Nuclear power is safe

Calliban · 2021-12-21 12:07:58

TH, I will look into it. I probably will not be able to carry out a detailed analytical or computational model in the time remaining. That would be a PhD project. But I can describe the idea in concept and maybe others can fill in the gaps.

I will probably forego any additional commentary on the large ship concept, as work on the propulsion system will be a stretch.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-23 21:10:48

Belgium will shut down all seven of its nuclear reactors by 2025 but will not close the door on new-generation nuclear technology Belgium has seven nuclear reactors generating about half of its electricity.

Since 2003 there has been little government support for nuclear energy, and nuclear power generation, the lowest-cost source of power, incurred a 0.5 cent/kWh tax to 2014.

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-27 12:01:02

The link below covers more than nuclear fission, so the post could go into more than one topic. However, the key information that fits this topic is identification of four companies that (if I understand the article correctly) are competing in the Small Modular Reactor space ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/commercial-t … 04772.html

Carolyn Krause
Sun, December 26, 2021, 9:00 PM
Mike Paulus, director of technology transfer at ORNL, spoke about local next-generation technology companies to Friends of ORNL in a virtual lecture.
Mike Paulus, director of technology transfer at ORNL, spoke about local next-generation technology companies to Friends of ORNL in a virtual lecture.

Mike Paulus, the director of technology transfer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is optimistic that some next-generation commercialization successes will be based on ORNL inventions and other local innovations. He also believes some newly successful technology companies will be located in East Tennessee.

At a recent virtual talk to Friends of ORNL, he said, “I think four new companies that licensed ORNL technologies have real potential to do something big in the not too distant future. Two of the four next-generation companies I picked are headquartered in Knoxville and a third has a presence in Oak Ridge.”
In addition, he said, the region has “two programs for entrepreneurs who might want to engage with ORNL.”
The Micro Modular Reactor system manufactured by the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., which now has an office in Oak Ridge, is a fourth-generation nuclear energy technology. It delivers safe, clean and cost-effective electricity and heat to remote mines, industry and communities. It is the leading small modular reactor project in Canada and the first so-called fission battery concept worldwide.
The Micro Modular Reactor system manufactured by the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., which now has an office in Oak Ridge, is a fourth-generation nuclear energy technology. It delivers safe, clean and cost-effective electricity and heat to remote mines, industry and communities. It is the leading small modular reactor project in Canada and the first so-called fission battery concept worldwide.

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., a global company headquartered in Seattle, recently opened an office in Oak Ridge that specializes in mass manufacturing technologies for nuclear fuels and materials. Through its offices in Canada, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States, Ultra Safe Nuclear is developing the Micro Modular Reactor (also called a “fission battery”) and nuclear fuels, materials and design technologies for future small electricity-producing reactors.
“The company licensed fuel and 3D printing technologies from ORNL for small modular reactors,” Paulus said. “As the world pivots to low-carbon or no-carbon energy production, there will be a place for nuclear reactors because you will need a solid base load and this technology looks really promising.”
Base load power sources continuously produce electricity on the grid at a constant rate to meet the minimum demand for it at all times.

General Graphene, a Knoxville company that licensed ORNL process technology, is developing a method for producing large area, low-cost graphene. Graphene is a one-atom-thick layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal lattice-like chicken wire. The material is considered promising for use in improving anti-corrosion coatings and paints, sensors, electronics, flexible displays, solar panels, DNA sequencing technologies and drug delivery.
“General Graphene formed a strategic partnership and has raised $35 million,” Paulus said. “It is making graphene more cost effectively than anyone else in the world can by an order of magnitude. It is starting to see prospective customers really take interest. We are excited that this company is in Knoxville.”

A Knoxville company called Prisma Renewable Composites is developing “green” lignin-based products based on technologies licensed from ORNL and the University of Tennessee.
“This company is ready to launch its first commercial product called BioLANTM as a replacement for ABS plastic,” Paulus said. “There is an appetite for bio-derived materials that pull carbon out of the atmosphere rather than push it into the atmosphere.”
BioLANTM is derived from the cell walls of trees and grasses and from paper industry waste whereas ABS plastic is made from acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene — chemicals derived from petroleum. ABS thermoplastics are strong, hard materials widely used in car bumpers, motorcycle helmets, golf clubs, musical instruments, auto parts, pipe fittings, electronic housings, Lego parts and other toys.

