Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-19 11:53:14

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/inside- … ts-1717658

This Article is From Jun 27, 2017
Inside World's Most Efficient Nuclear Reactor, Soon In India: 10 Facts
World Written by Pallava Bagla Updated: June 27, 2017 9:29 pm IST

This article opens with description of what sounds like a successful Russian breeder reactor.

The article itself is about Indian intentions to replicate that achievement.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-19 12:02:29

This post is about thermal efficiency.

The immediate previous post is NOT about thermal efficiency, but instead about efficiency in use of materials to support nuclear fission.

My concern in this post is about thermal efficiency.

I would be perfectly happy if a 1 MW reactor, designed for lease by a small business for a period of 10 years, were only 1% efficient in converting atomic energy to electrical energy. Considering the tremendous capacity of the atomic nucleus, 1% efficiency would be of no importance whatsoever to the customer. All the nuclear material left over from a 10 year run would be returned to the large entity that supplied it.

What I ** am ** concerned about is the 99% of the energy that is produced as thermal energy.

Edit: There may be a logical fallacy here ... It is possible I am mistaken in thinking that a reactor that is only 1% efficient at converting atomic power to electricity is going to produce 99% of thermal energy as waste.

Since the Earth already has an unsatisfactory energy balance (it retains more energy than it radiates to Space), I am concerned that introduction of large numbers of heat generators would aggravate the problem of the energy imbalance.

A potential solution might be to radiate excess thermal energy to space. That is precisely the solution proposed for the NASA 10Kw reactor that is under consideration for deployment on Mars.

In the case of Mars, in ** my ** opinion, it would make more sense to insure that none of the excess thermal energy is lost to space, because Mars is so far in the deficit column.

In the case of Earth, the default cooling method is to radiate/transfer thermal energy to water (submarines) or both water and air (land reactors with cooling towers).

I'd like to see a solution appear in this topic, to deliver excess thermal energy directly to space, although how that might be done is unknown (to me for sure).

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-19 18:23:06

Tahanson, the thermal efficiency of liquid metal cooled nuclear reactors is 40-50%. That is to say, up to 50% of available energy in the uranium is converted into electricity. For 239Pu fission, some 7.1MeV out of 207MeV released by fission, is lost to neutrino emissions, which cannot be captured. But aside from that, 97% of all energy released by fission is captured in fuel or coolant as heat.

As for radiating heat to space most effectively, I would suggest building cooling towers that dump heat thousands of feet into the air. If you choose a location with high altitude and dry air, you can optimise the effect. The bigger the cooling towers are, the higher the hot air will rise before the plume mixes with surrounding air. The greater the altitude that occurs, the lower the water vapour content of the surrounding air. But again, direct human heat production is not a big contribution to global heating at present. If energy use were to continue growing, supported by fission and fusion, it could one day become a problem.

As an aside, I have been reading up on the integral fast breeder reactor concept as described in the book 'Plentiful Energy' which I linked to earlier. It turns out that liquid lead is not necessarily the ideal coolant for high breeding ratio fast reactors, because the extremely high density of lead precludes high flow velocity through the core due to excessive pumping power requirements. To keep pumping power requirements as low as possible, coolant volume fraction in the core needs to be somewhat greater than it is for sodium. This results in lower net fissile density, which tends to soften the neutron spectrum. Sodium has only 0.8x density of water, allowing very high flow velocities to be achieved at low pumping power.

The breeding ratio of a reactor (the number of fissile atoms produced per atom consumed in fission) depends strongly on the number of neutrons yielded by fission. To achieve an excellent breeding ratio, one should use the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle (not thorium) and also design the reactor to achieve the highest energy neutron spectrum possible. The harder the neutron spectrum, the more neutrons are released by fission and the more that are available to support breeding. To achieve this, one should opt for metallic uranium plutonium fuel, with a fuel fraction of around 50% in the core. This can be achieved by reducing the pitch to diameter ratio of the fuel rods. Another important factor is to make the core relatively large, as this reduces neutron leakage and reduces the amount of fissile material needed per MW.

A problem emerges, however. Even the most optimally designed IFR has a maximum breeding ratio of 1.6. When cooling time for spent fuel and blankets is factored in, the minimum doubling time is 8 years. That could be a problem if we needed to build up generating capacity very quickly. If it takes 8 years to double the stock of fissile fuel, then it takes 40 years to increase generating capacity by a factor of 32. I will need to read a bit more, but I doubt that there is enough plutonium in the world to enable a complete or even substantial transition to breeder reactors in the time remaining. This creates a bit of a problem. One solution that might squeeze a bit more out if the breeding ratio is metallic tube-in-duct fuel. Instead of fuel rods with sodium flowing up between them, TID fuel is in thick hexagonal bars, with a small diameter tube running up the middle containing fast flowing sodium.

Another option is to couple the breeder reactor with nuclear fusion. Ti-De fusion releases very energetic 13MeV neutrons. Under that hard a neutron spectrum, fission of plutonium will yield 5 neutrons on average, rather than 3, and a large number of fission will occur in normally non-fissile 238U. This would reduce doubling time substantially. But it adds complexity and cost. I will report more as I learn more.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-19 18:47:28)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-19 18:44:45

For Calliban re #303

Thanks for addressing the thermal efficiency vs atomic efficiency question.

Also, thanks for noting issues with the density of lead. I'll look for that part of the book when it arrives.

However, your post included mention of pumps and pumping .... since I am hoping the discussion in this topic yields a 1 MW reactor that can be deployed to many locations and is able to operate safely without human intervention for 10 years, the mention of pumps reminds me that such a reactor may well contain mechanical components that will inevitably wear out. Is it possible that pumps can be designed to last for 10 years?

Regarding cooling .... if the reactor is the size of a shipping container and distributed widely over the landscape, tall towers to deliver heat to the upper atmosphere seem (to me at least) unlikely to receive local authority approval. However, if I understand the reason for your recommendation correctly, molecules that are energetic in the upper atmosphere are better able to radiate to space than ones further down.

Radiation that can pass easily through the atmosphere to space appears to exist, because the planet is visible from space.

Per Google ... "the average albedo of Earth is about 0.3. This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds"

[Albedo - Wikipedia]

OK .... perhaps the small reactors can contribute to the generation of clouds ... this would require transfer of heat energy into water which is itself given sufficient movement to waft up into the atmosphere to make clouds, which pay off the favor by reflecting light back to space.

This puts the small reactors near the ocean, where they need to be anyway to make H2 from water.

However, having reactors near the ocean is risky due to the threat of tsunami events.

Hmmm.... lots of factors to juggle, it would seem.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-19 18:57:48

It is possible that large nuclear reactors could have a net cooling effect on the Earth. The reason is exactly what you mention. Large cooling towers could push huge amounts of moist air into the higher troposphere, where it would produce ice crystals and clouds. These would then reflect sunlight. A very big nuclear reactor might be deliberately constructed to power a cloud generating machine that would counteract global warming. Now that would upset the greenies! Not only would it generate carbon dioxide free power, but its waste heat would have a net cooling effect, that would counteract emissions elsewhere. No wind turbine can ever do that.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-19 18:59:05)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-19 19:17:18

The thermal heat that we waste could be taken into a heating loop and directed to cold weather areas which will need it to heat during winter and then its not waste.

One would think that evaporation force would have an effect but the short term moisture just comes back down in a pouring rain that runs off to quickly to do any good.

We need the water in the already draught stricken areas where the water run off is to quick to be absorbed.

The only thing that could add to the reflective would be the silver test balloons used at high altitude...

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-20 09:41:02

For SpaceNut #306

Thanks for providing focus upon the benefits of having heat available at selected locations.

The issue I am trying to address is global heat balance. At present, it is reported that the Earth is out of energy balance. The Earth is taking in more heat energy that it is sending out into space. The net effect is that the Earth is heating up when viewed as a total system.

The proposal under discussion is activation of thousands of small nuclear power plants. Each of these will produce at least as many megawatts of heat as it produces in useful energy, and in some cases more.

It ** is ** true that careful siting of these small reactors will allow the customer to reduce consumption of carbon based fossil fuel, so in ** that ** case heat produced by the reactor and used for heating purposes would be a wash as far as the Earth is concerned.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-20 09:42:35

For Calliban and anyone who might be interested in leasing a 1 MW reactor for 10 years as a small business investment, here are links/suggestions provided by Google ...

Asking Google: considerations for siting a nuclear power plant

There are two fundamental considerations in assessing a potential site for a nuclear power plant: - site characteristics that could affect the safety of the plant or the transfer of radioactive material, and, - the potential impact of the plant on the surrounding area, population and environment.
Siting of Nuclear Power Plants - CanTeach
canteach.candu.org › ...
About Featured Snippets
People also ask
What considerations must be kept in view in siting nuclear power plants?
What are the factors to be considered while selecting the power plant?
What safety precautions are currently in place for nuclear reactors?
How dangerous is it to live near a nuclear power plant?
Siting of nuclear facilities | IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency
www.iaea.org › topics › siting
Siting is the term used to describe the process to select where a nuclear installation is built and whether the decided location is suitable for it.
PART 100—REACTOR SITE CRITERIA | NRC.gov
www.nrc.gov › reading-rm › doc-collections › cfr › part100 › full-text
(1) Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," ... (b) For sites for multiple reactor facilities consideration should be ...
[PDF] "General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations".
www.nrc.gov › docs
This is unlikely to be an important consideration for nuclear power station siting unless (1) a site is in an area where existing air quality is near or ...
Siting Consideration for Nuclear Power Plant: A Review | Khattak
osjournal.org › ojs › index.php › OSJ › article › view
There are two main objectives in siting of NPP; ensuring the technical and economic feasibility of the plant and minimising potential adverse impacts on the ...
[PDF] Siting of Nuclear Installations - DAE
dae.gov.in › node › sites › default › files › 04Siting_nuclear
Important considerations in site selection of nuclear power plants. (NPP) are topography, accessibility, infrastructure, construction facilities,.
(PDF) Siting Consideration for Nuclear Power Plant: A Review
www.researchgate.net › publication › 322487678_Siting_Consideration_fo...
There are two main objectives in siting of NPP; ensuring the technical and economic feasibility of the plant and minimising potential adverse impacts on the ...
[PDF] MONOGRAPH ON SITING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - AERB
www.aerb.gov.in › images › PDF › Siting
Safety of the plant personnel, public and the environment from radiological hazard is the most important consideration for siting of nuclear power plants.
Ecological considerations in siting nuclear power plants - OSTI.GOV
www.osti.gov › biblio › 6122802-ecological-considerations-siting-nuclear-...
Subject: 22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS; 63 RADIATION, THERMAL, ... WASTES; 220501* - Nuclear Reactor Technology- Environmental Aspects- Siting; ... Resource Type: Conference
Factors governing site sélection of nuclear plants - Radioprotection
www.radioprotection.org › articles › radiopro › pdf › 1976/03
The basic technical and economic criteria for the siting of nuclear power stations are discussed. These criteria are based on the emergency exposure of the.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-20 11:32:01

The problem with small nuclear reactors in this size range, is that they do not make very efficient use of fissile fuels because of the high neutron leakage from small cores. This means that fuel must either be very highly enriched (bomb grade) or use a larger core with a low fuel rating (I.e effective power density).

So far as providing the most effective solution to our declining surplus energy problems here on Earth, we need concepts that can increase nuclear generating capacity quickly. That means a plant size that achieves the best balance between fuel utilisation and ease of manufacture of modular components in a factory setting. If I were to make an educated guess, I would say that the optimum approach would be sodium cooled, metallic fuelled reactors, using compact S-CO2 power generation units. The concept should focus on baseload electric power, with direct heat applications considered for second generation units. I would estimate an optimum plant size of 200MWe, from a 500MWth core. Starting where we are likely to be in just a few years time, we need to prioritise high breeding ratio and short fissile doubling times, if we are to have any hope of building up capacity sufficient to offset decline of other fuels.

The problem that we face, is that it will be difficult to keep up current levels of uranium production, if the world is set to face rapid declines in availability of liquid fuels. It will also be difficult to establish new manufacturing supply lines for complex technological products, in a situation where manufacturing economy at large is in a state of depression. From what I have seen so far, this situation would appear to be unavoidable. We therefore need plant concepts that can be produced quickly, cheaply and efficiently, in terms of capital investments and skilled labour. We also need to consider neutron economy, to avoid limitations in fissile fuel supply. This implies mass production of identical medium sized liquid metal cooled reactors. Exactly what GE were planning to do when Clinton ended all funding to the IFR programme to satisfy the green lobby in the 1990s. It was politically cheap for him, but will turn out to be horribly expensive for the US public and indeed the entire world in the approaching era of shrinking fossil fuel net energy supply. The amount of pain and poverty that we stand to inherit from that one fateful decision is frankly beyond imagination.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-20 11:38:25)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-20 13:43:22

For Calliban re #309

Thank you for engaging with me on this (very interesting) subtopic....

As reported earlier, I have offered the point of view that efficiency is NOT an issue from the point of view of the customer. I am here to represent the interests of not one customer, but thousands and potentially many thousands of them.

I am failing (so far) to see why anyone at the customer end of the delivery should care about how efficient the system is.

Can you (and not someone else) design an SMR that will fit in a standard container (40 by 8 by 8) (in English feet), that will deliver 1 MW for 10 years?

if you can, let's move forward with all deliberate speed to do so.

The upstream facility is where the question of efficiency can be debated around the conference table until the coffee supply is exhausted.

The customer has only two concerns (with security added on) ....

Does the package fit in the space I have available, and does it deliver 1 MW for 10 years without having to worry about it?

You can install whatever fancy technology you want at the manufacturing and refurbishing facility. No one (except the regulators) is going to care.

The key economic question that ** I ** see is whether the package I've described is feasible.

In my mind you are like Henry Ford ... you have to think about the product ** and ** about the infrastructure to supply it.

I am here representing the thousands and potentially many thousands of small business owners who would lease the 1 MW product if it is available.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-20 14:55:47

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #309
Thank you for engaging with me on this (very interesting) subtopic....
As reported earlier, I have offered the point of view that efficiency is NOT an issue from the point of view of the customer. I am here to represent the interests of not one customer, but thousands and potentially many thousands of them.
I am failing (so far) to see why anyone at the customer end of the delivery should care about how efficient the system is.
Can you (and not someone else) design an SMR that will fit in a standard container (40 by 8 by 8) (in English feet), that will deliver 1 MW for 10 years?
if you can, let's move forward with all deliberate speed to do so.
The upstream facility is where the question of efficiency can be debated around the conference table until the coffee supply is exhausted.
The customer has only two concerns (with security added on) ....
Does the package fit in the space I have available, and does it deliver 1 MW for 10 years without having to worry about it?
You can install whatever fancy technology you want at the manufacturing and refurbishing facility. No one (except the regulators) is going to care.
The key economic question that ** I ** see is whether the package I've described is feasible.
In my mind you are like Henry Ford ... you have to think about the product ** and ** about the infrastructure to supply it.
I am here representing the thousands and potentially many thousands of small business owners who would lease the 1 MW product if it is available.
(th)

Is it possible to build a 1MWe fast reactor and coupled power generation unit that can fit onto the back of a lorry? Yes. But what I am trying to explain is that it probably isn't going to be a cost effective solution. Remember the SSTAR example that I referenced? The 100MWe unit weighed about twice as much as the 10MWe unit.

What you are likely to find is that a 1MWe unit isn't much cheaper than a 10MWe unit, which again, may be only half the price of a 100MWe unit. These scale economies are likely to exist because at small sizes, the amount of fissile fuel needed per unit power increases rapidly. Neutrons can travel several tens of cm in a fast reactor core. Eventually you get down to a point where the neutron leakage is so bad that you end up packing the core with neat fissile materials that will be hardly used at end of life. That makes the reactor very very expensive per unit power. Remember the Kilopower unit? It carried 44kg of highly enriched uranium and produced just 10kW electric power - enough for three or four American houses. It would last 10 years and at the end of that time, only about 1% of its expensive fissile fuel will have been used.

Could three or four US houses afford to buy a kilopower unit to provide their power for ten years? Absolutely no chance. Over 10 years, a Kilopower unit would produce 876MWh. 1MWh typically sells for around $100 in the US, so the Kilopower unit is worth $87,600. There is no way that anyone can produce a nuclear reactor containing 44kg of highly enriched uranium for that price.

There are certain scale economies that operate with power systems of all kinds. As you scale a reactor up, you get some sort of cost curve per kWh. At first, costs decline rapidly as neutron economy improves and fuel cost per unit power declines. But as scale increases, cost per unit power starts going up again because you begin to lose the benefits of series production and building the reactor becomes more and more cumbersome from a civil engineering viewpoint. So the question is, where is the sweet spot? At the extreme ends of the size scale, costs are high. The optimum lies somewhere in the middle.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-20 22:35:32

For Calliban re #311

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and continued development of the topic.

There is more to think about in #311 than the little piece I'm going to focus on, but if there is an economic solution that also works in the social context of the present time, I'm hoping to find it.

In your analysis of the Kilopower unit, you gave us a figure of 876MWh as the output for a 10 year run. I'm focusing on:

a) 1% of fuel used and
b) $87,600 lease charge

The (hypothetical) leasing company would retrieve the used Kilopower unit and swap in a refurbished equivalent.

The retired unit would be returned to the central processing facility, with 99% of its fuel still intact.

What is the value of the unit at that point?

The Kilopower unit contains a mechanical subsystem. Is that subsystem still usable?

The fuel has to be separated from waste accumulated in the 10 years.

If it cost $1,000,000 to produce the original Kilopower unit, how much of the value remains when it is returned to the factory?

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-21 09:31:56

For Calliban in general re topic ....

Thank you again for showing the Kilopower unit as a model to examine.

This unit was funded by a national entity (a nation state to be exact). However, it's very existence shows that the idea of a 1 MW unit that can operate for ten years is perfectly reasonable and well within present human capability.

I have offered the example of Ford and his Model T for your consideration.

The 10Kw unit would appear to be a powered bicycle in the frame of the Ford example.

You have indicated a desire to design massive nuclear reactors, managed by small armies of staff, and supported by hundreds if not thousands of other industries. Such a desire is understandable and in some context might even be commendable.

That vision seems better placed in thinking about the Factory facilities where 1 MW units will be built and refurbished.

The income flowing into the factory will come from all the Model T's that are on lease in the United States, by the thousands, and around the world.

All the Model T's are exactly the same. They will deliver power to the customer for ten years, consume 1% of the available atomic energy, and you will get them back, intact, undisturbed, rich with enhanced materials you have designed them to provide.

Your business model is based upon delivery of 1 MW reactors that customers (and their communities) can trust, and which operate exactly as advertised for 10 years, at which point you swap them out with new (or refurbished) equivalent units.

I have a question about the human resources needed to move this project.

Your skills, education, creativity and writing skills are obvious. However, creating an industry on the scale of what I have in mind will require additional human resources. Please start thinking about the kind of person you would want to assume some responsibility that you would define, to help with design, research, practical experiment, or whatever else is needed.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-22 19:21:00

For Calliban re topic in general and 1 MW reactor in focus...

This is a follow up to the earlier post quoted here ...

Thank you (again) for the link to the Plentiful Energy book/pdf ...

Order Total: $21.76
Not Yet Shipped
Items Ordered
1 of: Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor: The complex history of a simple reactor
technology, with emphasis on its scientific bases for non-specialists, Till, Charles E.
Price
$14.25
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Condition: New
Shipping Address:

Due date is August 22nd.

Update August 22nd at 21:00 local time ....

Someone from Amazon (or perhaps USPS) was out working on deliveries today!

I opened the book by fanning the pages, and the fan stopped at page 339 of the Afterword. I'm intending to quote the quotes printed there.

References appear on pages 334 and 335.

Appendix A begins on page 343 which continues through Page 387, where a list of references appears.

OK ... I get the picture ... References are printed at the end of each chapter, instead of in a huge collection at the back of the book.

The quote that appears on page 339 is from the work of Richard Rhodes "Nuclear Renewal: Common Sense About Energy" (1993)

Satisfying human aspirations is what our species invents technology to do. Some Americans, secure in comfortable affluence, may dream of a simpler and smaller world. However noble such a world appears to be, its hidden agenda is elitist, selfish and violent. Millions of children die every year for lack of adequate resources---clean water, food, medical care---and the development of those resources is directly dependent on energy supplies. The real world of real human beings needs more energy. With nuclear power, that energy can be generated cleanly and without destructive global warming.

The authors conclude the Afterword with these thoughts:

The passage of time has diminished neither the power nor the urgency of these words.

I note with moderate surprise that the quotation from 1993 anticipates by 30 years the present global warming emergency.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-28 17:00:25

For Calliban re topic ...

Here is an article whose author is definitely preaching to the choir (of this topic)...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/nucl … 00467.html

Nuclear Will Play A Vital Role In The Global Energy Transition
Editor OilPrice.com
Sat, August 28, 2021, 1:00 PM
The world’s energy needs are growing with its population. However, as Visual Capitalist's Govind Bhutada details below, achieving a net-zero carbon economy while meeting our growing energy needs requires a larger role for clean, sustainable, and reliable sources. Nuclear is one such energy source.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-31 10:43:13

The two nuclear fission plants discussed in the article at the link below have been in trouble for a while ...

They cannot compete in the current distorted market, but need to be preserved for when the use of fossil fuels is eliminated.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/illi … 00370.html

Illinois could vote Tuesday on bill that aims to save nuclear plants
Timothy Gardner
Tue, August 31, 2021 7:00 AM
By Timothy Gardner
Aug 31 (Reuters) - The Illinois legislature is edging closer to a vote as soon as Tuesday on a bill that aims to prevent two nuclear power plants from shutting, as the owner moves to close one next month unless the state acts.

Exelon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The United States has 93 nuclear reactors, more than any other country but down from 104 in 2012 as aging plants struggle to compete with power generated by solar and wind farms and plants that burn natural gas. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio)

Earlier in today's news feed, I saw a report that ULA and SpaceX are in trouble due to a shortage of Oxygen.

The answer is obvious to me ... convert both plants to produce oxygen and hydrogen from the nearby river water.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-08-31 11:05:14

The second quote reflects the economic realities of power generation. Wind, solar, and natural gas are more economical than the other major means, including (unfortunately) nuclear. I leave out hydropower, as we have pretty much dammed-up all the dammable rivers.

There's no doubt that we need some updated nuclear plant designs. However, the proximate cause for the Fukushima disaster in Japan had less to do with the equipment designs, and a whole lot more to do with improper design criteria to begin with.

They designed to earthquake strength and tsunami heights from recent historical records, instead of the much larger earthquakes and tsunamis in the geologic record. The quake and tsunami that destroyed Fukushima was simply much larger than they designed for.

Unfortunately, many or most of the nuke plants around the world were under-designed the very same way. Designing to the greater hazard greatly increases the construction price, which amortizes as a much higher operating cost factor, over the life of the plant.

We are going to need nuclear, a lot of it. We need it designed to far tougher hazards. It'll never be cheap, but that better design is going to cost even more.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-08-31 11:06:59)

Calliban · 2021-08-31 12:01:36

It has more to do with the fact that renewable energy powerplants have guaranteed access to the grid. If they are generating, it goes onto the grid at a fixed purchase price. When they stop generating, other powerplants get market share.
Their individual competitiveness doesn't come into it. Coal burning and nuclear powerplants are then forced either to go offload or to generate at a loss, as there is an overabundance of power on the grid. For a plant with high capital cost, that is a killer. For gas turbines, capital costs are low, but fuel is relatively expensive. It works better for them to serve as backup plants.

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-01 18:06:21

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/illi … 11379.html

Illinois Senate passes bill to save nuclear plants, sends to House
Timothy Gardner
Wed, September 1, 2021, 12:58 PM
By Timothy Gardner
Sept 1 (Reuters) - The Illinois Senate passed a bill early on Wednesday that aims to prevent two nuclear power plants from shutting this autumn, sending the legislation to the House where it was uncertain if the chamber would bring the legislation to a vote.
The Senate voted 39-16 to pass a wide-ranging energy bill, with two senators voting "present." The bill contains more than $600 million in carbon mitigation credits for nuclear plants which generate virtually emissions-free electricity.

I doubt anyone directly involved in this situation is aware of the potential to make oxygen and hydrogen for the space business, using reliable nuclear power.

If Elon accepts a bid for a guaranteed amount of oxygen, at whatever price the reactor owners need, then he can pass the cost on to customers who will be paying less than with other launch providers, ** and ** avoiding carbon pollution at the same time.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-08 06:37:23

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/uran … 05493.html

Uranium Surges to Six-Year High as Fund Buys Up Physical Supply

I am not surprised, but I am mildly concerned by an attempt to corner supply.

Stephen Stapczynski
Wed, September 8, 2021 6:35 AM
(Bloomberg) -- Uranium, the commodity used to fuel nuclear power plants, has surged to the highest level since 2015 due in part to a single fund aggressively cornering the physical market.
Investment firm Sprott Inc. earlier this year launched its Physical Uranium Trust and recently commented on Twitter about how much physical uranium it had been buying, aiding to the commodity’s recent bull run. Sprott has amassed over 24 million pounds of uranium, sometimes buying more than 500,000 pounds in a single day, according to its website and social media account.
For comparison, total spot volume for 2020 was 92.2 million pounds, according to uranium investor Yellow Cake Plc.
The buying is in addition to already bullish fundamentals. Uranium prices must rise further to spur the restart of production to meet uncovered utility demand after 2023, according to analysts at Raymond James Financial Inc. Earlier this year, NAC Kazatomprom JSC, the world’s top miner of uranium, said it would keep its output at reduced levels through 2023, removing supply from the market.

This behavior of the stock market may be a signal that the world (or at least savvy investor community) is waking up to the reality of coming changes.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-09 10:27:57

For Calliban re topic ...

My news feed delivered this teaser, and my ancient system refuses to call it up.

https://markettactic.com/the-biggest-en … m/5520462/

The article appears to be about the potential shift of attitude of the population of Earth from disdain for nuclear power to adoption (even if grudging).

I can't help noting the coincidence of this teaser with the report of attempts to corral the uranium market reported yesterday.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-11 07:03:52

I've been keeping an eye on developments in Illinois... Those who are rooting for survival of nuclear fission power in the US may see signs to hope...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/deal-subsidi … 00498.html

“The shared goal among the Senate, House and Governor Pritzker has been to position Illinois as a national leader on reliable, renewable and affordable energy policies," Harmon said. "This proposal accomplishes that shared goal. I commend the work the House has done to build on the progress the Senate had made."
The measure in a House amendment to Senate Bill 2408 passed late during Thursday's special session in the House. It includes hundreds of millions of dollars in ratepayer subsidies for Nuclear power.
Terry McGoldrick with IBEW Local 15 said passage is imperative for keeping the Byron nuclear plant open.

The gent associated with manufacturers in Illinois is grumpy about having to pay more for power. Apparently he'd be content to keep going with fossil fuels as long as the immediate out-of-pocket costs stay down, without regard to the cost to the global population.

If nuclear power were developed according to it's potential, costs should go down dramatically.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-16 13:36:08

This post originated in Business Opportunities ... it seems (to me at least) better suited for Nuclear Power is Safe

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban .... I'm hoping you might be interested in working with me to estimate what it would take to build an atomic plant large enough to supply all the fresh water currently consumed by the City of Phoenix, Arizona, as reported earlier in this series.
We know:
1) The amount of fresh water consumed in a year
2) The elevation of Phoenix with respect to the ocean
3) The distance of the ocean (Gulf of California)
We would need to compute the amount of energy needed to pull sea water up (er, push sea water up) a pipe from the Gulf of California.
In addition, we would need to compute the amount of energy needed to separate the suspended matter in the sea water so every molecule can be used as tradable commodity.
From this, we can size the atomic plant needed to supply fresh water for Phoenix into perpetuity.
Cost estimates need to cover initial investment and ongoing maintenance. The total cost of all this equipment is then distributed over the delivered water and other recovered matter.
Whatever the costs are, they are more than compensated for by the reliability of supply to the population of Phoenix. A related benefit is that the water presently consumed by Phoenix can be released for consumption by others.

To save time, here is a snapshot of a post from the Business Opportunity track:

About 11,100,000 results (0.98 seconds)
Phoenix/Elevation
1,086′
The elevation of Phoenix, AZ is 1,086 feet (331 m). Due to its many mountains, the state of Arizona actually has one of the highest average elevations of the entire US, with an average of 4,100 feet (1250 m).Jul 27, 2021
Phoenix Elevation - VacationIdea.com
https://vacationidea.com › arizona › phoenix-elevation

So water from the Gulf of California would need to be lifted 1,000 feet (313 meters)

How far away is the Gulf of California?

I get 300 kilometers by estimating using a ruler on a Google map. There is no direct distance available.

What is the water consumption of Phoenix?

That quote above says that an acre-foot is 325851 gallons, and they use 2.3 million acre-feet in a year.

Calc says that is 749457300000 gallons .... 7.49x10^11

So! the proposed plant would produce enough power to deliver 7.49x10^11 gallons of fresh water to Phoenix per year.

It would pump that water up hill 1000+ feet (305 meters) over a distance of 300 kilometers.

Details to be addressed include protecting the intake so that marine life is protected. That would be a challenge!

On the other hand, water intakes around the world are working laboratories for marine life protection methods.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-09-16 16:38:15

tahanson43206,

That plant is going to deliver over 2 billion gallons per day? If so, that will require a LOT of pumping power. Assuming around 70% pumping efficiency, roughly 102kWh would be required to lift 1 acre-foot of water 100 feet in the air, so 1,020kWh to lift 1 acre-foot 1,000 feet into the air, so 2.346TWh per year for 2.3M acre-feet of water. A 1.25GWe PWR can feasibly produce 8.76TWh per year, so it could pump the water up an aqueduct that then runs downhill and into Phoenix, but you're talking about serious power consumption just to pump it, and then you have to desalinate that much water, but we could use waste heat from the reactor for that purpose. If the reactor spends its entire service life pumping water, then we could come up with a bespoke design that dumps waste heat into a flash evaporator. The Russians did something similar to this, IIRC.

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-16 17:53:54

For kbd512 re #324

Thanks for taking a look at the situation! Thanks for working out the flow per day. That definitely simplifies things (at least for me!).

Edit: 749457300000 / 365 >> 2,053,307,671

Something to remember is that each and every gallon reported by the City of Phoenix is already being pumped, using fossil fuel. Some is being pumped from underground, and most (apparently) is being pumped from rivers to cleaning facilities.

Your vision of a Roman style aquaduct is startling (showing my lack of imagination) but ** really ** appealing!

Thanks for adding insights about how heat could be used to process the desalination during the shipment process.

Excess heat from the reactor has to go somewhere, and it might as well go into heating the water it is pumping.

***
In another article I decided not to post here, it was reported that the Tennessee Valley Authority has given up on two more reactors. It has constructed only a fraction of the reactors the agency originally expected to build.

Making electricity is ** so ** 20th Century!

I'm about to post a report on an article about SMR's ... Russia (apparently)_ is a viable market due to the size of the Nation, and the challenges of supply of fossil fuels.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2021-08-19 11:53:14

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#302 2021-08-19 12:02:29

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#303 2021-08-19 18:23:06

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#304 2021-08-19 18:44:45

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#305 2021-08-19 18:57:48

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#306 2021-08-19 19:17:18

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#307 2021-08-20 09:41:02

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#308 2021-08-20 09:42:35

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#309 2021-08-20 11:32:01

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#310 2021-08-20 13:43:22

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#311 2021-08-20 14:55:47

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#312 2021-08-20 22:35:32

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#313 2021-08-21 09:31:56

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#314 2021-08-22 19:21:00

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#315 2021-08-28 17:00:25

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#316 2021-08-31 10:43:13

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#317 2021-08-31 11:05:14

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#318 2021-08-31 12:01:36

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#319 2021-09-01 18:06:21

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#320 2021-09-08 06:37:23

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#321 2021-09-09 10:27:57

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#322 2021-09-11 07:03:52

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#323 2021-09-16 13:36:08

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#324 2021-09-16 16:38:15

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#325 2021-09-16 17:53:54

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer