.

SpaceNut · 2019-12-30 16:15:50

And yet for most oil wells drilled they are burning off without it being used after selling it. If they were smart they would be buying the gas up cheap to make it available to the unfortunate people of low income in there nation. When you lift up the bottom the nation thrives as they now have income that they can spent.

kbd512 · 2019-12-30 17:34:52

SpaceNut,

Unfortunately, the drilling company typically doesn't own any of the product that comes from those wells and there are, if you can believe it, environmental regulations that dictate whether or not the drilling company can burn it in a combustion engine or react it in SOFC's to produce some of the power required to drill the well, thereby lowering the energy and therefore economic costs of drilling wells. That's pretty funny when you consider that it's being flared off anyway, which is permitted by environmental regulations, yet actually using it would reduce the shipments of diesel to a rig for drilling operations.

This is the kind of thing that happens when governments are allowed to dictate every aspect of how something operates. Apart from that, I'd generally agree that even somewhat dirty gas (it can and will be contaminated with some undesirable products like Sulfur or heavy metals or Radon) is preferable to simply burning it off in situ without ever allowing anyone to obtain any useful work from it. In general, bottling it up and selling it cheap to people who would otherwise burn even dirtier coal or poop is a much better use for it. Some filtration of things like heavy metals or Radon should still be mandatory. I'd wager many basements in the UK are greater Radon threats, but I may as well be honest about what it could potentially contain. No form of energy is without its downsides.

SpaceNut · 2019-12-31 16:10:31

Next.. Nuclear Energy News: Germany Shuts Down Atomic Plant As Part Of Final Phase Of Nuclear Withdrawal

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-18 19:14:55

This is for Calliban and Louis, although the two of you will (most likely) have very different reactions.

The report at the link below originated in the UK ... apparently it shows that nuclear fission cannot compete.

The report does not consider nuclear fusion of course, because while that technology is promising and enticing, it does not exist.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/deat … 00585.html

(th)

Calliban · 2020-01-19 15:47:36

tahanson43206 wrote:

This is for Calliban and Louis, although the two of you will (most likely) have very different reactions.
The report at the link below originated in the UK ... apparently it shows that nuclear fission cannot compete.
The report does not consider nuclear fusion of course, because while that technology is promising and enticing, it does not exist.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/deat … 00585.html
(th)

Chatham House. An organisation dedicated to forwarding political and economic 'liberalism' within the UK and beyond. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the colour of an orange.

louis · 2020-01-19 18:00:12

Chatham House touched a nerve!!

The phrase "Nest of vipers and spies" comes to mind. For a British institution it's amazing how about 90% of their spokespeople come from anywhere but the UK.

It is also interesting to note that the phrase "Chatham House rules" means "You can say what you like here, no one will tell" - quite sinister I would say!

Calliban wrote:

tahanson43206 wrote:
This is for Calliban and Louis, although the two of you will (most likely) have very different reactions.
The report at the link below originated in the UK ... apparently it shows that nuclear fission cannot compete.
The report does not consider nuclear fusion of course, because while that technology is promising and enticing, it does not exist.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/deat … 00585.html
(th)
Chatham House. An organisation dedicated to forwarding political and economic 'liberalism' within the UK and beyond. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the colour of an orange.

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-28 04:43:52

This is an update on Bill Gate's initiative to try to encourage development of small nuclear fission reactors.

The most recent development before the update below was the decision of the Trump administration to block work with China.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-n … 42639.html

The 345-megawatt plants would be cooled by liquid sodium and cost about $1 billion each.
Nuclear power is a top source of virtually emissions-free electricity, but many plants are shutting in the United States because of high costs and competition from solar and wind. Critics of advanced nuclear have also warned that smaller nuclear is even more expensive than conventional.
The new plants, however, are designed to complement a renewable power because they will store the reactor power in tanks of molten salt during days when the grid is well supplied. The nuclear power could be used later when solar and wind power are low due to weather conditions.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-08-28 08:11:34

The 345-megawatt plant could power 7,000 homes at a 50,000 watt … thats not small when it can power a complete town.
Its not cheap either.

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-28 11:02:34

For SpaceNut re #147

Thanks for taking a look at that report.

Can you (would you?) expand on your comment. A billion dollars buys a 345 MW plant that operates 24*7 rain or shine and creates no CO2.

How long does that plant go between fuel loads?

What is the cost of the fuel over time?

What is the cost of the staff needed to support the plant?

I sure hope there are people around who like digging into numerical comparisons like that, because there will surely be a huge audience.

The comparison would be with:

1)_ 345 MW coal plant (brand new built with today's prices
2) 345 MW gas fired plant (same set up)
3) 345 MW hydro plant (not fair, I realize, because there are no sites left in the US)
4) 345 MW solar plant with all the backup batteries needed to sustain overnight and during cloud events
5) 345 MW wind plant with all the backup batteries needed to (same)

My guess is that after the analysis, and extending the estimates for 10 years, the 345 MW nuclear plant will come out way ahead on cost alone.

If the impact on the environment is taken into account, it should do even better.

However, I still think the (reported) business plan makes a lot of sense ... site these units where huge renewable facilities are in need of reliable support throughout the service period (24 hours or 365 days).

(th)

kbd512 · 2020-08-28 12:01:10

SpaceNut,

A nuclear solution may not be cheap, but it's not as expensive as alternatives when Watt-hours of power output per dollars spent is considered (the metric that actually matters most, in the long run, when all solutions must be globally scaled out), either. Running a solar or wind power plant, build-out of the long-distance power grid infrastructure to support doing that, having a gas turbine running in the background 24/7/365 to make up for shortfalls (clearly not reducing CO2 emissions to the degree required to combat AGW), and replacing all of that at least once if not two or three times during the prototypical operational life of a nuclear power plant (solar and wind have exponentially worse EROEI, even though the input energy is provided by that giant fusion reactor 93 million miles away) isn't much of a solution and is all but guaranteed to be far more expensive and more damaging to the environment over the operational life of a nuclear power plant, not to mention solar and wind never achieving nameplate capacity under ideal conditions, much less nameplate capacity 24/7/365.

I support solar thermal and nuclear thermal because both types of power plants are 24/7/365 solutions that represent the minimum cost required to achieve the stated goal of eliminating CO2 emissions from electrical power generation and are proven to work through decades of operational experience in many countries around the world. The photovoltaics and wind only appear cheaper than they actually are when nobody is tabulating total dollars spent per Watt-hours of power output over a century (if we're worried about accumulated ice melting over the course of a century and causing sea level rise, then we should also plan next generation power delivery over the same time frame) and someone else besides the rate payer is paying for the total cost of the solution. I'm tired of all the big bright shining lies told by political partisans for partisan political reasons, rather than achieving practical solutions with existing technology that check off the boxes people claim they want checked off for a solution that they're willing to live with. There are no perfect solutions available, only solutions that are "not quite as bad" as competing alternatives.

If recycling is required for any photovoltaics / wind turbines / batteries solutions to be sustainable over the next century, then someone needs to come up with a way to recycle all the materials used in their construction, in a cost-effective manner, such that drastic increases in resource extraction for a global level scale out are not required. We've already extracted enough resources to construct and operate enough solar and nuclear thermal power plants for the next century, provided we restart our fuel reprocessing program to recycle nuclear materials. Recycling needs to be added to TCoE for all solutions because build it, use it for 25 years, and "rust in place" is not sustainable in the long term. The carbon forging process I've alluded to in other posts could feasibly take scrap carbon fiber or recycled scrap and turn it into wind turbine blades that are sustainably produced, but extensive testing is required to confirm the durability of parts produced using this method. I'm reasonably confident that this can be done. There will definitely be an upper length limit to blades produced using this method, as the end product does not have the same strength-to-weight ratio of virgin high modulus carbon fiber fabric layups. In simple terms, a layup of fabric plies using the same high heat / pressure process (Duc Helices uses this same process to produce very light weight carbon fiber propeller blades for light aircraft) would prove stronger than chopped fiber currently used to drastically reduce fabrication costs. Directionally-optimized strength, as used in all current production wind turbine blades, is not possible with chopped fiber, either.

As it pertains to wind turbines, since I seem to be making the case for both sides of the argument here, the new motor-generator technology from Magnax Corporation reduces the weight of the motor-generator used for the wind turbine electric generator assembly from 6t to 2.5t and the volume of the component by approximately 2/3rds, with no gearbox required to deliver equivalent torque and power. They make use of axial flux motor-generators with 100% copper fill (rectangular conductor wire) with no over-hang and grain-oriented electrical steel. This has a dramatic effect on the reduction of rare earth minerals required for the permanent magnets.

The ~42% reduction in weight and 66% reduction in volume means the wind turbine's nacelle can be much smaller, therefore weighs less, therefore the tower can weigh less, leading to a direct reduction in the quantity of materials required for construction. In rough general terms, I'd say we're looking at a 50% reduction in the mass of construction materials between turbines with a radial vs axial flux motor-generator. IIRC, the current devices under test are for 2MW onshore wind turbine electric generators.

Although prices continue to drop, photovoltaic conversion efficiency seems to be stuck at ~25% or less. Absent affordable novel new materials that permit production of more efficient cells, the land use claims associated with these remain prohibitive for global scale out. Even if near 100% efficient cells existed, the land claims are far beyond what could feasibly be built without resorting to delivering power over vast distances and losing a lot of it in the process. Again, virtually no recycling of the difficult to obtain materials contained within them takes place, so this is not a solution with global feasibility using current technology.

There's no business case to be made for any single solution for all power provisioning requirements, nor evidence to support claims that existing photovoltaic and wind and battery technologies are suitable substitutes for fossil fuels or nuclear power. In short, we gots what we gots and we ain't got no more.

SpaceNut · 2020-08-28 19:05:08

If the consumer paying 11 cents for a flat rate 1,000 watts or 1 Kw that means the income is $37,950 for each hour it provides power.
That $332,442,000 of yearly income....before refueling and other shutdown reasons.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2019-12-02 20:50:28

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#127 2019-12-02 21:41:52

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#128 2019-12-03 04:22:43

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#129 2019-12-03 07:38:19

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#130 2019-12-03 20:06:27

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#131 2019-12-12 18:59:55

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#132 2019-12-12 21:08:32

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#133 2019-12-13 05:21:38

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#134 2019-12-13 18:29:42

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#135 2019-12-14 18:09:59

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#136 2019-12-14 19:41:27

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#137 2019-12-15 09:21:02

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#138 2019-12-30 13:32:39

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#139 2019-12-30 16:10:03

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#140 2019-12-30 16:15:50

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#141 2019-12-30 17:34:52

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#142 2019-12-31 16:10:31

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#143 2020-01-18 19:14:55

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#144 2020-01-19 15:47:36

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#145 2020-01-19 18:00:12

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#146 2020-08-28 04:43:52

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#147 2020-08-28 08:11:34

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#148 2020-08-28 11:02:34

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#149 2020-08-28 12:01:10

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#150 2020-08-28 19:05:08

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer