New reactor designs making progress - Democratic Underground

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-07-10 10:25 AM
Original message

New reactor designs making progress

Self-Serve Reactor: Traveling-wave technology starts out with mostly "depleted" uranium (U-238) (a) — useless metal that's thrown out when traditional “enriched” uranium fuel (U-235) is created. A small amount of enriched uranium starts a heat-producing nuclear reaction. It ejects neutrons that meld with atoms of depleted uranium which, through a series of reactions, convert it into plutonium-239. The reaction moves like a wave (b) along the fuel, generating heat until all the uranium is spent (c) — a process that goes on for decades. Molten sodium metal (d) absorbs and carries away the heat to boil water and drive a steam turbine .

"Bill Gates’ TerraPower and the ‘Travelling Wave Reactor’

A US business venture funded partly by Bill Gates is reportedly looking for partners to help it develop a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power reactor concept called the Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR), which can operate for up to 100 years without refueling or removing any used fuel from the unit.

The company says it has had some communications with Toshiba, but denied in a press statement published in the Wall Street Journal that a partnership between the two firms was under development.

NGNP conceptual design due September 2010

Conceptual design reports that are “the last major deliverables” for phase 1 of the US Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project are expected to be completed by the end of September 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) has said in a report (full text) to Congress. DOE said it will carry out a review of the project in September after which it hopes to give the go-ahead to proceed to phase 2.

Phase 2 includes the competitive selection of a single reactor design for demonstration as the next generation plant. It also includes finalizing the design of all safety systems so a combined construction and operating license (COL) application can be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Japan Restarts Monju FBR For First Time Since 1995

Japan has restarted the Monju fast-breeder nuclear reactor for the first time since it was shut down in December 1995 after a sodium coolant leak.

The 246 MW FBR was restarted to low power levels the state-run Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) said. The JAEA said the reactor should reach operational levels by May 8th when it should be supplying part of its capacity to the grid. It will undergo more tests over the next two years after which it is scheduled to enter full commercial operation.

Fusion is still just around the corner for the next 50 years

The international community is confident of accumulating the knowledge necessary to build a nuclear fusion demonstration reactor within 10 years, the director-general of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project has said.

This is the latest is a series of statements by various international developers of fusion energy that have been published since the 1950s. The major scientific and engineering challenges remain as significant as ever. It is one of the grand challenges of science on a global scale. It might be easier to reverse engineer human consciousness or secure cyberspace."

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ShortnFiery

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-07-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message

1. All I can think of is two words for Nuclear Power:

Edited on Fri May-07-10 10:38 AM by ShortnFiery

Money Pit

http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm

Fiscal Fission finds that the $492 billion total represents a minimum figure for resources spent on nuclear power through 1990. Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion. This figure does not include the almost certain escalation in future waste and decommissioning costs.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2725

Many other technologies can deliver more low-carbon power at far less cost. As a 2003 MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Energy," concluded: "The prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited" by many "unresolved problems," of which "high relative cost" is only one. Others include environment, safety and health issues, nuclear proliferation concerns, and the challenge of long-term waste management.

Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed -- three times what the Economist called "too costly to matter" -- let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety, proliferation and waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that cost overwhelms the other problems.

Already nuclear energy, the sequel, is a source of major confusion in the popular press. Consider this recent interview between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, who is now a strong advocate for nuclear power. Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it."

Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion in U.S. subsidies -- more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emerging industries. And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-07-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. A more complete characterization of the MIT study is in order

"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"

The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:

* Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
* Offering a limited production tax-credit to 'first movers' - private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
* Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
* Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
* Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
* Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.

The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kristopher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-07-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. They predicted a ridiculously low cost when independent analysts got it right.

The only part of the MIT study that has any credibility is the listing of the problems. All the "recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable" are little more than the same overly optimistic, nuclear industry sourced hype that led them so far astray on the basic cost numbers.

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.