GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,583 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A recent study from the nonprofit Energy Innovation Reform Project estimated that the latest batch of nuclear startups could deliver electricity somewhere between $36 and $90 a megawatt hour. That’s competitive with any power plant that runs on natural gas (which runs between $42 to $78), and would provide a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Dozens of nuclear startups are popping up around the country, aiming to solve the well-known problems with nuclear power — radioactive waste, meltdowns, weapons proliferation, and high costs.

There are reactors that burn nuclear waste. There are reactors designed to destroy isotopes that could be made into weapons. There are small reactors that could be built inexpensively in factories. So many ideas!
Some interesting history of why we use expensive, problem-prone water cooled reactors and why alternatives are popping up.

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,346 Posts
Nuclear Waste is an oxymoron. If the stuff is still so radioactive that we have to contain it for 10,000 years why aren't we building processing stations that feed reactors that can use it? What I'll never understand is the engineering design tradeoff in the first generation, water and liquid sodium cooled reactors that requires fuel rods be pulled up into a moderation bed to slow the reaction. Wouldn't it be far safer to make this a drop into the moderation bed so if you lose your coolant you can kill the power to the reaction chamber and have the fuel drop into a bed that will isolate them from each other.

We've had the technology for over a decade now, just not the political will to tell the rabid anti-nuclear jerks to go breath coal dust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
Lots of technology on the horizon, remember the nuclear plants used are using 50 - 60 year old technology. Canada has a slightly different approach using heavy water (used for making hospital radio isotopes more than energy as we have plenty of untapped hydro which could be used. China is doing a lot of research into safe nuclear, lower emitting coal, carbon recapture (Mister Dave will rail against this). No need to put all the eggs in one basket. Powers generation will come from all sorts of areas, new nuclear, wind, sun, water, tidal, clean coal etc. Important not to rule out one because of 100 year old technology when the new can cure the cons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
MSR Thorium is what is needed,

The book
“Superfuel “

Spells out pretty well why we don’t use the better, safer, cheaper, less wasteful technology
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
MSR Thorium is what is needed,

The book
“Superfuel “

Spells out pretty well why we don’t use the better, safer, cheaper, less wasteful technology
^^^^^^
This

If anyone is interested there are several good Youtube videos describing the technology in some depth. Search for lftr (liquid fluorine thorium reactor)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,583 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
France is a net exporter of electricity for some reason :)

We still need places to store low level medical and industrial waste.

But I am very happy with the progress of wind and solar in Texas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,346 Posts
We still need places to store low level medical and industrial waste.
The low level stuff you're referring to has relatively a short half life measured in single and low double digit years. It can also be reprocessed and mixed with the long term high energy waste to reduce it even further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
There is no problem with nuclear technology that technology cannot solve.

Pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to fix anything.

Imagine a car with a 50kg nuclear generator in it. Like they used put in satellites. Refuel it every 25 years.
 

·
Registered
2017 Volt Premier 80k+ Miles
Joined
·
570 Posts
I have no issues with advanced Nuclear power plants other than the extremely dangerous byproducts. When we are talking about safely containing the materials for thousands of years until they're no longer dangerous, just think about that in terms of history to get sense of the time-frame. If we only have to store it for a few decades that's manageable, otherwise this is the primary issue. I wish the article went into more detail on this aspect, other than it can "consume nuclear waste".
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,583 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
When we are talking about safely containing the materials for thousands of years until they're no longer dangerous, just think about that in terms of history to get sense of the time-frame.

It's hubris to think we can safely contain highly dangerous materials for the time span needed. We can't even make a pipeline that doesn't leak. Plus the funding will is not there.

We need designs that safely shut down regardless of human negligence or natural disasters, designs that produce no highly radioactive waste or thousand year lifespan waste. It seems there are solutions that hit these marks. The question is, why are we still doing it the other way? Is this one of those follow the money things?

I like the idea of plants that combine the above and use highly radioactive waste as the fuel, eliminating the cost, safety and guaranteed disaster of the current, "let's just bury it" head in the sand approach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
You know. Stuff lol :)
Pretty much says it. Anything to do with the Chinese, partly because of their political structure, partly because they haven't progressed to the point of having unions (or is so advanced that they have skipped the union phase altogether), and other "stuff" I haven't even come across yet. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Pretty much says it. Anything to do with the Chinese, partly because of their political structure, partly because they haven't progressed to the point of having unions (or is so advanced that they have skipped the union phase altogether), and other "stuff" I haven't even come across yet. :D
I see, I'm supposed to rail against research because you think the Chinese are doing it.

Pfft. Let's see if we can expand the picture a bit from a one-liner talking point.

China is well advanced in developing and deploying supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plants, as well as moving quickly to design and deploy technologies for integrated (coal) gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Nevertheless it consumed about 4.3 billion tonnes of coal in 2013, more than half the world total, and coal peaked at more than 70% of China’s primary energy then, dropping to 64% in 2015 as fossil fuel generation declined. By 2020 it is expected to use some 3.5 billion tonnes of coal annually, and for coal to comprise only 55% of primary energy consumption. However, after authority for approving new coal-fired plants was given to provincial governments late in 2014, in 2015 state-owned companies received preliminary or full approval to build 165 GWe of new coal-fired capacity, some of which would be offset by retirement of older plants. But total coal consumption dropped by 3.7% in that year, and in October 2016 coal-fired plants had an average load factor of only 46%. In March 2016, the NEA ordered 13 provinces to suspend approvals of new projects until 2017, and another 15 to delay construction of new projects that had already been approved. Taken together, this required about 110 GWe of suspensions.
............

Technology has been drawn from France, Canada and Russia, with local development based largely on the French element. The latest technology acquisition has been from the USA (via Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba) and France. The State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) made the Westinghouse AP1000 the main basis of technology development in the immediate future, particularly evident in the local development of CAP1400 based on it, and more immediately the CAP1000.
...............

Reactor technology

China has set the following points as key elements of its nuclear energy policy:

  • PWRs will be the mainstream but not sole reactor type.
  • Nuclear fuel assemblies are fabricated and supplied indigenously.
  • Domestic manufacturing of plant and equipment will be maximised, with self-reliance in design and project management.
  • International cooperation is nevertheless encouraged.


The technology base for future reactors remains officially undefined, though two designs are currently predominant in construction plans: CAP1000 and Hualong One, after plans for more CPR-1000 units were scaled back post-Fukushima. Beyond them, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and fast reactors appear to be the main priorities.A major struggle between the established China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) pushing for indigenous technology and the small but well-connected State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC) favouring imported technology was won by SNPTC about 2004. In particular, SNPTC proposed use of indigenized 1000+ MWe plants with advanced third-generation technology, arising from Westinghouse AP1000 designs at Sanmen and Haiyang (see section below on Embarking upon Generation III plants). Westinghouse has agreed to transfer technology to SNPTC over the first four AP1000 units so that SNPTC can build the following ones on its own. In 2014 SNPTC signed a further agreement with Westinghouse to deepen cooperation in relation to AP1000 and CAP1400 technology globally and “establish a mutually beneficial and complementary partnership”.
..........

Westinghouse and Shaw Group (now CB&I) have an engineering, procurement, commissioning and start-up as well as project supervision contract with SNPTC, the two project companies, and others for the first four reactors (Sanmen & Haiyang), signed in July 2007. Also Shaw has a contract with State Nuclear Power Engineering Corp. Ltd (SNPEC), a SNPTC subsidiary, for technical support for the first two Dafan, Xianning units in Hubei province, including engineering and design management, project controls, quality assurance, construction management and project management.
And toss in for dessert:

There is a high level of curtailment on wind generation, because of inadequate grid connections. In 2016 some 50 TWh of potential wind output – about 20% on average and up to 50% in some provinces – was curtailed, according to the National Energy Administration, and several provinces* have been ordered to stop approving wind projects until they improve transmission infrastructure.
Foreign technology and supply of nuclear equipment, and burn baby burn that coal! More wind? Don't seem to have the infrastructure, sorry.

http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

^Everything you ever wanted to know about Chinese nuclear.^
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top