Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 473701 times)

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 11266
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3697
  • Likes Given: 817
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1800 on: June 10, 2024, 05:12:29 PM »
Analysis: Weapons Potential of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Poses Greater Threat Than Publicly Acknowledged
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-06-analysis-weapons-potential-high-assay.html



An analysis published in the journal Science found that, contrary to a widely held assumption, the high assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) now being produced with federal subsidies to fuel the next generation of small nuclear power reactors can be used directly to make nuclear weapons, and thus presents greater terrorism and nuclear proliferation threats than publicly acknowledged by the federal government and industry.

"Were HALEU to become a standard reactor fuel without appropriate restrictions determined by an interagency security review, other countries would be able to obtain, produce, and process weapons-usable HALEU with impunity, eliminating the sharp distinction between peaceful and nonpeaceful nuclear programs," according to the analysis conducted by five of the world's leading academic and independent proliferation experts.

"Such countries would be only days away from a bomb, giving the international community no warning of forthcoming nuclear proliferation and virtually no opportunity to prevent it." ... "Given the stakes, we recommend that the US Congress direct the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration to commission a fresh review of HALEU proliferation and security risks by US weapons laboratory experts."

Fuels for today's commercial reactors do not rely on HALEU, which is enriched to between 10% and 20% uranium-235, and instead typically use uranium enriched to below 5%. At those levels, the fuel cannot sustain an explosive chain reaction, which has prevented nations or terrorists from repurposing commercial reactor fuel for weapons.

However, for technical reasons, many of the nuclear reactor designs that engineers want to build today would use HALEU. Since HALEU is below the 20% enrichment lower bound that defines highly-enriched uranium (HEU), which is understood to be directly usable in nuclear weapons, development of these reactors has not raised significant proliferation concerns.

But by reviewing information in the open literature to analyze the quantities and enrichment levels of HALEU that the new reactors would use, the authors of the Science paper concluded that HALEU above about 12% uranium-235 could be used to make practical weapons with yields comparable to the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many proposed reactors could contain enough HALEU to make a nuclear weapon and thus pose serious security risks, according to the article.

These risks are increasing because, although the quantity of HALEU in commercial use today is relatively small, the federal government is actively encouraging HALEU use and funding its production.

The U.S. Energy Department is covering half of the cost of deployment of two demonstration nuclear plants that plan to use multi-ton quantities of HALEU fuel, including the "Natrium" fast reactor that TerraPower, a company founded by Bill Gates, plans to build in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

Earlier this year, the federal government allocated $2.7 billion to subsidize production of enriched uranium, including HALEU, to fuel these and other reactor projects that are being considered for a range of applications, including powering (AI) data centers and oil and gas operations. Other countries are following suit.

R. Scott Kemp, The weapons potential of high-assay low-enriched uranium, Science (2024)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado8693
There are 3 classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1801 on: June 13, 2024, 01:21:54 AM »
We just broke ground on America’s first next-gen nuclear facility

Kemmerer, Wyoming will soon be home to the most advanced nuclear facility in the world.'

(...)
The plant was designed by TerraPower, a company I started in 2008. But my nuclear journey started several years earlier, when I first read a scientific paper for a new type of nuclear power plant.

The design was far safer than any existing plant, with the temperatures held under control by with the laws of physics instead of human operators who can make mistakes. It would have a shorter construction timeline and be cheaper to operate. And it would be reliable, providing dependable power throughout the day and night. As I looked at the plans for this new reactor, I saw how rethinking nuclear power could overcome the barriers that had hindered it—and revolutionize how we generate power in the U.S. and around the world.

So, we started TerraPower, where nuclear scientists could take the concept and transform it into a reality. Since then, the amazing team at TerraPower has proven we can do nuclear better. They are leading the country—and the world—in developing safe, next-generation nuclear technology.

But that technology was just an idea in a lab and on a computer screen until today.

You can read more about the super cool science behind the Natrium plant here. Now that we’ve broken ground, the first order of business is to build the sodium test facility, which will test components and transfer the liquid sodium that will be used to cool the nuclear reactor. Construction will continue over the years ahead before the plant hopefully comes online in 2030.

For a project this big and this important to work, it takes private companies partnering with public leaders and governments. I can’t say enough good things about Mayor Bill Thek, Mayor Mark Langley, and the remarkable communities here in Kemmerer and Diamondville, who have embraced this project.

Today couldn’t have happened without the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, which is supporting the project with the largest single contribution the federal government has ever committed to a private project. If we’re going to solve climate change, it’s going to take courage, commitment, and partnership between the federal government and private industry, a point that Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm has made repeatedly. Gov. Mark Gordon and Senators John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis have been true champions, and we’re grateful for the support from TerraPower’s investors and development partners, including Bechtel, GE Hitachi, PacifiCorp, and Berkshire Hathaway.

What’s next? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission accepted TerraPower’s construction permit application for review last month. It’s a step that sounds bureaucratic but is, in fact, a huge deal and the first time something like this has happened with a commercial non-light water reactor in more than 40 years. This step starts the review process at the NRC for the permit application—once it is approved, construction can begin on the actual nuclear reactor.

The review process will take a couple of years, so in the meantime, TerraPower will continue to build the non-nuclear parts of the facility. Construction will begin next year on the so-called “energy island,” which is where the steam turbines and other machinery that actually generate power will sit. (The reactor will eventually be part of a “nuclear island,” and the team hopes to start building that in 2026.)
(more)

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Wyoming-TerraPower-groundbreaking
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 27523
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1464
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1802 on: June 19, 2024, 11:47:46 PM »
French energy prices go negative as renewables surge, prompting shutdown of nuclear plants
French energy prices have reportedly plummeted into negative territory due to an excess of renewable energy production.
Quote
Day-ahead prices reached a record low of -€5.76 per megawatt-hour in an Epex Spot auction, prompting several French nuclear plants to go offline ahead of the weekend, Bloomberg reported.
 
This decrease is attributed to the significant increase in wind and solar power generation, coupled with an anticipated decline in weekend demand.

As a result, Electricite de France, a state-owned utility company, has been compelled to deactivate several nuclear reactors. Already, three plants have been halted, with plans to take three more offline. According to Bloomberg, this occurrence is not uncommon and often happens on weekends in France, as well as being observed across Europe, including in Spain and the Scandinavian region.

Reuters noted that the situation in France differs from that in other countries in the region due to the slower deployment of renewable energy. Paris has installed approximately 45 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, which lags behind the targets set by the European Commission.
….
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2472262/french-energy-prices-plummet-as-renewable-power-surges-nuclear-plants-offline
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1803 on: June 20, 2024, 12:01:56 AM »
"China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors..."

One of several wild quotes from this new report assessing China's nuclear tech and what the USA must do to stay competitive.
(snip)

David Fishman  @pretentiouswhat

The fact is, Westinghouse sold the AP1000 for billions of dollars, opening the door for American firms (and labs, etc) to make hundreds of millions more charging Chinese firms for engineering and technical consulting.

Trust me, I used to be the guy doing the selling. 🙋‍♂️

The 2007 AP1000 deal really established a basis for US-China nuclear tech trade, since France had previously enjoyed a near-monopoly on providing technical consulting to Chinese firms.

They were eager to tap into the USA experience base and not be so reliant on France.

https://nitter.poast.org/pretentiouswhat/status/1803133376393781602#m
......

How Innovative Is China in Nuclear Power?

(...)
China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.
China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).

https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1804 on: June 22, 2024, 11:14:59 PM »
From sheep camp to the city to study uranium’s damage to Navajo people

A Diné data-cruncher looks to solve his people’s uranium issues with public health training
(...)
Between the 1940s and 1980s, uranium and vanadium companies extracted these heavy metals from the Navajo Nation to make nuclear weapons. In doing so, they initiated geochemical processes that mobilized uranium and vanadium into groundwater sources.

In March, this region, now known as the Lukachukai Mountains Mining District, was designated a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This means that the mining district is listed for priority clean up by the federal government as a Superfund site.
(snip)
Although mining has stopped, the threat is still there. There are more than 500 abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo Nation that need to be cleaned up. Some date all the way back to experiments with nuclear chain reactions at Columbia University that helped start the Manhattan Project. According to the EPA, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore have been extracted across the Navajo Nation, with families living close by many of these mines, mills and waste sites.

In 2005, the Navajo Nation banned the transport of any nuclear waste going through its lands, an area the size of West Virginia. However, Interstate 40, a major cross-country interstate, crosses the southern section of the Navajo Nation; thus, allowing exceptions to this ban on major highways like Arizona’s State Highways 89 and 160. The ban also prohibits any future mining or milling until all abandoned sites have been cleaned up. Earlier this spring, the Navajo Nation Council and Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren reaffirmed the ban by signing into law its position to call on the Biden administration to halt uranium hauling across Navajo lands.

There is only one place in the U.S. where nuclear waste is processed: the White Mesa Uranium Mill in White Mesa, Utah. The mill, operated by Energy Fuels, Inc., receives waste shipments from as far away as the country of Estonia. The White Mesa Mill is only about 20 miles from the Navajo Nation, just across the San Juan River. According to the Grand Canyon Trust, more than 700 million pounds of toxic waste sits at the mill site. Piles of uranium dust blow in all directions.
(more)

https://azmirror.com/2024/06/21/from-sheep-camp-to-the-city-to-study-uraniums-damage-to-navajo-people/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1805 on: July 20, 2024, 11:06:37 PM »
Russia’s Rostov 1 reconnected to grid after malfunction

Russian nuclear utility Rosenergoatom has reconnected unit 1 of the Rostov NPP to the grid after it was shutdown for some seven due to an equipment malfunction. The unit was automatically disconnected “due to a false alarm of the generator protection system, Rosenergoatom said, adding that the equipment had been checked. During its temporary outage, schedules for limiting energy consumption were introduced in the south of Russia. “In the energy system of the south of Russia, due to a malfunction of the generating equipment at the Rostov NPP in conditions of increased loads on the energy system, temporary schedules limiting consumption by 1.5 GW have been introduced in order to maintain the stability of the energy system,” the Ministry of Energy reported.

During the outage units 2&4 at the plant continued normal operation. Unit 3 was closed for scheduled repair and maintenance. The Rostov NPP with four VVER-1000 reactors is the largest energy-generating facility in southern Russia with a total capacity of 4,071 MWe. It provides around 75% of the power generation in the Rostov region and is connected to the grid of other southern regions. The south of Russia has been affected by an abnormal heatwave, which has caused power outages in several regions.

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/russias-rostov-1-reconnected-to-grid-after-malfunction/

.....

(as speculated in the modded post that was here, it was likely the hot cooling water that prompted the shutdown. Locals reported explosion and water release. but what if the cladding on the rods was de-laminating also? Reactor 3 was offline for maintenence, was it getting more advanced fuel?) 2021 below


Advanced Fuel Rods Loaded in Russian Nuclear Reactor

The first Russian-made nuclear reactor fuel bundles with experimental ATF (Advanced Technology Fuel) rods have been loaded into Unit 2 at the Rostov nuclear power plant (NPP) in southwest Russia. The reactor resumed operations earlier this month after a scheduled maintenance and refueling outage.

The Rostov site is home to four VVER-1000 reactor units (Figure 1), which entered commercial operation in 2001, 2010, 2014, and 2018, respectively. The core of the VVER-1000 reactor design contains 163 fuel assemblies, each with 312 fuel rods. Typically, a third of the fuel assemblies are replaced during a refueling outage. Three of the fuel assemblies loaded during the latest refueling at Rostov Unit 2 contain experimental fuel rods—12 rods in each assembly—which will allow the innovative fuel to be demonstrated in a commercial reactor.

https://www.powermag.com/experimental-advanced-fuel-rods-loaded-in-russian-nuclear-reactor/

https://www.euronuclear.org/news/rosatom-starts-atf-operation-at-the-unit-2-of-rostov-npp/

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1806 on: July 21, 2024, 12:37:35 AM »
South Korea's KHNP wins multi-billion-dollar Czech nuclear tender
By Jan FLEMR
Prague (AFP) July 17, 2024

South Korean power giant KHNP has won a tender worth billions of dollars to build two nuclear units at a Czech power plant, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said on Wednesday.

KHNP (Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company) beat France's EDF in the tender launched in 2022 initially for one new reactor at the Soviet-built Dukovany power plant.

But Prague said later it was seeking bids for a total of four new units: two for each of its two nuclear plants in Dukovany and Temelin, run by the state-owned power group CEZ.

"The Korean bid was better in all criteria assessed," Fiala told reporters.

"We have decided to build two units at Dukovany for now," Fiala said, adding that the government would discuss an option for another two units at Temelin.

Fiala said the price offered by KHNP beat expectations, reaching around 200 billion Czech koruna ($8.65 billion) per unit if two units are built.

"We want to ensure energy security for future generations," Fiala added.

He said the deal was the most expensive one in the modern history of the Czech Republic, adding that Czech companies would participate in about 60 percent of the construction.

The government said earlier it expected to sign a deal with the winner by next March, the construction to begin in 2029, and the first new reactor to be launched in trial operation in 2036.

KHNP and EDF submitted their binding bids for evaluation by CEZ in April, with KHNP offering its APR1000 reactor with an output of 1,050 megawatts designed for European plants.

KHNP's chief executive Jooho Whang said on X "we will do our best to really build the APR1000 reactor in the Czech Republic, on time and within the budget."

- 'The pride of Czech energy' -

CEZ chief executive Daniel Benes said it was more advantageous to build two units at Dukovany because of synergies which cut the price.

"We won't have to do many things twice... but we will not build the two units at the same time, there is a time gap, which is ideally one or two years," he added.

Industry and Trade Minister Jozef Sikela said the government would sign two deals with KHNP.

"One concerns the two units at Dukovany and the other is a binding option to build up to two units at Temelin," he added.

CEZ currently runs six nuclear units at the two plants located in the south of the country -- four with 510-megawatt output each at Dukovany and two with 1,000-megawatt output each at Temelin.

It is also planning the construction of small modular reactors, with the first one due to be installed at Temelin.

Sikela said on Wednesday the two plants account for around 30 percent of the Czech electricity output.

"It will be roughly 50 percent in the future," he added, calling nuclear energy "the pride of Czech energy production".

EDF had lobbied hard for the contracts and French President Emmanuel Macron visited Prague in March to push its bid.

In a statement obtained by AFP, EDF acknowledged the result.

"EDF stands ready to pursue or relaunch discussions with CEZ and the Czech government should the preferred bidder process be modified or readjusted in the coming weeks or months," it added.

The government earlier eliminated US giant Westinghouse from the tender over flaws in its offer and Russia's Rosatom and China's CGN on security concerns.

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1807 on: August 08, 2024, 08:44:38 AM »
BREAKTHRUGH Nanonuclear CEO Reveals Safe Nuclear Reactor on Wheels

(...)
ZEUS which is a solid core battery reactor and ODIN, a low-pressure coolant reactor, each representing advanced developments in portable, on-demand capable.

The Zeus nuclear microreactor is engineered for safe operation in remote locations. Its ‘walk-away safe’ feature ensures stability and safety, minimizing risks in varied environments. This aspect is critical for ensuring consistent operation without the need for active intervention.

Portability and Adaptability: The modular components fit within standard shipping containers, facilitating transportation to remote sites. This feature enhances its utility in areas where traditional energy infrastructure is not feasible.

Zeus is tailored for locations where conventional power sources are impractical. Its design and functionality offer a reliable power supply, essential for operations in isolated regions. Zeus core is designed to provide constant power for at least 10 full power years.

The microreactor prototype is designed to harness thermal energy for direct heat applications or to convert it into electric power. This versatility allows for diverse applications, ranging from heating to electricity generation, meeting a wide array of energy needs.

Zeus employs conventional materials and multiple off the shelf components in order to minimize time to market and reduce cost. The prototype ensures the provision of reliable and clean electricity. Its design and operational efficiency make it suitable for commercial use, as well as for non-electric applications such as hydrogen fuel production, a growing area of interest in the renewable energy sector.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/08/breakthrugh-nanonuclear-ceo-reveals-safe-nuclear-reactor-on-wheels.html#more-196992

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1808 on: August 11, 2024, 08:21:30 PM »
Fusion power might be 30 years away but we will reap its benefits well before

Discoveries made in pursuit of nuclear fusion have potentially huge practical applications in everything from curing cancer to superior batteries for EVs

(...)
In 2021, Roth established Focused Energy in Darmstadt, Germany to develop a laser system capable of accelerating a neutron beam with 100 times the intensity of existing technologies. Neutrons can be used like X-rays for imaging but are more penetrating, meaning they can see inside denser materials, and Roth is currently in discussions with civil engineering firms to deploy the system to inspect the steel inside concrete buildings and bridges for signs of corrosion. The same technique can also produce particles called muons, opening up even bigger imaging projects.

Nuclear waste handling

At present, the biggest spin-out project for Focused Energy is a contract with the German government to build the first laser-driven neutron source for examining nuclear waste containers.

Having shut down its last remaining nuclear power plants in 2023, Germany must now deal with the waste, which has been piling up for decades. Focused Energy’s imaging system will determine the contents of the barrels, and what condition the waste is in, so that they can be safely and finally stored.

Across the Atlantic, Shine is planning to take this one step further. Instead of using neutrons to image the waste, if the neutron beam can be made more intense, it can transform the waste into less harmful substances. For example, traditional nuclear reactors split uranium-235 or plutonium-239 to produce energy. The waste product is iodine-129, with a half-life of more than 15m years. However, if it could be bombarded with a high-intensity neutron beam, it would be transformed into iodine-128, which has a half-life of just 25 minutes.

“You can be rid of this 10 million-year problem in a day,” says Piefer.

It turns out that the kind of neutrons necessary to do this will be made in abundance in many fusion power plants. So the reactors of the future will not only solve the world’s energy problems, but can be harnessed to help clean up the dirty legacy of the first nuclear reactors.

“I believe that fusion, ultimately, will be a gamechanger similar to the steam engine,” says Roth. “We will be able to do a lot of things in our society that were not possible before, and that starts with cleaning up a lot of the mess from the Industrial Revolution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/11/nuclear-fusion-research-tae-power-solutions-cancer-propulsion

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1809 on: August 20, 2024, 12:14:36 AM »
AI to go nuclear? Data center deals say it’s inevitable


Anticipating astronomical compute-intensive AI workloads, hyperscalers and heavy data center operators are turning to energy providers for nuclear-fueled solutions in a ‘global arms race for power … like nothing we have ever seen before.’

AWS, Microsoft, and Google are going nuclear to build and operate mega data centers better equipped to meet the increasingly hefty demands of generative AI.

Earlier this year, AWS paid $650 million to purchase Talen Energy’s Cumulus Data Assets, a 960-megawatt nuclear-powered data center on site at Talen’s Susquehanna, Penn., nuclear plant, with additional data centers planned — pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 

Microsoft, Google, and Nucor, a steel manufacturer, released a request for information (RFI) about clean energy, and Baltimore-based energy company Constellation responded “to the RFI with our points on advanced nuclear being a fit at existing nuclear sites,” says a spokesperson for Constellation, one of the nation’s largest nuclear power providers.

“The data economy and Constellation’s nuclear energy go together like peanut butter and jelly,” said Joe Dominquez, Constellation’s CEO during a company conference call in May.

Last year, Constellation signed a deal giving Microsoft the rights to receive up to 35% of its power from nuclear sources in addition to its existing solar and wind purchases from Constellation for Microsoft’s Boydton, Va., data center. Microsoft has also signed a nuclear carbon credits deal with Ontario Power Generation for its operations in Canada.

In addition to its purchase of the Cumulus data center, AWS will have access to nuclear energy as part of a 10-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) from the Susquehanna site.

Many of the deals under discussion are with existing nuclear power providers for hyperscalars to access energy or to employ small module nuclear reactors (SMRs) with smaller carbon footprints that will be annexed to existing nuclear power plants. Nucor, Oklo, Rolls-Royce SMR, Westinghouse Electric, Moltex Energy, Terrestrial Energy, General Electric, Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and X-energy are among the roster of companies with SMRs under development to meet the growing needs of AI data centers.

Oklo, which is chaired by OpenAI founder Sam Altman, has built a fast fission nuclear reactor dubbed Aurora and intends to sell its energy and SMRs to the US Air Force and data centers by 2027.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, a longtime advocate for nuclear innovation, co-founded TerraPower, which broke ground in Kemmerer, Wyo., this summer on a new nuclear power plant dubbed Natrium that uses salt for cooling and is intended to be operated as a commercial power plant.

To date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not given the green light on any of these projects to go live.
(more on data centers)

https://www.cio.com/article/3487339/ai-to-go-nuclear-data-center-deals-say-its-inevitable.html
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1810 on: August 22, 2024, 11:31:08 AM »
Why has nuclear power been a flop?    by Jason Crawford · April 16, 2021

To fully understand progress, we must contrast it with non-progress. Of particular interest are the technologies that have failed to live up to the promise they seemed to have decades ago. And few technologies have failed more to live up to a greater promise than nuclear power.

In the 1950s, nuclear was the energy of the future. Two generations later, it provides only about 10% of world electricity, and reactor design hasn‘t fundamentally changed in decades. (Even “advanced reactor designs” are based on concepts first tested in the 1960s.)

So as soon as I came across it, I knew I had to read a book just published last year by Jack Devanney: Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop.

What follows is my summary of the book—Devanney‘s arguments and conclusions, whether or not I fully agree with them. I‘ll give my own thoughts at the end.

The Gordian knot

There is a great conflict between two of the most pressing problems of our time: poverty and climate change. To avoid global warming, the world needs to massively reduce CO2 emissions. But to end poverty, the world needs massive amounts of energy. In developing economies, every kWh of energy consumed is worth roughly $5 of GDP.

How much energy do we need? Just to give everyone in the world the per-capita energy consumption of Europe (which is only half that of the US), we would need to more than triple world energy production, increasing our current 2.3 TW by over 5 additional TW:


This is the Gordian knot. Nuclear power is the sword that can cut it: a scalable source of dispatchable (i.e., on-demand), virtually emissions-free energy. It takes up very little land, consumes very little fuel, and produces very little waste. It‘s the technology the world needs to solve both energy poverty and climate change.

So why isn‘t it much bigger? Why hasn‘t it solved the problem already? Why has it been “such a tragic flop?”
Nuclear is expensive but should be cheap

The proximal cause of nuclear‘s flop is that it is expensive. In most places, it can‘t compete with fossil fuels. Natural gas can provide electricity at 7–8 cents/kWh; coal at 5 c/kWh.

Why is nuclear expensive? I‘m a little fuzzy on the economic model, but the answer seems to be that it‘s in design and construction costs for the plants themselves. If you can build a nuclear plant for around $2.50/W, you can sell electricity cheaply, at 3.5–4 c/kWh. But costs in the US are around 2–3x that. (Or they were—costs are so high now that we don‘t even build plants anymore.)

Why are the construction costs high? Well, they weren‘t always high. Through the 1950s and ‘60s, costs were declining rapidly. A law of economics says that costs in an industry tend to follow a power law as a function of production volume: that is, every time production doubles, costs fall by a constant percent (typically 10 to 25%). This function is called the experience curve or the learning curve. Nuclear followed the learning curve up until about 1970, when it inverted and costs started rising:
(snip)
Linear No Threshold

The official model guiding US government policy, both at the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is the Linear No Threshold model (LNT). LNT says that cancer risk is directly proportional to dose, that doses are cumulative over time (rate doesn‘t matter), and that there is no threshold or safe dose.

The problem with LNT is that it flies in the face of both evidence and theory.
(snip)
The Big Lie

Devanney puts a significant amount of blame on the regulators, but he also lays plenty at the feet of industry.

The irrational fear of very low doses of radiation leads to the idea that any reactor core damage, leading to any level whatsoever of radiation release, would be a major public health hazard. This has led the entire nuclear complex to foist upon the public a huge lie: that such a release is virtually impossible and will never happen, or with a frequency of less than one in a million reactor-years.

In reality, we‘ve seen three major disasters—Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima—in less than 15,000 reactor-years of operation worldwide. We should expect about one accident per 3,000 reactor-years going forward, not one per million. If nuclear power were providing most of the world‘s electricity, there would be an accident every few years.

Instead of selling a lie that a radiation release is impossible, the industry should communicate the truth: releases are rare, but they will happen; and they are bad, but not unthinkably bad. The deaths from Chernobyl, 35 years ago, were due to unforgivably bad reactor design that we‘ve advanced far beyond now. There were zero deaths from radiation at Three Mile Island or at Fukushima. (The only deaths from the Fukushima disaster were caused by the unnecessary evacuation of 160,000 people, including seniors in nursing homes.)

In contrast, consider aviation: An airplane crash is a tragedy. It kills hundreds of people. The public accepts this risk not only because of the value of flying, but because these crashes are rare. And further, because the airline industry does not lie about the risk of crashes. Rather than saying “a crash will never happen,” they put data-collecting devices on every plane so that when one inevitably does crash, they can learn from it and improve. This is a healthy attitude towards risk that the nuclear industry should emulate.
(snip)
I would be interested in hearing thoughtful counterarguments to the book’s arguments. But overall, Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop pulls together academic research, industry anecdotes, and personal experience into a cogent narrative that pulls no punches. Well worth reading. Buy the paperback on Amazon, or download a revised and updated PDF edition for free.

https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop

https://gordianknotbook.com/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1997
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1811 on: August 22, 2024, 06:19:12 PM »
Economies of scale and learning curves are different things.
Learning that cancer risk was a function of lifetime cumulative exposure, not a J-curve which only became harmful above a threshold, put a whole lot of radiation emitting products out of business. You don't find high street shoe shops using X-ray machines any more. Watches aren't made luminous with radium any more. The protocols around X-rays and other medical radiation uses have got steadily stricter. Its everyone thats been expected to adjust to a realisation that cancer risk is cumulative and does not have an exposure level that is risk-free. Nuclear power is no exception and lying about the radiation it emits and the cancers that is responsible for just puts it in the same bracket as the tobacco and fossil fuel industries and their lies about the consequences of their products.
Learning that something is more dangerous than previously thought, means that its production volume goes down, and that does indeed make the economies of scale work against it.


interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3079
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 630
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1812 on: August 22, 2024, 08:31:31 PM »
Life has risks that has always been true and will always be true. Trying to eliminate all risk is impossible it also has high personal, social and financial costs.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1813 on: September 04, 2024, 09:47:41 PM »
Physicist MV Ramana on the problem with nuclear power

Nuclear is costly, risky and slow, Ramana says. Why then, he asks in his new book, do governments still champion it?

You would be forgiven for thinking that the debate on nuclear power is pretty much settled. Sure, there are still some naysayers, but most reasonable people have come to realise that in an age of climate crisis, we need low-carbon nuclear energy – alongside wind and solar power – to help us transition away from fossil fuels. In 2016, 400 reactors were operating across 31 countries, with one estimate suggesting roughly the same number in operation in mid-2023, accounting for 9.2% of global commercial gross electricity generation. But what if this optimism were in fact wrong, and nuclear power can never live up to its promise? That is the argument the physicist MV Ramana makes in his new book. He says nuclear is costly, dangerous and takes too long to scale up. Nuclear, the work’s title reads, is not the solution.

This wasn’t the book Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia, planned to write. The problems with nuclear are so “obvious”, he wagered, they do not need to be spelled out. But with the guidance of his editor, he realised his mistake. Even in the contemporary environmental movement, which emerged alongside the anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, there are converts. Prominent environmentalists, understandably desperate about the climate crisis, believe it is rational and reasonable to support nuclear power as part of our energy mix.

But with a PhD in physics, and a previous book examining why India’s nuclear programme had not worked and would not work, Ramana is well versed in not just the moral but the technical and practical arguments against nuclear. He lays these out in his new work and then looks at what he originally set out to explore: why, despite the overwhelming evidence against nuclear, governments and corporations continue to invest in it.
(more)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/04/mv-ramana-why-nuclear-power-not-solution-energy-needs
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

KiwiGriff

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 738
  • Likes Given: 404
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1814 on: September 05, 2024, 07:29:12 AM »
Quote
Instead of selling a lie that a radiation release is impossible, the industry should communicate the truth: releases are rare, but they will happen; and they are bad, but not unthinkably bad.
Nuclear energy can not compete in the energy market  if they pay the full cost of commercial insurance for the potential risks. Government's must always pick up the burden of insuring against the worst possible outcomes for nuclear energy .
Tells you all you need to know.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1815 on: September 06, 2024, 01:40:26 AM »
Assorted, distinctive behavior of molten uranium salt revealed by neutrons


The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a world leader in molten salt reactor technology development - and its researchers additionally perform the fundamental science necessary to enable a future where nuclear energy becomes more efficient. In a recent paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, researchers have documented for the first time the unique chemistry dynamics and structure of high-temperature liquid uranium trichloride (UCl3) salt, a potential nuclear fuel source for next-generation reactors.

"This is a first critical step in enabling good predictive models for the design of future reactors," said ORNL's Santanu Roy, who co-led the study. "A better ability to predict and calculate the microscopic behaviors is critical to design, and reliable data help develop better models."

For decades, molten salt reactors have been expected to possess the capacity to produce safe and affordable nuclear energy, with ORNL prototyping experiments in the 1960s successfully demonstrating the technology. Recently, as decarbonization has become an increasing priority around the world, many countries have re-energized efforts to make such nuclear reactors available for broad use.

Ideal system design for these future reactors relies on an understanding of the behavior of the liquid fuel salts that distinguish them from typical nuclear reactors that use solid uranium dioxide pellets. The chemical, structural and dynamical behavior of these fuel salts at the atomic level are challenging to understand, especially when they involve radioactive elements such as the actinide series - to which uranium belongs - because these salts only melt at extremely high temperatures and exhibit complex, exotic ion-ion coordination chemistry.

The research, a collaboration among ORNL, Argonne National Laboratory and the University of South Carolina, used a combination of computational approaches and an ORNL-based DOE Office of Science user facility, the Spallation Neutron Source, or SNS, to study the chemical bonding and atomic dynamics of UCl3 in the molten state.

The SNS is one of the brightest neutron sources in the world, and it allows scientists to perform state-of-the-art neutron scattering studies, which reveal details about the positions, motions and magnetic properties of materials. When a beam of neutrons is aimed at a sample, many neutrons will pass through the material, but some interact directly with atomic nuclei and "bounce" away at an angle, like colliding balls in a game of pool.

Using special detectors, scientists count scattered neutrons, measure their energies and the angles at which they scatter, and map their final positions. This makes it possible for scientists to glean details about the nature of materials ranging from liquid crystals to superconducting ceramics, from proteins to plastics, and from metals to metallic glass magnets.

Each year, hundreds of scientists use ORNL's SNS for research that ultimately improves the quality of products from cell phones to pharmaceuticals - but not all of them need to study a radioactive salt at 900 degrees Celsius, which is as hot as volcanic lava. After rigorous safety precautions and special containment developed in coordination with SNS beamline scientists, the team was able to do something no one has done before: measure the chemical bond lengths of molten UCl3 and witness its surprising behavior as it reached the molten state.

"I've been studying actinides and uranium since I joined ORNL as a postdoc," said Alex Ivanov, who also co-led the study, "but I never expected that we could go to the molten state and find fascinating chemistry."

What they found was that, on average, the distance of the bonds holding the uranium and chlorine together actually shrunk as the substance became liquid - contrary to the typical expectation that heat expands and cold contracts, which is often true in chemistry and life. More interestingly, among the various bonded atom pairs, the bonds were of inconsistent size, and they stretched in an oscillating pattern, sometimes achieving bond lengths much larger than in solid UCl3 but also tightening to extremely short bond lengths. Different dynamics, occurring at ultra-fast speed, were evident within the liquid.

"This is an uncharted part of chemistry and reveals the fundamental atomic structure of actinides under extreme conditions," said Ivanov.

The bonding data were also surprisingly complex. When the UCl3 reached its tightest and shortest bond length, it briefly caused the bond to appear more covalent, instead of its typical ionic nature, again oscillating in and out of this state at extremely fast speeds - less than one trillionth of a second.

This observed period of an apparent covalent bonding, while brief and cyclical, helps explain some inconsistencies in historical studies describing the behavior of molten UCl3. These findings, along with the broader results of the study, may help improve both experimental and computational approaches to the design of future reactors.

Moreover, these results improve fundamental understanding of actinide salts, which may be useful in tackling challenges with nuclear waste, pyroprocessing. and other current or future applications involving this series of elements.

https://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Assorted_distinctive_behavior_of_molten_uranium_salt_revealed_by_neutrons_999.html
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9163
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2226
  • Likes Given: 2045
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1816 on: September 06, 2024, 05:24:18 PM »
Nuclear energy can not compete in the energy market  if they pay the full cost of commercial insurance for the potential risks. Government's must always pick up the burden of insuring against the worst possible outcomes for nuclear energy .
Tells you all you need to know.

But the governments don´t pay the bill, we do. If you build nuclear we are then on the hook for construction costs, running costs for a minimum of time, waste disposal etc. That is probably why it is the favourite solution for some politicians.

For some reason our dutch politicians want to build at least two or four but there is hardly room for one on the grid now. We are also building off shore wind and we already have tons of unused solar on peak moments so we clearly need something different. 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1997
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1817 on: September 06, 2024, 10:43:26 PM »
The standard industry picture of a UK nuclear facility used to be cows grazing in the foreground and the concrete in the background. Looks dutch to me, clearly your politicians think so too.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 22822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5671
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1818 on: September 13, 2024, 06:26:33 PM »
I am sure I ocnce wrote that it isn't nuclear power technology that is the problem, it is the humans doing it.

Dounreay - about 7 miles along the coast from me. Currently being decommissioned.
Dounreay is a small reactor. Sellafield - that is a much bigger and scarier story.

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/dounreay-placed-on-special-measures-over-wide-ranging-safe-361023/
Quote
Dounreay placed on ‘special measures’ over wide-ranging safety concerns


Government inspectors have put Dounreay into “special measures” as a result of unresolved safety concerns.

An action plan has been drawn up by operators NRS to address the issues which include ageing, deteriorating plant, radioactive leaks and the storage of chemicals.

Among the problem areas is the condition of buildings in the prototype fast reactor being used to store drums of radioactive sodium.

An inspection by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), in April made grim reading for site management.

It found significant corrosion and metal loss of structural steelwork in the turbine hall.

It concluded: “It was judged that alkali metal storage conditions in the turbine hall, steam generator hall and generator transformer house are not adequate, as the licensee has failed to safely protect the drums against uncontrolled degradation via air and moisture ingress.

“It is also judged that the licensee is not recognising when there is degradation in these areas.”

The issue first came to light following a probe into a minute leak of radioactive tritium from a sodium drum in the turbine hall in November 2022. Its exposure to rainwater through a leaky roof was blamed for causing the corrosion.

The inspection was one of a number carried out at Dounreay in the spring and summer to receive an amber rating by ONS.

Others revealed some elderly electrical plant in a “degraded” state while Dounreay was found to have breached the Control of Major Accident Hazards (CoMAH) regulations by its stockpile of chemicals being over its set limit.

A fire safety inspection was generally positive but flagged up a “significant shortfall” in assessment and control of sources of dangerous substances.

The inspector said: “It is my judgement that Dounreay do not currently understand the totality of risk presented by dangerous substances on site and therefore cannot provide adequate assurance as to the safety of personnel on site.”

A final warning letter has been sent to NRS over the detection of radioactive caesium in groundwater being pumped into non-active drains.

The site operators have also been taken to task over leaks of radionuclides and other hazardous substances into groundwater from its cluster of low-level radioactive waste pits.

Regulators have also been pursuing NRS over its response to a leak of radioactive hydrogen in April 2022.

ONR informed NRS on June 26 that Dounreay was being placed in “enhanced regulatory attention for safety.”
"I wasn't expecting that quite so soon" kiwichick16
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1997
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1819 on: September 13, 2024, 10:27:16 PM »
I am sure I ocnce wrote that it isn't nuclear power technology that is the problem, it is the humans doing it.

Dounreay - about 7 miles along the coast from me. Currently being decommissioned.
Dounreay is a small reactor. Sellafield - that is a much bigger and scarier story.


This isn't new. There's a long history of bad practice at Dounreay. It might be worse than Sellafield for the amount of leaks, but Sellafield also has a history of a bad safety culture resulting in leaks of radioactive substances.

There's more, this is just a selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay

Quote
A 65-metre (213 ft) deep shaft at the plant was packed with radioactive waste and at least 2 kg of sodium and potassium.[23] On 10 May 1977, seawater, which flooded the shaft, reacted violently with the sodium and potassium, throwing off the massive steel and concrete lids of the shaft.[23] This explosion littered the area with radioactive particles.

Quote
Tens of thousands of fragments of radioactive fuel escaped the plant between 1963 and 1984, resulting in fishing being banned within two kilometres (one nautical mile) of the plant since 1997.[24] These milled shards are thought to have washed into the sea as cooling ponds were drained.[24] As of 2011, over 2,300 radioactive particles had been recovered from the sea floor, and over 480 from the beaches.[24] As of 2019 the 2 km ban on harvesting seafood was still in place, but there were no other restrictions.

Quote
In 2007, UKAEA pleaded guilty to four charges under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 relating to activities between 1963 and 1984, one of disposing of radioactive waste at a landfill site at the plant between 1963 and 1975, and three of illegally dumping radioactive waste and releasing nuclear fuel particles into the sea,[39][40] resulting in a fine of £140,000.

Quote
On 7 October 2014, a fire on the PFR site led to a "release of radioactivity via an unauthorised route". The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) concluded that "procedural non-compliances and behavioural practices" led to the fire, and served an improvement notice on Dounreay Site Restoration Limited.[45][46] In 2015, decommissioning staff expressed a lack of confidence in management at the plant and fear for their safety.


Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4828
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1820 on: September 20, 2024, 04:34:11 PM »
Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI

The owner of the shuttered Pennsylvania plant plans to bring it online by 2028, with the tech giant buying all the power it produces.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/20/microsoft-three-mile-island-nuclear-constellation

Pennsylvania’s dormant Three Mile Island nuclear plant would be brought back to life to feed the voracious energy needs of Microsoft under an unprecedented deal announced Friday in which the tech giant would buy 100 percent of its power for 20 years.

The restart of Three Mile Island, the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history, would mark a bold advance in the tech industry’s quest to find enough electric power to support its boom in artificial intelligence. The plant, which Pennsylvanians thought had closed for good in 2019 amid financial strain, would come back online by 2028 under the agreement, according to plant owner Constellation Energy.