The out-of-state company Paulus listed is Solid Power Inc., a $1.2 billion initial public offering in progress in Colorado in which Ford and BMW have invested. Solid Power has licensed lithium-sulfur materials from ORNL for use in rechargeable solid-state lithium ion batteries. Such batteries with sulfide solid electrolytes will likely be in demand by manufacturers of electric vehicles. The reason: it is believed they will be safer, more stable and robust, lower-cost and longer-lasting than today’s lithium ion batteries with flammable liquid electrolytes.
Lithium-sulfur batteries, he said, have “the potential to improve battery power, operating temperature, manufacturability and cost for electric vehicles. There is a huge market for competitive solid-state batteries for electric vehicles.”
Innovation Crossroads and a new Techstars Accelerator are two regional programs for entrepreneurs interested in engaging with ORNL, UT and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Through Innovation Crossroads, ORNL and TVA have sponsored several groups of innovators. Selected participants are awarded a two-year fellowship with stipend plus benefits via the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education. They may have access to ORNL through a collaborative research and development agreement. They are connected to mentors and provided with training.
“The program helps an early-stage company get a run with their technology,” Paulus said, acknowledging that “we need more incubator space in Oak Ridge.”
In June 2021, ORNL, TVA and UT announced a new Techstars Industries of the Future Accelerator for 2022. Techstars is the worldwide network that helps entrepreneurs succeed.
According to a press release, the new Oak Ridge-Knoxville–based program is “committed to supporting and advancing world-class startups focused on emerging technologies.” They include artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, quantum information science, 5G/advanced wireless technology, biotechnology and clean energy technology. This marks the first of the Techstars accelerator programs that is based in Tennessee and at a Department of Energy national lab.
“There are 44 Techstars accelerators in the United States, and 67 of its graduates have a market cap of over $100 million,” Paulus said, noting that the Oak Ridge-Knoxville accelerator program starts Jan. 24, 2022, for 10 participating companies.
“We bring people in for an intensive three-month program and help them build their business model and prepare to raise money,” he added. “We connect them to capital and mentors, helping them get a running start to hopefully a successful business.”
This article originally appeared on Oakridger: Commercial tech successes predicted for OR, Knox

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-28 10:01:07

Search engines are a great tool to not only find an article to ready but to find the science behind them and if there is any practicle knowledge to be had form it already being in use.

nuclear powered water drilling rig

A nuclear power plant that will float eight or more miles out to sea promises to be safer, cheaper, and easier to deploy than today’s land-based plants.

The researchers' vision for an Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant (OFNP, visible in the slideshow above) includes a main structure about 45 meters in diameter that will house a plant generating 300 megawatts of electricity. An alternative design for a 1,100-MW plant calls for a structure about 75 meters in diameter. In both cases, the structures include living quarters and helipads for transporting personnel — similar to offshore oil drilling platforms.

The nuclear reactor and related safety systems of the proposed Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant located in watertight compartments deep in the structure. The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) sits inside a dry containment structure, surrounded by seawater. Steam from generators immersed in the heated water inside the RPV passes to electricity-generating turbines higher in the structure. Every 12 to 48 months, spent fuel assemblies are lifted out, and fresh fuel is inserted into the reactor. The removed assemblies are transferred to the spent fuel pool, which has storage capacity to handle all fuel removed from the plant over its lifetime.

The reactor core and steam generators are immersed in fresh, distilled cooling water inside the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). If operation of the cooling pumps is interrupted, cooling water flows passively though an auxiliary heat exchanger immersed in seawater. If a more serious problem occurs, cooling water is released from inside the RPV into the containment structure, and seawater can enter the empty space around the containment. Heat from the cooling water will pass through the containment wall to the seawater. Seawater flows naturally through the structure, so it is constantly renewed, providing an infinite source of cooling.

These would fit into the current oil drilling rig designs.

Calliban · 2021-12-28 18:37:51

SpaceNut, that is a good find. Mobile nuclear reactors come under different and much simpler licencing laws than land based. These are units that could be built and commissioned very quickly. Neil Todreas is quite an iconic name in nuclear engineering. Anyone in the world that has studied thermal hydraulics in the English language, will remember the name Todreas. He is almost as famous as Admiral Rickover. If he is one of the lead authors of this concept design, then I would consider that an endorsement of quality, much as one sees a hallmark on good quality silver.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-28 18:40:59)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-31 23:34:45

This is not good in a nation needing the energy that these provide.
Germany shuts down half of its 6 remaining nuclear plants

The three reactors now being shuttered were first powered up in the mid-1980s.
Some in Germany have called for the decision on ending the use of nuclear power to be reconsidered because the power plants already in operation produce relatively little carbon dioxide. Advocates of atomic energy argue that it can help Germany meet its climate targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So normal power plants have been made clean enough to now stand by there use it would seem.

Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri

TerraPower, an advanced nuclear power venture founded by Gates, is set to open its Natrium plant in Wyoming in 2028. The U.S. government will provide funding to cover half of the $4 billion project.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-01-01 20:05:21

EU Drafts Plan to Label Gas and Nuclear Investments as Green
https://money.usnews.com/investing/news … src=usn_tw

Germany hits out at Brussels plan to label nuclear and gas ‘green’
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nucl … echnology/

kbd512 · 2022-01-01 20:57:34

I love how they invent new terms like "greenwashing" to describe the lies and deception of the envirowackadoo political interests.

There's nothing "clean" or "renewable" about photovoltaic panels or wind turbines or batteries. There is not one silly little manufacturing plant that makes solar panels or wind turbines or batteries using solar panels or wind turbines or batteries. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Why is that? Simple. It's not possible in any practical sense. That's why nobody has ever done it. Even Elon Musk acknowledges this simple fact, because he's an engineer at heart and only cares about whether or not the end result of the math is a net benefit or a net loss.

There is not one kilo of commercially produced steel or Aluminum made using solar heat, there is not one wind turbine or battery made without plastic, and there is not one electric car made using any of that nonsense, and the electric cars that are made required 3X more up-front energy than the cars powered by gasoline engines. Current batteries are 42X less energy dense than gasoline when combustion engine inefficiency is taken into account and 84X less energy dense than the liquid hydrocarbon fuel itself. There is no technology that we humans actually know how to make that can overcome a near 2 order of magnitude energy deficit and none of these battery electronic vehicles will last longer than combustion engine vehicles on account of the same electronics that ultimately disable combustion engine vehicles. The engines in modern vehicles don't "wear out" before their electronics "crap out". This is blatant idiocy masquerading as science, because the "we believe in science" people are also the "we deny basic math" people. Unfortunately for all of us, you can't believe in science without also believing in math, because there is no science without math.

The use of nuclear energy carries special risks with it, and requires competent nuclear power plant operators and properly backup equipment to prevent catastrophe. The US Navy knows how to operate a nuclear reactor. Half a century of continuous operation of hundreds of reactors without a single incident is not an accident. It's not "dumb luck", either. My fellow sailors know how to operate a nuclear heat engine without accidents, period and end of story, because there is no other story.

What we can do is compare the total amount of waste and toxic waste generated from wind and solar versus nuclear power and see that there is no comparison between the two, because wind and solar are orders of magnitude less energy dense than coal, and a kilo of coal is 24,000,000 times less energy dense than a kilo of Uranium. All attempts to avert public attention away from that fact are duplicitous at best, and evil at worst. Beyond simple math, nuclear power is the only form of power generation that also "breeds more fuel" in the process of producing energy. Unlike nuclear energy, making a solar panel or wind turbine by burning coal doesn't cause the solar panel you made to "have a baby" (produce a new solar panel or wind turbine blade).

Derptschland spent close to a trillion dollars on "regressive energy", with the end result that their CO2 emission are the same as they were when they started that idiocy. If they spent the same amount of money on nuclear reactors, they wouldn't be producing any CO2. The people who produced many of the mathematicians and physicists who discovered much of the science that the modern world is built upon, can't do basic math, because they're intellectually disabled by their idiot ideology, and can't admit to themselves that they made a monumental mistake, due to pride or stupidity or both. They never truly learned anything from nazism.

I don't look down my nose at poor people for being poor, and will not support any energy generating scheme that further impoverishes them in the name of "saving the planet". That's my bottom line on this issue.

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-06 11:25:40

This is for Calliban primarily, but I'll be interested in comments/suggestions/inputs by other NewMars members

Concept: ionize water to make particle beam which neutralizes itself back to water at target

kbd512 has opened a line of discussion recently about how a beam of charged particles might be accelerated toward a space craft in order to give it momentum.

A problem with sending a stream of charged particles at a space craft is that the charged particles are indistinguishable from a Solar flare emanation, or from Cosmic Radiation, from the view point of the hapless space craft.

However, it may be possible to design a beam that self-neutralizes back to plain water, so that at the time of impact, it collides with the receiving surface and becomes part of the mass of the space craft itself. In fact, delivery of pure water in this manner might be regarded as a "good thing" if there are human passengers on board.

The water can be used directly to sustain life, or it can be separated again to sustain life in secondary ways, or it can be separated again to make fuel.

All in all, if this idea is practical, it would provide a lot of incentive for development of a beam transmission system.

I put this post into Calliban's topic because the only feasible/practical way to power such a beam sending apparatus is with nuclear energy.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-07 12:21:16

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 54927.html

Reuters
U.S. NRC denies license to Oklo Power's nuclear reactor project in Idaho
Thu, January 6, 2022, 3:00 PM
Jan 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Thursday denied a license to Oklo Power LLC to build and operate the company’s Aurora compact fast reactor in Idaho.
Oklo, a company focused on commercializing advanced nuclear fission power, was denied the license as it failed to provide information on several issues involving the Aurora design, the NRC said in a statement.
Oklo submitted the application on March 11, 2020, seeking an NRC license for an advanced reactor to be built at the Idaho National Laboratory site. The proposed Aurora design would use heat pipes to transport heat from the reactor core to a power conversion system.
NRC accepted the application for the project on June 5, 2020. After reviewing reports on various topics Oklo had submitted, the regulator concluded that they were missing important details.
"Oklo’s application continues to contain significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components," said Andrea Veil, NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The company is free to submit a complete application in the future and will have 30 days to request a hearing regarding the NRC's decision after the publication of an upcoming Federal Register notice. (Reporting by Ashitha Shivaprasad in Bengaluru; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

This looks like a setback, or it could just be a learning curve issue.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-01-07 13:56:39

Czech Republic to end coal use by 2033, boost nuclear power

https://thinkpol.ca/2022/01/07/czech-re … ear-power/

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-08 10:27:27

For Mars_B4_Moon .... thank you for post #436 ... without your ongoing search of streams of information, I would have missed this update and so many others.

***
For Calliban ... Posting in Nuclear is Safe

The article at the link below reports on the fear that is driving Germany right now.
It also shows an opportunity for a nation such as Great Britain, to supply hydrogen made using nuclear fission.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 30456.html

Despite efforts to cut carbon emissions, Germany plans to rely on gas-fired power stations to help pick up gaps in renewables as the system is overhauled. Experts estimate up to 44 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity could be needed by 2035 to help meet this need.
Hydrogen's holy grail
Politicians insist using natural gas will not be a permanent measure. Gas-fired power plants and pipelines will need to be ready to run on hydrogen instead, which does not produce carbon emissions when burned, ahead of an expected massive ramp-up of hydrogen produced using renewable electricity.

The current dependency of Germany (and other EU nations) on gas from Russia is unwise, at best, and foolish at worst.

It would take a bold leader, confident of the ability of the UK to assemble a work force of the size and quality needed, to bring about a future in which the UK becomes a favored supplier of green Hydrogen to the EU, but since the compeition will be in sun-soaked Nations on the equator, the proximity of the UK implies (to me at least) a significant competitive advantage.

I hear protests from various people that "it costs too much", but my rejoinder is that Nature provides energy and materials for free. The only "costs" are those set by individual human beings who are trading on the open market.

If your first candidate trading partner is asking too much for whatever good or service you need, keep looking.

***
As a follow up to the post #436 of Mars_B4_Moon ... if the Czech Republic is planning to increase nuclear fission power production, then it has the potential to make green Hydrogen, and sell it to Germany, as described above in this post.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-01-09 15:50:34

I found another item on the Chinese Thorium topic, perhaps this is also a follow on from topics about Mars colonies and energy, Lunar and Mars economics or Water or Nuclear or Ore resources on the Moon and planet Mars. However I thought the news topic would best fit here

China Is About to Test Its Thorium-Fueled Nuclear Reactor

https://web.i2massociates.com/resource_ … e_id=11554

China began its molten-salt reactor project in 2011, investing roughly $500 million in the program, according to the former president Ritsuo Yoshioka of the International Thorium Molten-Salt Forum in Oiso, Japan, who worked extensively with researchers in China. The Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) operates the Wuwei reactor, which was built to generate merely 2 megawatts of thermal energy. For reference, this amount could only power a maximum of 1,000 homes (hence why this is a test). But, should the experiment prove successful, China aims to construct another, 373-megawatt reactor by 2030. At this power level, a thorium nuclear reactor could power hundreds of thousands of homes.

Germany wants close nuclear reactors at a politically weak time, amid one of the worst European energy crises?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 … c-mistake/
Move to phase out nuclear risks leaving country reliant on Russian gas?

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-10 14:36:17

https://www.yahoo.com/news/knoxville-bi … 33538.html

I am hoping this report will be of interest to Calliban, who (we hope) is hard at work inventing a hybrid fission/fusion system to provide both power and propulsion to Large Ships (and smaller ones as well).

Knox News | The Knoxville News-Sentinel
Knoxville Biz Ticker: Ultra Safe Nuclear licenses ORNL method to 3D print advanced reactor components
Knoxville News Sentinel
Mon, January 10, 2022, 1:03 PM
Ultra Safe Nuclear licenses ORNL method to 3D print advanced reactor components
A novel method to 3D print components for nuclear reactors, developed by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been licensed by Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, or USNC.
The technology uses a sophisticated additive manufacturing technique to print refractory materials, which are highly resistant to extreme heat and degradation, into components with complex shapes needed for advanced nuclear reactor designs.
USNC will incorporate this method to boost their mission to develop and deploy nuclear-based, energy-generating equipment that is safe, commercially competitive and simple to use.

The long-time Seattle-based collaborator also plans to expand its operations into East Tennessee to take advantage of proximity to ORNL’s expertise while scaling up production of specialty components for nuclear and industrial applications.
“This technology is ideal for manufacturing structure and core components for USNC’s advanced reactor designs,” Kurt Terrani, USNC executive vice president, said.
Terrani came to USNC from ORNL where he was technical director of the lab’s Transformational Challenge Reactor program, leveraging expertise at the lab’s Manufacturing Demonstration Facility with leadership in nuclear technology to pilot the concept of 3D printing components for energy applications.
“It’s rewarding to see the transition from basic concept to a more mature technology that is actively being developed and deployed by our industry partners,” said Jeremy Busby, director of ORNL’s Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle division. “This is exactly the sort of impact that ORNL strives to make for our energy portfolio.”
USNC’s existing advanced nuclear systems, Terrani said, are designed to deliver the highest levels of safety and reliability. While the company is currently meeting that goal, “we don’t stop there.”
“We also utilize materials in our reactor cores that can withstand very harsh environments and high temperatures and don’t result in any degradation,” he said. “We engineer multiple redundant barriers against any potential release of radiation through fundamental application of nuclear engineering and materials science.”
USNC’s refractory material of choice for nuclear reactor core components is silicon carbide, a high-temperature-resistant ceramic that has been tested and proven to be radiation tolerant. Yet, traditional machining of silicon carbide into parts for a reactor are so time-intensive and expensive that it’s nearly impossible.
The ORNL-developed alternative combines binder jet printing as the additive manufacturing technique and a ceramic production process called chemical vapor infiltration, which will allow USNC to make components more efficiently with desired complex shapes, such as fluid channels in a heat exchanger.
“This is the holy grail of additive, that you can do things faster, that are in geometries that were previously very difficult or impossible with conventional manufacturing methods,” Terrani said.
USNC’s new Pilot Fuel Manufacturing, or PFM, facility will be located at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, which is home of the former K-25 plant and mere minutes from ORNL’s main campus. The energy company plans to continue its collaboration with ORNL.
“We look forward to continuing our strong relationship with ORNL,” said Francesco Venneri, chief executive officer of USNC. “Proximity to the lab and its world-class scientists and facilities allow us easy access to expertise in reactor core technologies and additive manufacturing, as well as the latest in radiation, fuels and materials research, all of which benefit USNC’s commitment to bring safe, reliable and secure nuclear energy to world markets.” USNC and ORNL also signed a Memorandum of Understanding in September on advanced nuclear fuel and reactor development activities.
Along with Terrani, other inventors of this technology include ORNL’s Brian Jolly and Michael Trammel. Enabled through ORNL’s entrepreneurial leave program, Jolly and Trammell joined USNC as group leaders for Chemical Vapor Processing and Additive Manufacturing, respectively, to participate in full commercialization of their intellectual property.
The Transformational Challenge Reactor program was supported by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy and made possible by the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility at ORNL. The MDF is supported by the Advanced Manufacturing Office within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
UT-Battelle manages ORNL for DOE’s Office of Science. The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science. For ORNL licensing information, visit www.ornl.gov/partnerships.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-10 14:52:25

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/gen … 00408.html

The article below featues a company based in Canada.

GlobeNewswire
General Fusion achieves critical technology milestone for practical fusion power
General Fusion
Mon, January 10, 2022, 8:00 AM
Successful performance of plasma compression prototype confirms path to commercialization
General Fusion's plasma compression prototype
General Fusion has successfully achieved several aggressive performance goals on its prototype compression system, demonstrating a critical element of the company's Magnetized Target Fusion technology.
General Fusion has successfully achieved several aggressive performance goals on its prototype compression system,
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Jan. 10, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- General Fusion announced today it has successfully achieved several aggressive performance goals of a prototype system for its Fusion Demonstration Plant (FDP). The company’s plasma compression prototype, located at its Vancouver, Canada laboratory, is being used to demonstrate a critical element of its proprietary Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) technology. This important milestone marks another significant step toward General Fusion’s goal of creating practical and commercially viable fusion power.
Commissioned in early 2021, the prototype machine drives a forceful, but precisely shaped, symmetric collapse of a large liquid vortex cavity in tens of milliseconds. The forces involved in the full-scale FDP compression system will be immense, pushing the limits of material science, fluid dynamics, and mechanical design. Achieving this milestone with the prototype significantly reduces engineering and technical risks for General Fusion’s FDP. It will use a collapsing liquid metal cavity to heat and compress plasma fuel to fusion conditions at 100 million degrees Celsius.
The idea of using a collapsing liquid metal cavity to create fusion has been around for decades, but General Fusion has been able to bring new enabling technologies such as high-speed digital control systems, additive manufacturing, and advanced composite materials to make this concept viable and to de-risk its implementation in the FDP. Driving a rapid, smooth, and spherically shaped collapse of a cavity created inside a rotating liquid has been a difficult engineering challenge that General Fusion has now demonstrated in this prototype machine. It is the pathfinder for a larger prototype being built in 2022 to validate further refinements to various engineering aspects of this technology.
“Net energy production is essential, but not really the ultimate goal of commercializing fusion energy, which is building economical, carbon-free fusion power plants,” said Christofer Mowry, CEO, General Fusion. “Our unique technology, two decades in the making, solves the long-standing challenges of building practical fusion power plants for the world’s energy markets struggling to move away from fossil fuels. The successful performance of this important prototype validates we are on the path to success.”
General Fusion’s unique MTF technology overcomes several key challenges of creating practical fusion energy. MTF will economically create fusion conditions, efficiently convert fusion energy into carbon-free electricity, protect the fusion machine from burning fusion plasma, and produce enough fusion fuel for its own use. General Fusion’s prototype compression system validates one of the most critical parts of its MTF technology because a mechanically collapsed liquid cavity is a cornerstone for MTF overcoming all these challenges.
About General Fusion
General Fusion is pursuing the fastest and most practical path to commercial fusion energy and is based in Vancouver, Canada, with locations in London, U.K., and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. The company was established in 2002 and is funded by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital firms, industry leaders, and technology pioneers. Learn more at www.generalfusion.com.
General Fusion Media Relations
media@generalfusion.com
+1-866-904-0995
Follow General Fusion
twitter.com/generalfusion
instagram.com/generalfusion
linkedin.com/company/general-fusion
facebook.com/generalfusion
youtube.com/c/GeneralFusionInc
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/ … 0c0ea1cb81

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-13 13:38:06

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 44661.html

From the closing of the article ...

A way of avoiding the extreme expense of giant reactor projects has been offered by Rolls-Royce, which last year said it would join the race to develop small modular reactors that cost roughly £1.8bn apiece and provide about a seventh of the power of Hinkley Point C.
They hope to create a blueprint for reactors which can be largely produced in a factory rather than constructed in their own dedicated sites. It would churn out standardised reactors without design differences rather than build large projects on individual sites, with the aim of standardising the process and slash costs.
London-based BNF Capital, backed by the billionaire French Perrodo family, is one of two investors pumping £195m into the Rolls-Royce push.
The firm’s director Sean Benson told the Telegraph last November that relying purely on renewables is a fine plan for rich territories with the spending power of Germany or California, but the more cash-strapped countries of the world will want to replace their coal-fired power stations with a technology that works today.
As the competition heats up to produce new versions of power plants, all eyes will be on Flamanville 3 and Taishan for EDF to prove its technical ability - and the feasibility of its new EPR designs.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-01-13 15:59:34

tahanson43206 wrote:

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 44661.html
From the closing of the article ...
A way of avoiding the extreme expense of giant reactor projects has been offered by Rolls-Royce, which last year said it would join the race to develop small modular reactors that cost roughly £1.8bn apiece and provide about a seventh of the power of Hinkley Point C.
They hope to create a blueprint for reactors which can be largely produced in a factory rather than constructed in their own dedicated sites. It would churn out standardised reactors without design differences rather than build large projects on individual sites, with the aim of standardising the process and slash costs.
London-based BNF Capital, backed by the billionaire French Perrodo family, is one of two investors pumping £195m into the Rolls-Royce push.
The firm’s director Sean Benson told the Telegraph last November that relying purely on renewables is a fine plan for rich territories with the spending power of Germany or California, but the more cash-strapped countries of the world will want to replace their coal-fired power stations with a technology that works today.
As the competition heats up to produce new versions of power plants, all eyes will be on Flamanville 3 and Taishan for EDF to prove its technical ability - and the feasibility of its new EPR designs.
(th)

A price tag of £1.8billion ($2.25bn) for a 400MW plant? That is their grand ambition? These people have failed before they have even started. To put in perspective just how pathetic that is, gas turbines have a capital cost of about $300/kW and CCGT plants (including secondary steam plants) can be constructed for a £800/kW. So a CCGT plant of equivalent capacity to Rolls-Royce' ambitious modular reactor, would cost about one seventh as much. If this is the best we can do after seven decades of development in nuclear reactor technology, then I fear we are doomed.

kbd512 · 2022-01-13 18:52:05

Texas Roadrunner Solar Farm cost $1.134B, has 497MW of "installed capacity" (a meaningless term as we're about to discover), but actually provides 1.2TWh of electricity per year for 25 years. We have abundant sunlight here, but people who don't are SOL. A 1.25GW nuclear reactor costs $5.4B, but we're calling it $6.1B since that's how much Watt-Bar #2 actually cost. That's 1.125GW at a 90% capacity factor, but we're going to call it 1GW for easy math.

Over 75 years, approximately 1 human lifetime, this is how much money each generating solution costs:

Texas Roadrunner Solar Farm
365 days per year * 24 hours per day = 8760 hours per year
1,200,000,000,000 Watts per year / 8,760 hours per year = 136,986,301 Watts of continuous output
We're rounding that to 137MW
1,200,000,000,000 Watt-hours per year * 25 year = 30,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours per 25 year solar farm lifetime
30,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours per solar farm lifetime / 1,134,000,000 dollars spent = 26,455 Watt-hours generated per dollar spent

Watts-Bar #2 "1GW" Nuclear Reactor
8,760,000,000,000 Watts per year / 8,760 hours per year = 1,000,000,000MW of continuous output
8,760,000,000,000 Watt-hours per year * 75 years = 657,000,000,000,000 Watts per 75 year reactor lifetime
657,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours per reactor lifetime / 6,100,000,000 dollars spent = 107,705 Watt-hours generated per dollar spent

Well, that's not so bad. Photovoltaics alone is only 4X more expensive than nuclear power... We seem to be missing some VERY critical details, though.

1. That solar power plant will have its panels completely replaced in 25 years. We may get "more for our money", but we will pay at least as much for that privilege of getting our 137MW per year in 25 years time. Humanity will still use electrical power 25 years from now, 50 years from now, 75 years from now, and so on. We're never going to stop using electricity. If anything, we will need more and more of it as time goes on, especially as we push to electrify absolutely everything, whether we should or not.

26,455 Watt-hours generated per dollar spent / 3 lifecycles = 8,818 Watt-hours generated per dollar spent

That means photovoltaics alone are AT LEAST 12X more expensive than nuclear power on construction costs alone.

2. We need storage for that solar power plant to produce 24/7/365 electrical power, or we need a backup coal / gas / nuclear / geothermal power plant to provide power when the Sun don't shine.

Oops... We totally forgot to include the cost of batteries or a backup power plant. That backup power plant must cost zero dollars to construct and maintain, or our Watt-hours generated per dollar spent numbers only get much worse from there. Pretty soon, all of our Watt-hours generated are being used to simply maintain the power generating infrastructure that we already have or need to build from scratch to maintain what we already have since we insist on usable unreliable energy, and can no longer be devoted any energy to other useful economic purposes like agriculture, health care, education, housing, etc.

To my "green energy" evangelists who can't count, this is a major problem because solar requires 100X to 1,000X the input of high-embodied energy construction materials in order to continue producing power. This is what solar power in TEXAS can do! Land of unrelenting Sunlight! If you're German and living in Deutschland, land of unrelenting cloud cover and rain, then you're pretty well screwed! I was always taught that the Germans were good at math, but when it comes to spending money to generate power for every other purpose except generating more power, apparently not. That's the problem with any religious ideology that denies basic math. It always hurts and never helps. Ever wonder why we keep getting poorer, the more "cheap and clean wind and solar power" we construct? This is why!

You can double or triple the cost of nuclear power to try to make solar look better, but the economics of solar power don't change. If nuclear is unaffordable, then solar is absurdly unaffordable.

More and more money and energy are devoted to generating energy when using unreliable energy (wind and solar power), rather than any other useful economic purpose. In math, orders of magnitude have meaning. The numbers used here are real construction costs and real power outputs provided by real solar and nuclear power plants that provide real energy to real Americans. All notional outputs and construction costs and energy usage stats are simply "fake news". Unless we can make homes / businesses / industries 12X more energy efficient than they already are and run them at night without any energy input, and without devoting a single Watt of energy to improving said energy efficiency, then we will continue to be pushed into poverty by people who can't count and are far too enamored with their "green religion".

I also left out more silly little details that make solar look even worse, like the fact that 20% of that gross total output never touches the feeder wire that pumps the power into the grid. Seriously, though, how much worse does it have to be to drive home the point?

You have to make or recycle a tonnage of construction materials that require 100X to 1,000X more energy than nuclear power, no less than 3 times over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant.

"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt is your friend, whether you "know it" or not. I will keep pushing that book until someone reads it and learns something about basic economics. It's a fast and easy read that simplifies complicated topics to something that the average person can understand. It was first published in 1946 and it's free. Zero dollars spent for a high quality basic education in basic economics. If your computer can download and open a PDF file, then you can "know what Henry knew". Learn from our ancestors or suffer the consequences of the same mistakes that they made. Those are your only options.

kbd512 · 2022-01-13 21:00:54

If you also believe that climate change is real, as I do, then wind and solar further compounds the climate change problem because 90%+ of all wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, and batteries are made using coal, oil, and natural gas. Basically, the people pushing this false solution have elected to "speed up" climate change to at least the 12th power, using photovoltaics alone. It's considerably worse for wind turbines since they don't last as long and are 100% made using coal, oil, and natural gas. We don't produce any Aluminum or Iron alloys using photovoltaics or wind turbines or batteries, the plastics / fibers / resins used in the gigantic blades that are larger than airliner wings are fabricated from petroleum products or made by burning things (to produce glass and carbon fibers).

If the raw construction materials are recycled into new photovoltaics / wind turbines / batteries, then it takes even more energy to create new photovoltaics / wind turbines / batteries using the recycled materials, which is why it's not done at any significant scale, except in some places in Europe, where it's mandated by law because they now recognize the seriousness of the waste problem, that it's getting worse, and if recycling is not mandated by law then the toxic waste piles up since it's not otherwise economical to recycle it.

The people who are intelligent enough to do the math and know that it doesn't compute are invested in getting other people to buy into their schemes to make money. The people who aren't intelligent enough to recognize false solutions will push bad ideas with religious fervor because they want to be "part of the crowd" or are emotionally invested in something that looks like magic because none of them have any clue about how things are made. Basically, the followers are a cheer-leading squad for bad ideas that will ultimately leave them destitute.

This would be comical if so many people didn't believe they were doing the opposite of what they're actually doing. I wish I understood how you get most people to believe in false ideas, if only to begin the process of de-programming them and, hopefully, getting them to start thinking for themselves, rather than simply "going along with the crowd".

Calliban · 2022-01-14 19:39:47

Kbd512, I don't disagree on any particular point. I just find it disappointing that back in the 1970s, we were able to build nuclear power reactors for $1000/kWe in 2010 dollars. But now apparently, after five decades of progress, we are getting quoted 5-10 times as much for the same technology built today. The small modular reactors that were supposed to offer big improvements in build time and reductions in cost, don't seem to be dramatically cheaper. It suggests to me that technology isn't the problem, it is institutional ineptitude. We are now at the point where fossil fuels are clearly facing supply limitations that are pushing up prices beyond what consumers can afford for very long if they are to remain solvent. And the thing that has been touted to replace fossil fuels for decades, has become absurdly expensive for reasons that I struggle to understand.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-15 10:16:58

The issue for the SMR is still cost of the power to the people is not lower but actually higher as now the protection systems, security due to the fuel and maintenance will go up as more units are spread out across a nation.

"superload" is 213 feet long and weighs 294 tons. empty fuel tank from a decommissioned nuclear reactor, 12bc9849d7bf05d75f6f06654d68d98e

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-18 02:25:44

The article at the link below seems (as I read it) to offer a fairly balanced view of the planned development of a sodium cooled small reactor for a Western US site where attitudes are described as 'conservative'.

One tidbit that is new (to me at least) is that the 20% grade Uranium for the project will come from Russia. In light of Putin's (apparent) desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union by force, I find this arrangement on the risky side.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tiny-wyoming … 26365.html

BRADY McCOMBS and MEAD GRUVER
Tue, January 18, 2022 12:18 AM
KEMMERER, Wyoming (AP) — In this sleepy Wyoming town that has relied on coal for over a century, a company founded by the man who revolutionized personal computing is launching an ambitious project to counter climate change: A nationwide reboot of nuclear energy technology.
Until recently, Kemmerer was little-known for anything except J.C. Penney's first store and some 55-million-year-old fish fossils in quarries down the road.
Then in November, a company started by Bill Gates, TerraPower, announced it had chosen Kemmerer for a nontraditional, sodium-cooled nuclear reactor that will bring on workers from a local coal-fired power plant scheduled to close soon.
The demonstration project comes as many U.S. states see nuclear emerging as an answer to fill the gap as a transition away from coal, oil and natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another detail from the report is that the site was chosen (in competition with other communities in this coal producing region) because it was thought that the technical skills of the work force (coal industry) could be adapted to the needs of a fission plant.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-18 10:10:51

Special to Calliban ....

The report linked in Post #447 inadvertently reveals a business opportunity, for the right person >> company.

It appears (from the report) that Bill Gates and friends are having to source 20% grade Uranium from Russia. That seems to me to be a ** very ** risky business bet. There ** should ** be an opportunity for England/UK/? to supply that grade of Uranium, and avoid the risks of dealing with Russia when (it appears) Mr. Putin is attempting to re-create the Soviet Union by force.

The UK appears (from reports) to have the ability to enrich Uranium to bomb grade, so 20% is a fraction of that.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-01-19 03:15:09

tahanson43206 wrote:

Special to Calliban ....
The report linked in Post #447 inadvertently reveals a business opportunity, for the right person >> company.
It appears (from the report) that Bill Gates and friends are having to source 20% grade Uranium from Russia. That seems to me to be a ** very ** risky business bet. There ** should ** be an opportunity for England/UK/? to supply that grade of Uranium, and avoid the risks of dealing with Russia when (it appears) Mr. Putin is attempting to re-create the Soviet Union by force.
The UK appears (from reports) to have the ability to enrich Uranium to bomb grade, so 20% is a fraction of that.
(th)

Possibly. I don't know if Urenco are licensed to produce HEU. But that is a legal technicality. Mox would be a better fuel for a fast neutron reactor, as plutonium produces more neutrons in the fast spectrum and is better for breeding. The greater fabrication cost of mox isn't a big problem for high burn up fuels for fast reactors.

I haven't forgotten the promise I made in terms of modelling the fission-fusion hybrid propulsion system. I have sourced what I believe to be the required reference material for an initial study. I have a lot on work wise at present and it is keeping me away from my hobbies. But I will find the time in the next few weeks to make a firm start on this.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-01-19 03:17:21)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-19 08:16:13

For Calliban,

It is good to see your contributions to the forum when you have time. Best wishes for success with your projects!

In Post #449, you kindly provided the name of a UK company that might be able to make enriched Uranium.

However, you also added a comment about the advantages of Plutonium. The immediate reaction I felt was to note that the reactor sponsored by Bill Gates is intended to be as safe as possible. No reactor that employs Plutonium could ever be advertised as safe, for the simple reason that no one would believe it. Enriched Uranium is bad enough, and the daughter products from Uranium are bad enough.

Whatever technical advantages might accrue from use of Plutonium are erased by the psychological barriers that would automatically snap into place for any proposal to use it where there are innocent civilians in the shadow of the plant.

We humans ** must ** achieve mastery of atomic power, but that will require a massive improvement of the level of education and competence of the entire population, not just the few technicians who do the work. And beyond ** that ** is the need for a massive improvement of the psychological maturity of the population, so that temptations to do harm to others are recognized inside each brain, and corralled before they fester, by the brains themselves.

In another topic, a member recently stated his view that all rule is by force. I was astonished by this assertion, but realized that for it may reflect a misunderstanding of how civilization works that is wide spread.

A civilization works if every citizen is in control of his or her passions and impulses.

In recent times, perhaps around the world, but certainly in the United States, we have seen how a single individual without interior regulation of impulses can wreak havoc on the delicate self-control structures in millions of people.

This topic is about nuclear power (I remind myself), and my theme is that humans ** must ** achieve mastery of nuclear power to progress. However, simultaneously and without fail, we must collectively achieve individual mastery of our base impulses.

Google came up with a set of citations about the Wyoming reactor project. The articles may well provide more detail about why Uranium was chosen for this project, but the impression I get is that safety is a top level driver for the design team. I am interested in the use of Sodium as a coolant, because one of the outputs of the Phoenix Water project (there is a topic dedicated to this) is a supply of pure Sodium. If the Gates sponsored design is successful, both technically and psychologically, and if it shows promise of being able to pay back it's investors, then there would be a market for refined Sodium.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to build new kind of nuclear reactor in ...
www.theguardian.com › us-news › jun › bill-gates-warren-buffett-new-nuc...
Jun 4, 2021 · The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system's power output ...
People also ask
What nuclear company is Bill Gates investing in?
Is Bill Gates building a nuclear reactor?
Why is Bill Gates building a nuclear power plant?
Is Bill Gates investing in nuclear power?
Bill Gates-backed experimental nuclear power plant heads to tiny ...
www.theguardian.com › us-news › nov › bill-gates-natrium-nuclear-power...
Nov 16, 2021 · Proponents of the project, which will feature a sodium-cooled fast reactor and molten salt energy storage, say it would perform better, be safer ...
Bill Gates' TerraPower aims to build its first advanced nuclear reactor
www.cnbc.com › 2021/11/17 › bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclea...
Nov 17, 2021 · Bill Gates' TerraPower has chosen Kemmerer, Wyoming, ... Natrium plants use liquid sodium as a cooling agent instead of water.
Bill Gates' TerraPower will build its first next-gen nuclear reactor in ...
www.geekwire.com › Tech
Jun 3, 2021 · It will feature a uranium-fueled, 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor. The advanced nuclear reactor includes a molten salt-based energy ...
Bill Gates' Vision for Next-Generation Nuclear Power in Wyoming
insideclimatenews.org › News
Nov 17, 2021 · In his virtual appearance, Gates promoted Natrium as a safer, more flexible and less-expensive reactor than those cooled by water in ...

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2021-12-21 12:07:58

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#427 2021-12-23 21:10:48

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#428 2021-12-27 12:01:02

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#429 2021-12-28 10:01:07

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#430 2021-12-28 18:37:51

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#431 2021-12-31 23:34:45

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#432 2022-01-01 20:05:21

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#433 2022-01-01 20:57:34

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#434 2022-01-06 11:25:40

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#435 2022-01-07 12:21:16

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#436 2022-01-07 13:56:39

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#437 2022-01-08 10:27:27

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#438 2022-01-09 15:50:34

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#439 2022-01-10 14:36:17

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#440 2022-01-10 14:52:25

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#441 2022-01-13 13:38:06

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#442 2022-01-13 15:59:34

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#443 2022-01-13 18:52:05

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#444 2022-01-13 21:00:54

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#445 2022-01-14 19:39:47

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#446 2022-01-15 10:16:58

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#447 2022-01-18 02:25:44

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#448 2022-01-18 10:10:51

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#449 2022-01-19 03:15:09

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#450 2022-01-19 08:16:13

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer