Integral Fast Reactor: Why Did Funding Stop?

[mheslep]

Yes, but the calculation mheslep and I did was a geometry calculation of the primary grade kind: the volume of the double containment building walls, simplified as cylinders, with wall thickness of 1.3 meters (times two, for the two buildings).

I will retake it here (I even think we made a mistake back then):

cylinder of 55 meters high, 48 meters diameter:

Surface of wall: pi x 48 m x 55 m = 8289 m^2

Surface of bottom = surface of roof: pi * (48m/2)^2 = 1808 m^2

Total surface = 8289 m^2 + 2 x 1808 m^2 = 11907 m^2

That, times the double thickness of 2.6 m gives us a total wall volume of:
30957 m^3

So 31 000 m^3.

How do they come at 200 000 m^3 of concrete, which is almost 7 times more ??

I assumed balance of plant might explain that - large areas of foundation and slab, though that's all relatively low strength concrete and doesn't require much steel reinforcement or rigorous inspection and regulation.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know the details, but the source says 200,000 m3 concrete for a two unit plant. Your calc of the containment concrete neglects any internal walls & floors within the containment; perhaps more importantly it neglects the auxiliary building, the tubine building, the intake structures and or cooling towers, the switchyard, the maintenence and admin buildings, parking lots, security structures etc etc...

Well, what makes the confinement building so important is the wall thickness. A cooling tower, although it is often bigger than the reactor building, uses in fact much less concrete. The largest cooling tower in the world (for a coal fired plant in Germany) is 200m high and 100 m diameter, with a wall thickness of about 0.2 m. If we make the approximation of a cylinder, then this corresponds to 200m x 3.14 x 100 m x 0.2 m = 12 560 m^3. And that's the largest one that exists. So the largest cooling tower in the world uses about 3 times less concrete than the EPR confinement building.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know the details, but the source says 200,000 m3 concrete for a two unit plant. ...

The BrucePower source says 400,000 cubic meters of concrete for a two unit plant; I optimistically called it 200k for one.

 

[mheslep]

This Flamanville construction picture gives some idea of the scale of the containment structure at its base - massive.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44516000/jpg/_44516043_nuclearflamanvilleafpg203.jpg

 

[RobertW]

Source?

D.O.E. - about 14 years estimated the cost of a sodium-cooled 1GW(e) IFR to be $985 million. Add cost of pyroprocessing cell and inflation = about $1.5 to $2 billion. Assumes IFRs are built in quantity like tract houses. Under this assumption, some of the reactor structure can be pre-cast and trucked to the construction site. Google the "STAR" and "STAR-LM" reactors for more cost info on this type of reactor construction.

 

[mheslep]

D.O.E. - about 14 years estimated the cost of a sodium-cooled 1GW(e) IFR to be $985 million. ...

An estimate that precise must be linkable somewhere at DOE? Googling at DOE gives me nothing.

 

[RobertW]

An estimate that precise must be linkable somewhere at DOE? Googling at DOE gives me nothing.

I obtained the following by Googling "STAR-LM REACTOR:
Supercritical CO2Brayton Cycle Control Strategy for Autonomous Liquid Metal-Cooled Reactors
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/840371-mR3VlE/native/840371.pdf

STAR-LM Concept
http://www.ne.anl.gov/research/ardt/hlmr/index.html

POWER OPTIMIZATION IN THE STAR-LM MODULAR NATURAL CONVECTION REACTOR SYSTEM
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/02/42316.pdf

Supercritical Steam Cycle for Lead Cooled Nuclear Systems
http://nuklear-server.ka.fzk.de/OFMS/Web%2FMain%2FPublications%2F2005%2FGLOBAL2005%2FP_C.Boehm_GLOBAL2005.pdf

Heavy Metal – Cooled Reactors: Pros and Cons
http://nucleartimes.jrc.nl/Doc/Global03final2.pdf

These will get you started. There are at least 100 papers and articles on the Secure, transportable, autonomous reactor (STAR). A STAR-LM is a liquid metal cooled fast reactor. If one were to triple or quadruple the size of of the STAR-LM and integrate a pyroprocessing cell with the reactor, one would have an IFR. There are numerous references at the end of the papers that can lead you to cost info done by someone. I don't have time to search for specific cost estimates. But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. The liquid metal ones are 99.5% efficient if the fuel is reprocessed in a co-located pyroprocessing cell. Also, the design life of the IFR can be extended to 60 years.

 

[Astronuc]

But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. The liquid metal ones are 99.5% efficient if the fuel is reprocessed in a co-located pyroprocessing cell. Also, the design life of the IFR can be extended to 60 years.

Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.

 

[mheslep]

I obtained the following by Googling "STAR-LM REACTOR:
Supercritical CO2Brayton Cycle Control Strategy for Autonomous Liquid Metal-Cooled Reactors
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/840371-mR3VlE/native/840371.pdf

STAR-LM Concept
http://www.ne.anl.gov/research/ardt/hlmr/index.html

POWER OPTIMIZATION IN THE STAR-LM MODULAR NATURAL CONVECTION REACTOR SYSTEM
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/02/42316.pdf

Supercritical Steam Cycle for Lead Cooled Nuclear Systems
http://nuklear-server.ka.fzk.de/OFMS/Web%2FMain%2FPublications%2F2005%2FGLOBAL2005%2FP_C.Boehm_GLOBAL2005.pdf

Heavy Metal – Cooled Reactors: Pros and Cons
http://nucleartimes.jrc.nl/Doc/Global03final2.pdf

These will get you started. There are at least 100 papers and articles on the Secure, transportable, autonomous reactor (STAR). A STAR-LM is a liquid metal cooled fast reactor. If one were to triple or quadruple the size of of the STAR-LM and integrate a pyroprocessing cell with the reactor, one would have an IFR. There are numerous references at the end of the papers that can lead you to cost info done by someone. I don't have time to search for specific cost estimates.

Neither do I, and all of the links above appear to be architecture oriented and not informative regards cost; the reference papers are not are generally not publicly available. Therefore,

But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. ...

I am not certain of any cost information presented here.

 

[RobertW]

Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.

Why not?

 

[RobertW]

Neither do I, and all of the links above appear to be architecture oriented and not informative regards cost; the reference papers are not are generally not publicly available. Therefore,
I am not certain of any cost information presented here.

Here is the URL - p. 83. This is where I found the cost estimates. The document was published in 2002.
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
Quite honestly, you cannot be certain about any of the info you find here. The only way you can be certain what it will cost to build an IFR is to build one - any other approach IS uncertain.

 

[mheslep]

...Heavy Metal – Cooled Reactors: Pros and Cons
http://nucleartimes.jrc.nl/Doc/Global03final2.pdf

In this source, some capital estimates are given (in reference to another source table I): $661.5/kW for a liquid metal reactor (SVBR), however it also cites in comparison $749.8/kW as the capital costs for a same size traditional PWR (VVER) and we know that is ridiculously low for a total cost, with Olkiluoto at $3,000/kW and the AP1000's in Florida quoted at $6,000/kW.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode/
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724850

 

[RobertW]

Um - no! Based on industry and personal experience.

You say no, and these folk say yes - who is right?

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrBerkeley.htm

An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) PROGRAM

 

[mheslep]

RW you stated

...But you can be certain that the construction costs will be a fraction of the costs you are estimating for PWR, LWR, or PBMR reactors and the fuel costs will be about 2% or 3% of these older designs. The liquid metal ones are 99.5% efficient if the fuel is reprocessed in a co-located pyroprocessing cell. Also, the design life of the IFR can be extended to 60 years.

- and Astronuc replied no, based on personal experience. In response you give this Argonne article:

You say no, and these folk say yes - who is right?

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrBerkeley.htm

An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) PROGRAM

and though it suggests IFRs would be more economic than existing reactors, it says very little to none at all to support the assertions you made above about 'fractional' and '2 or 3%' fuel costs.

 

[Astronuc]

Why not?

Because if one sizes and IFR to 1 GWe, it's going to take about the same amount of material (and labor) as a 1 GWe LWR. One still needs a containment structure - and one is going to throw in steam generators and a turbine/generator set - and cooling systems because one still uses a steam (Rankine) cycle.

On top of that, one will include a pyroprocessing center and fuel fabrication site if one is planning to reuse the spent fuel. That is not a trivial matter, especially if one is recycling metric ton levels. What has been done at INL is not anywhere near a commercial scale.

Also bear in mind that EBR-II was a small core/unit (~62 MWt/20 MWe) and FFTF was 400 MWt. Scaling to a ~3000 MWt IFR (~1 GWe) is not trivial.

I've seen one estimate that FFTF would cost $2-4 billion to build today, and that's probably an underestimate. FPL did an estimate earlier this year that put a twin EPR unit plant at about $12-14 billion. I think it was reported in the WSJ.

It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/

new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.

Fast reactors require specialty steels and those are alloys are quite expensive, not to mention that they have not been fabricated in the high tonnage quantities for large plants.

And given the materials problems (failures) I've seen (and been involved with) in the nuclear industry over the last 20+ years, I imagine there's still a lot of R&D to do on advanced reactor concepts.