If approved by regulators, Three Mile Island would provide Microsoft with the energy equivalent it takes to power 800,000 homes, or 835 megawatts. Never before has a U.S. nuclear plant come back into service after being decommissioned, and never before has all of a single commercial nuclear power plant’s output been allocated to a single customer.

But the economics of both the power and computing industries are changing rapidly. Tech companies are scouring the nation for power that is both reliable and helps them meet their pledge to fuel AI development with zero emissions electricity — driving a nuclear power revival.

“The energy industry cannot be the reason China or Russia beats us in AI,” said Joseph Dominguez, chief executive of Constellation. “This plant never should have been allowed to shut down, ... It will produce as much clean energy as all of the renewables [wind and solar] built in Pennsylvania over the last 30 years.”

The four-year restart plan would cost Constellation about $1.6 billion, he said, and is dependent on federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks earmarked for nuclear power in the 2022 Inflation Recovery Act.

Constellation will also need to clear steep regulatory hurdles, including intensive safety inspections from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has never before authorized the reopening of a plant. The deal also raises thorny questions about the federal tax breaks, as the energy from the plant would all be produced for a single private company rather than a utility serving entire communities.

A partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 sent the nation into a panic and the nuclear industry reeling. The unit that Constellation plans to fire back up sits adjacent to the one that malfunctioned 45 years ago.

Constellation and Microsoft conceived the novel deal to solve a deepening energy problem. The sprawling data centers Microsoft and other digital giants need have become so big and energy-intensive that they are straining existing power supplies across the nation.

Constellation disclosed months ago that it was exploring options for restarting Three Mile Island, which sits along the Susquehanna River. The news was met with mixed reactions. Nuclear safety advocates expressed alarm. But some community leaders welcomed the development, seeing potential to revive an economic anchor in a region beset with financial hardship. A study funded by the Pennsylvania Building & Construction Trades Council says a reopening would create 3,400 jobs at the plant and in businesses serving it and its workers, and generate $3 billion in state and federal taxes.

The tax breaks in the Inflation Recovery Act are crucial to making the deal economically feasible, according to Constellation. They provide a credit for every megawatt hour of nuclear energy produced.

Constellation declined to provide details about its contract with Microsoft or disclose the value of tax credits. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has said in the past that federal subsidies could cut the cost of bringing a new plant on line by as much as half.

The announcement of the Microsoft deal follows an agreement Amazon reached with Talen Energy to purchase power produced by the financially troubled Susquehanna nuclear plant for a planned data center campus in Pennsylvania. That arrangement is running into snags with regulators, as regional utilities express concern that their ratepayers will be saddled with the bill for the power grid updates needed.

Amazon’s plan also raised concerns among clean-energy advocates that tech companies are shifting from driving the transition to clean energy to elbowing others out of it by claiming such large amounts of available clean electricity for themselves.

Dominguez argues that the Three Mile Island case is an example of how Silicon Valley’s outside-the-box thinking will help stabilize the power grid for everyone. The power from the plant will not go directly to Microsoft facilities but into the overtaxed regional power grid that serves 65 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia, called the PJM Interconnection.

Nuclear power is considered “clean” because unlike burning natural gas or coal to produce electricity, it does not create greenhouse gas emissions. The plants are expensive to build or restart, and industry still has no long-term solution for spent but highly radioactive uranium fuel rods.

“This agreement is a major milestone in Microsoft’s efforts to help decarbonize the grid in support of our commitment to become carbon negative,” said a statement from Bobby Hollis, vice president of energy at Microsoft.

Dominguez said other ratepayers on the PJM grid will not be expected to shoulder any of the costs, nor will Constellation be seeking special subsidies from the state of Pennsylvania.

Constellation has already been doing extensive testing at Three Mile Island. It says most of its components are ready to operate again. “The plant is in extraordinary shape,” Dominguez said.

Three Mile Island is not the only nuclear plant the industry is eager to revive. The owners of a plant in Western Michigan called Palisades are also working to bring that dormant facility back. That project was approved for a $1.5 billion federal loan guarantee. The plant owner, Holtec, says it hopes to feed nuclear energy from Palisades into the region’s power grid by late next year.

The Palisades effort came about at the urging of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), as her state struggles to both meet its climate goals and generate adequate energy. The plant was destined for permanent closure when Holtec acquired it in 2022. The company had planned to decommission the facility but changed course after conversations with the governor.

On Wednesday, though, that plan was dealt a setback when federal nuclear regulators disclosed “a large number of steam generator tubes” could be faulty and need further inspection. Holtec said the finding does not alter its plans. But some nuclear safety advocates argue the company’s push to quickly reopen the plant puts the public at risk.

The huge cost and regulatory headaches associated with nuclear power are not deterring the tech industry from betting on it. In a remarkable turn of fortune for an industry that just a few years ago was struggling to stay competitive and focused mostly on closing plants, it now finds itself in expansion mode. Beyond seeking contracts for power from existing plants, tech companies are also bullish on next generation nuclear technologies.

Several are investigating the potential of locating their facilities near small modular nuclear reactors that could feed them power directly. Such technology is in its infancy and has not yet been approved by regulators. That isn’t stopping a company chaired by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates from doubling down on it. The firm, called Terra Power, this year began construction at what it plans to be a small reactor site in site in Wyoming.

Microsoft is also pursuing power from nuclear fusion, a potentially abundant, cheap and clean form of electricity that scientists have been trying to develop for decades — and most say is still a decade or more away from generating electricity. Microsoft has signed a contract to purchase fusion energy from a start-up that claims it can deliver it by 2028.
Keep 'em stupid, and they'll die for you.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6673
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1821 on: September 20, 2024, 08:46:00 PM »
Cheaper than a new solar and wind farm with storage I guess.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4828
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1822 on: September 20, 2024, 11:07:14 PM »
Cheaper than a new solar and wind farm with storage I guess.
I don't think it will be cheaper than twice the 400MW geothermal Fervo is building in Utah.
Keep 'em stupid, and they'll die for you.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1823 on: September 21, 2024, 02:22:54 AM »
Mark Nelson  @energybants

However big you think this Microsoft nuclear deal is, I am telling you, it's bigger.

One of the biggest power deals ever.

~$800 million/yr for 20 years
$16 BILLION for one nuclear reactor

From a 40-year-old reactor, just to get to age 60.

We now have a market for newbuild.
(more)

https://nitter.poast.org/energybants/status/1837109780336222587#m
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3079
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 630
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1824 on: September 21, 2024, 01:03:14 PM »
I am not against it but lets not forget the cost overruns which will make it cost three times the original estimate.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4828
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1825 on: September 21, 2024, 03:47:24 PM »
I am not against it but lets not forget the cost overruns which will make it cost three times the original estimate.
True. It's insane what they're trying to do. We're talking about Three Mile Island here. The people will not stand for it, I hope...  :-[

Let's just admit it. Nuclear is a waste of money. China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week. So nuclear has become obsolete. Unless you need it for your nuclear weapons.

And geothermal will be the absolute nail in the coffin.

Quote
In short:
China is installing record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear.

While Australia is falling behind its renewables installation targets, China may meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month, according to a report.

What's next?
Energy experts are looking to China, the world's largest emitter and once a climate villain, for lessons on how to rapidly decarbonise.
Keep 'em stupid, and they'll die for you.

longwalks1

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1826 on: September 21, 2024, 03:54:52 PM »
Palisades , Holtec.   Two words that scream negligence.    Holtecs abysmally thin canisters for spent fuel exemplifies their denigration of safety and quest for profit.   

Palisades - powered up in 1973.   Two words neutron embrittlement.    Two more bathtub curve. 

We still do not know where the final resting place for spent fuel will be.    Inattention to this "small" detail is tending to favour an above ground placement with Holtec casings in New Mexico and/or dry casking for the next decade or two near reactor sites.   The Diablo Canyon situation is a grave cause of concern between seismic faults, SLR and extreme weather events including firestorms. 


The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 201
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1827 on: September 21, 2024, 06:43:39 PM »
I am not against it but lets not forget the cost overruns which will make it cost three times the original estimate.
True. It's insane what they're trying to do. We're talking about Three Mile Island here. The people will not stand for it, I hope...  :-[
The facility closed just 5 years ago, due to financial strain.  Selling 100% of the energy to Microsoft may make it cost effective again.

Not sure there are many cost overruns for a plant that was working fine for forty years.  This will postpone cleanup costs associated with decommissioning the facility.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4828
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1828 on: September 21, 2024, 06:54:28 PM »
I am not against it but lets not forget the cost overruns which will make it cost three times the original estimate.
True. It's insane what they're trying to do. We're talking about Three Mile Island here. The people will not stand for it, I hope...  :-[
The facility closed just 5 years ago, due to financial strain.  Selling 100% of the energy to Microsoft may make it cost effective again.

Not sure there are many cost overruns for a plant that was working fine for forty years.  This will postpone cleanup costs associated with decommissioning the facility.
I didn't know that. I thought it closed after the accident.
My bad! I should have looked into that. I was already wondering why anyone would reopen a disaster like that.
Facts are a bitch...
Keep 'em stupid, and they'll die for you.

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3079
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 630
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1829 on: September 22, 2024, 04:24:12 PM »
It depends on how they choose to treat it. Closure means they may require many new upgrades of systems that work fine or maybe they will not. I do not think the regulatory body has decided yet how to treat the reopening process.

longwalks1

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1830 on: September 23, 2024, 03:59:56 AM »
Holtec - Palisades and 3 Mile

Staffing.  Those previous engineers and operators might be retired now, employed elsewhere, moved, etc. That is a significant loss of institutional memory.  The places that train these engineers in colleges, many have shut down, for example Iowa State U, shuttered their research reactor and I also believe the program.  Yes, I realize that they might get some from the USN, maybe even a bunch if they mothball a carrier or two.   

For the people singing the praises, please dig up if they are going with much of the original equipment or if they will be having to put in new instrumentation at source and/or also at control room.   

They should also implement an aggressive pressure testing of various systems.   Monticello in MN prevaricated and then lied and minimized about their leaking tritium escaping into the local water system.   Neutron embrittlement is a fact of nature for reactors. 

I would hope that they do not add another new factor into the equation via utilizing MOX at initial startup. 

BTW  - too lazy to look up  Pressurized or BWR?

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6673
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1831 on: September 24, 2024, 01:59:33 PM »
It depends on how they choose to treat it. Closure means they may require many new upgrades of systems that work fine or maybe they will not. I do not think the regulatory body has decided yet how to treat the reopening process.

I suspect it was mothballed which is why they believe they can reactivate it easily. That is what Germany did. Correct shutdown, mothballing and correct skeleton crew monitoring even after the fuel rods were pulled.

Most reactors have been inspected and extended from 40 years to 60 years.  Meaning that embrittlement is not as much of an issue as was predicted.  Either that or they chose to take a larger risk and reduce the margin.

20 more years with full utilisation of the power and a clear plan for shutdown, decommissioning and fuel management might actually be a better way to deal with the legacy than sitting there with a huge cost on the balance sheet and no incentive to deal with it.

This is also an opportunity for the US regulator to increase standards and demand upgraded safety.  It is not impossible, the UK is building new reactors, so is China.  The knowledge exists and if it is going to grow, then services and training will follow.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1832 on: October 15, 2024, 12:08:25 AM »
The Supreme Court Takes a Nuclear Waste Case Almost Too Wild to Believe

Mark Joseph Stern: I want to flag one case that’s really funny to me, Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas. It’s sort of like the chickens coming home to roost for the Supreme Court. A few years ago, the court made up the “major questions doctrine,” the principle that when an agency makes a decision that involves a “major question,” courts have a free-floating veto to block it. Well, the 5th Circuit used this doctrine to blow up the entire system of nuclear waste storage in this country, possibly forever.

Here’s what happened: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed a temporary storage facility for nuclear waste in Texas. The state sued, arguing that the commission can only license permanent storage facilities and has no power to license temporary storage offsite from the plant. But there is only temporary storage of nuclear waste in this country right now. There is no permanent storage facility! It doesn’t exist! There’s a plan to build one in the Nevada mountains, but Nevada has successfully fought it for decades, and Congress hasn’t funded it. All the while, nuclear waste keeps accumulating at power plants. It has to go somewhere, so the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized temporary storage.

To which the 5th Circuit said: “Too bad”?

Yes. The 5th Circuit sided with Texas in this case, declaring that the commission is actually powerless to grant licenses for the temporary storage of nuclear waste offsite from the plant. Why? I want to be clear: It’s not because federal law says the commission can’t do that. In fact, the statutory text indicates the commission can do this. But the 5th Circuit essentially ignored the text. It instead declared that temporary storage is a “major question” because it involves nuclear material. And it held that if the commission wants to license that storage in temporary facilities, Congress has to come in and authorize it even more clearly. Why? Because the question “has been hotly politically contested for over a half century.” It’s just that damn major, Dahlia! And until Congress approves temporary licenses again, the 5th Circuit will simply veto all nuclear storage.

Can you just spell out the consequences if this theory is correct?

If it’s correct, then the storage of nuclear waste in this country is illegal, and may be forever. We don’t know if there will ever be a permanent storage facility. It is a political hot button. Yet the 5th Circuit just dove in headfirst, and basically said, Yep, nuclear waste is illegal.

The Supreme Court has now granted review of that decision, and I think it will reverse the 5th Circuit. But it’s funny to me because 5th Circuit decisions now make up more than 20 percent of the Supreme Court’s docket for this term, per Steve Vladeck’s calculation. So the justices have to devote a huge portion of this term to reining in insane decisions out of the 5th Circuit, just like they did last term. But it’s a problem of the Supreme Court’s own making, because the conservative justices’ own extremism is encouraging the lower courts to take these big swings. If cases like this one don’t get these justices to clean up their act and reel it back a little, I truly don’t know what will.

Two quick observations: First, it’s so unbelievably on-brand for this moment that you’re opening the term giggling about the storage of nuclear waste. Thank you for that. Second, thank God for Steve Vladeck, but this is such a profoundly under-covered story. We used to call this error correction of the 5th Circuit “cleanup on Aisle 4,” you know? A couple of times a year, they had to bap the 5th Circuit on the nose. Now some massive proportion of the Supreme Court’s docket is devoted to saying, “No, we are the craziest people in town, not you at the 5th Circuit.” This is not how any of this should go.

It’s a fight over who determines the outer limits of crazy. And the 5th Circuit really wants to win.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/supreme-court-crazy-nuclear-waste-case.html

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4828
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1833 on: October 15, 2024, 02:42:02 PM »
Private companies going nuclear. What could possibly go wrong? 😡
500MW is a piece of cake for EGS, and can be installed much faster.

Google to buy nuclear power for AI datacentres in ‘world first’ deal

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/15/google-buy-nuclear-power-ai-datacentres-kairos-power

Google has signed a “world first” deal to buy energy from a fleet of mini nuclear reactors to generate the power needed for the rise in use of artificial intelligence.

The US tech corporation has ordered six or seven small nuclear reactors (SMRs) from California’s Kairos Power, with the first due to be completed by 2030 and the remainder by 2035.

Google hopes the deal will provide a low-carbon solution to power datacentres, which require huge volumes of electricity.

The US company, owned by Alphabet, said nuclear provided “a clean, round-the-clock power source that can help us reliably meet electricity demands”.

The explosive growth of generative AI, as well as cloud storage, has increased tech companies’ electricity demands.

Last month, Microsoft struck a deal to take energy from Three Mile Island, activating the plant for the first time in five years. The site, in Pennsylvania, was the location of the most serious nuclear meltdown in US history, in March 1979. Amazon bought a datacentre powered by nuclear energy in March from Talen Energy.

The locations of the new plants and financial details of the agreement were not revealed. Google has agreed to buy a total of 500 megawatts of power from Kairos, which was founded in 2016 and is building a demonstration reactor in Tennessee, due to be completed in 2027.

Michael Terrell, the senior director for energy and climate at Google, said: “The grid needs new electricity sources to support AI technologies that are powering major scientific advances, improving services for businesses and customers, and driving national competitiveness and economic growth.

“This agreement helps accelerate a new technology to meet energy needs cleanly and reliably, and unlock the full potential of AI for everyone.”

Mike Laufer, the chief executive and co-founder of Kairos, said: “We’re confident that this novel approach is going to improve the prospects of our projects being delivered on cost and on schedule.”

The deal, which is subject to regulatory permits, represents a vote of confidence in SMR technology. The smaller, factory-built power plants are designed to cut the cost overruns and delays often experienced in building bigger plants. However, critics argue that SMRs will be expensive because they may not be able to achieve the same economy of scale as larger plants.

In the UK, companies are bidding to be selected by the government to develop their SMR technologies as ministers aim to revive its nuclear industry. One of the bidders, Rolls-Royce SMR, received a significant boost last month when it was selected by the Czech government to build a fleet of reactors.
Keep 'em stupid, and they'll die for you.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1834 on: October 22, 2024, 12:17:41 AM »
Japan shifting back to nuclear to ditch coal, power AI

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station (AFP) Oct 19, 2024

Glinting in the sun by the world's biggest nuclear plant, the Sea of Japan is calm now. But as the huge facility gears up to restart, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has a new tsunami wall, just in case.

Japan pulled the plug on nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, but with the G7's dirtiest energy mix, it is seeking to cut emissions, and atomic energy is making a steady comeback, in part because of AI.

At the 400-hectare (1,000-acre) KK plant, shown to AFP in an exclusive tour, the 15-metre (50-foot) wall is just one measure to prevent another catastrophe and reassure the public and Japan's jittery neighbours.

"We believe that (a similar accident to Fukushima) could be largely avoided," Masaki Daito, KK deputy superintendent, told AFP. Japan now has "the strictest (regulatory) standards in the world".

The facility in central Japan -- like the nation as a whole -- is no stranger to earthquakes, having been shut down for two years for "upgrades" after a big jolt in 2007.

At Fukushima, a 15-metre tsunami cut power lines and flooded backup generators, disabling water pumps needed to keep nuclear fuel cool.

In this century's worst nuclear accident, three reactors went into meltdown and hydrogen explosions blew off roofs and released radioactivity into the air.

To keep the power running in the event of a quake, KK has new backup power supply vehicles on higher ground, plus "blow-out" panels and a new vent meant to filter out 99.9 percent of any radioactive particles.

In addition to the recently built sea wall, an embankment has been enlarged and reinforced. In corridors deep inside the reactor building, luminous stickers mark pipes and faucets.

"The lights all went out at Fukushima and no one could see," Daito said.

- Climate goals -

Before the 2011 quake and tsunami, which killed around 18,000 people, nuclear power generated about a third of Japan's electricity, with fossil fuels contributing most of the rest.

All of Japan's 54 reactors were shut down afterwards, including those at KK. To keep the lights on, resource-poor Japan has hiked imports of natural gas, coal and oil while increasing solar power.

But fossil fuels are expensive, with imports last year costing Japan about $510 million a day.

It is also not helping Japan achieve its climate pledges.

The E3G think-tank ranks Japan in last place -- by some distance -- among G7 nations on decarbonising their power systems.
(more)

https://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Japan_shifting_back_to_nuclear_to_ditch_coal_power_AI_999.html

....
Italy lays groundwork for return to nuclear power
Milan, Italy, Oct 21 (AFP) Oct 21, 2024
Italy announced Monday it would within weeks create the legislative framework for its first nuclear power stations in almost 40 years.

"By the end of the year we will create the legislative framework to ensure that new third and fourth generation nuclear power plants can be installed in Italy," enterprise minister Aldolfo Urso said.

https://www.spacewar.com/afp/241021154905.w3bw9l1s.html

....
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1835 on: October 27, 2024, 06:04:39 PM »
There seems to be a corollary disinformation campaign to weaken solar/wind progress that accompanies the new rush to nuclear. AI has a vast new demand for power and ( this is a conspiracy theory ) it will use existing  disinformation protocols to get what it wants. Instead of moving forward on solar/ wind let’s instead revive nuclear…worldwide. And since uranium will quickly be a constraint on unlimited expansion then the promotion of rebreeder reactors needs expansion worldwide. AI couldn’t give a crap about plutonium being pushed as some kind of savior… so wait for it . A push for rebreeders is next step IMO
https://inl.gov/feature-story/idaho-national-laboratory-prepares-to-operate-its-first-new-reactors-in-50-years/

https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-breeder-reactor

https://www.powermag.com/indias-prototype-fast-breeder-nuclear-reactor-moves-closer-to-criticality/
« Last Edit: October 27, 2024, 06:14:06 PM by Bruce Steele »

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1836 on: October 27, 2024, 09:55:23 PM »
(yeah, and breeder reactors are being sold as an environmental positive, because less mining and milling.)
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1997
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1837 on: October 28, 2024, 09:23:10 AM »
AI couldn’t give a crap about plutonium being pushed as some kind of savior… so wait for it . A push for rebreeders is next step IMO


to (mis)quote Tom Lehrer - "we'll try to stay serene and calm, when AI bama gets the bomb"

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2892
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1838 on: October 30, 2024, 09:17:46 PM »
Mayor of South Bruce didn’t expect tight result in vote to host nuclear waste site

The mayor of an Ontario municipality that has formally decided it is willing to become the site of a deep geological repository for Canada’s nuclear waste says he didn’t think the results of a referendum would be that close.

The Municipality of South Bruce, located south of Owen Sound, held a vote putting the question to its residents and the results released late Monday show they voted 51 per cent in favour of the proposal.

There were 3,130 votes, and there was only a 78-vote gap between the “yes” and “no” responses.

South Bruce Mayor Mark Goetz says in an interview he did not think it would be quite so tight, but “the results are the results” so it is the decision the municipality will proceed with.

The results of the vote were binding as long as there was at least 50 per cent voter turnout, and nearly 70 per cent of eligible residents cast a ballot.

Goetz says he is pleased to see so much participation and engagement from his community.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization plans to select a site this year where millions of bundles of used nuclear fuel will be placed in a network of underground rooms connected by cavernous tunnels.

The process for the $26-billion project has already been narrowed down to two sites, Ignace in northern Ontario and South Bruce, and the organization has said both the local municipality and the First Nation in those areas will have to agree to be hosts.

Ignace, between Thunder Bay and Kenora, became the first community to make its decision known in July, as town council voted in favour of a nuclear waste repository at a special meeting.

Attention now will turn to Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, to see if they share the same willingness as Ignace and South Bruce, respectively.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-mayor-of-south-bruce-didnt-expect-tight-result-in-vote-to-host-nuclear/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 27523
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1464
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #1839 on: November 15, 2024, 01:30:34 PM »
Eon: Nuclear Energy Generation Makes Economically No Sense

The energy group Eon is not planning to restart its decommissioned nuclear power plants in 🇩🇪 Germany, according to CFO Nadia Jakobi after comments from the IAEA.

In a conference call with analysts on Thursday, the manager emphasized that her previous assessment had not changed. It would not make economic sense to bring the plants back online. That's true for old plants as well as newly built plants.

Eon shut down its last nuclear power plant in Germany, Isar 2, in April 2023. …

11/14/24, https://x.com/alex_avoigt/status/1857103302384558352
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.