Any IFR plant will have to get into the pipeline with all the other LWRs already ahead, so they are not going to pop up very quickly - if at all.

 

[mheslep]

...It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/...

Thanks for this link. I saw the article when it came out, but missed the very good CBO article referenced therein.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/Chapter2.5.1.shtml#1090614

CBO’s assumption about the cost of building new nuclear power plants in the United States is particularly uncertain because of the industry’s history of construction cost overruns. For the 75 nuclear power plants built in the United States between 1966 and 1986, the average actual cost of construction exceeded the initial estimates by over 200 percent (see Table 2-1). Although no new nuclear power plants were proposed after the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, utilities attempted to complete more than 40 nuclear power projects already under way. For those plants, construction cost overruns exceeded 250 percent.3

The worst case period before 3 Mi Island was 1974 to 1975, with 14 plants underway. Industry average estimate: $1,263/kW, actual $4,817/kW (281%)

 

[Astronuc]

Here's a better link to the CBO report

Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9133

One can download a pdf as opposed to the html. If one knows the 4-digit index number, one can use the doc.cfm?index to find the download page for a report.

Besides the increased cost of steel and concrete (which cost a little more for NPPs because they must be nuclear grade and certified to higher quality standards than non-nuclear facilities), there is a shortage of qualified craftsmen who can work at NPP's.


The cost overruns on the plants being construct during the late 70's and the early 80's reflect the redesigns and modifications that were imposed as a result of the fire at Browns Ferry 1 (March, 1975) and the TMI-2 failure (1979). The NSSS vendors, AE and construction contractors had to fix design deficiencies that had contributed to both accidents. And then there were big screw ups at several of the plants on top of that. And for some plants, intervenors caused delays which ran up the legal bills and interest payments. On the other hand, the intervenors wouldn't have had much of case if the industry hadn't been so sloppy.

The industry is a lot better than it used to be, and some utilities/AE's are much better than others. Still, I imagine that in some new plants, there will be costly screw ups.

 

[RobertW]

RW you stated - and Astronuc replied no, based on personal experience. In response you give this Argonne article:

and though it suggests IFRs would be more economic than existing reactors, it says very little to none at all to support the assertions you made above about 'fractional' and '2 or 3%' fuel costs.

Let's be clear about the cost of nuclear fuel - the real costs of an open fuel cycle. The real costs of an open nuclear fuel cycle include the mining and processing of uranium, the conversion of uranium into reactor fuel, the transportation costs of the fuel to and spent fuel from reactor sites, the reprocessing costs if the fuel is MOXed, the encapsulation of unuseable nuclear waste, and the storage of unuseable nuclear waste for 10,000 years or more. Now, how many of these costs could be eliminated or nearly eliminated by using an IFR with a closed fuel cycle? I can't prove my estimate is correct and you can't prove it is wrong - neither of us have sufficient emperical data. However, the IFR closed fuel cycle, from a simple economics point of view, should greatly reduce the real costs of nuclear fuel.

 

[RobertW]

Because if one sizes and IFR to 1 GWe, it's going to take about the same amount of material (and labor) as a 1 GWe LWR. One still needs a containment structure - and one is going to throw in steam generators and a turbine/generator set - and cooling systems because one still uses a steam (Rankine) cycle.

On top of that, one will include a pyroprocessing center and fuel fabrication site if one is planning to reuse the spent fuel. That is not a trivial matter, especially if one is recycling metric ton levels. What has been done at INL is not anywhere near a commercial scale.

Also bear in mind that EBR-II was a small core/unit (~62 MWt/20 MWe) and FFTF was 400 MWt. Scaling to a ~3000 MWt IFR (~1 GWe) is not trivial.

I've seen one estimate that FFTF would cost $2-4 billion to build today, and that's probably an underestimate. FPL did an estimate earlier this year that put a twin EPR unit plant at about $12-14 billion. I think it was reported in the WSJ.

It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/
Fast reactors require specialty steels and those are alloys are quite expensive, not to mention that they have not been fabricated in the high tonnage quantities for large plants.

And given the materials problems (failures) I've seen (and been involved with) in the nuclear industry over the last 20+ years, I imagine there's still a lot of R&D to do on advanced reactor concepts.

Any IFR plant will have to get into the pipeline with all the other LWRs already ahead, so they are not going to pop up very quickly - if at all.

I enjoyed the "It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman" article, but I believe the author's views to be myopic. There is more to consider than the cost increase of nuclear reactors. What about the cost of national security, the economic future of the U.S., and the alternative uses of nuclear energy. Boone Pickens estimated that the U.S. would pay $700 billion for foreign oil if oil stayed at $150 per barrel. Let's assume that oil will settle at about $50 per barrel for the next year or two, and then start to increase again - oil consumption is increasing exponentially and there is a corresponding decrease in supply - the price will go up. If oil is at $50 per barrel, that means that the U.S. will pay about $230 billion per year for foreign oil - using Pickens' figures. The cost of oil is passed on to consumers; this cost has the same effect as a tax on consumers and is a serious drag on our economy. Now assume that 12 one-GW(e) reactors (Brayton Cycle IFRs of course) are built in the shale fields of the west-central U.S. It is estimated that there are one trillion barrels of oil locked in shale in this portion of the U.S. Let's assume further that the electricity produced by these reactors is used to heat the oil shale in the manner described in the Shell in situ conversion process - see: http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/mrp_technology.html

The heat produced by these 12 reactors could yield 10 to 12 million barrels of shale oil per day at a cost of about $20 to $25 per barrel if the government provided the reactors. If shale oil is extracted at a cost of $25 per barrel and oil is selling on the open market at $50 per barrel, that would save the U.S. about $115 billion per year. If the reactors each cost $20 billion, they would pay for themselves in about six years (the shale has to be heated for 3 to 4 years before it produces oil and natural gas). The savings would continue for as many years as the U.S. imports this amount of oil. If the cost of oil goes up, the amount of savings will increase. Nuclear power cannot replace gas in cars, but nuclear power can help put gasoline in cars.

I believe the rapid rise in reactor costs is due to an increase in the perceived risk associated with building nuclear power plants in the U.S. Some of the increased risk is prompted by the general public's fear of nuclear power and their associated reactions to nuclear power plants. Our concern about the cost of nuclear energy should be balanced against the consequences of not developing more nuclear power. In the future, I believe it will not be the cost of labor that determines which country is dominant in the world. Rather, the country that will dominate in the world will be the country that can furnish all of its energy needs at the lowest possible cost.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Let's be clear about the cost of nuclear fuel - the real costs of an open fuel cycle. The real costs of an open nuclear fuel cycle include the mining and processing of uranium, the conversion of uranium into reactor fuel, the transportation costs of the fuel to and spent fuel from reactor sites, the reprocessing costs if the fuel is MOXed, the encapsulation of unuseable nuclear waste, and the storage of unuseable nuclear waste for 10,000 years or more. Now, how many of these costs could be eliminated or nearly eliminated by using an IFR with a closed fuel cycle? I can't prove my estimate is correct and you can't prove it is wrong - neither of us have sufficient emperical data. However, the IFR closed fuel cycle, from a simple economics point of view, should greatly reduce the real costs of nuclear fuel.

These are all very valid points. However, the economic advantages of the IFR will be realized only when competing with plants using once-through fuel. If the world were to eventually replace its nuclear plants with IFRs, the demand for new U fuel would drop dramatically. This would result in the price of U going down to a level that would make all but the richest deposits economic to mine.

A few hundred miles north of where I live is the world's richest uranium deposit at MacArthur River, Saskatchewan. It is 24% U. Every load of ore that is hauled to the mill is worth about half a million dollars. This single deposit could supply the world with Uranium to generate all of the world's electricity for several hundred years if all of the world's electricity were produced by IFR's.

AM

 

[vanesch]

These are all very valid points. However, the economic advantages of the IFR will be realized only when competing with plants using once-through fuel. If the world were to eventually replace its nuclear plants with IFRs, the demand for new U fuel would drop dramatically. This would result in the price of U going down to a level that would make all but the richest deposits economic to mine.

A few hundred miles north of where I live is the world's richest uranium deposit at MacArthur River, Saskatchewan. It is 24% U. Every load of ore that is hauled to the mill is worth about half a million dollars. This single deposit could supply the world with Uranium to generate all of the world's electricity for several hundred years if all of the world's electricity were produced by IFR's.

AM

I would even add, there would be NO reason to mine any uranium anymore for a few thousands of years. The actual "waste" and depleted uranium that we already have are largely sufficient. Switching to IFR style reactors would put an end to uranium mining for power purposes.

 

[mheslep]

... Now assume that 12 one-GW(e) reactors (Brayton Cycle IFRs of course) are built in the shale fields of the west-central U.S. It is estimated that there are one trillion barrels of oil locked in shale in this portion of the U.S. Let's assume further that the electricity produced by these reactors is used to heat the oil shale in the manner described in the Shell in situ conversion process - see: http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/mrp_technology.html

The heat produced by these 12 reactors could yield 10 to 12 million barrels of shale oil per day at a cost of about $20 to $25 per barrel if the government provided the reactors. If shale oil is extracted at a cost of $25 per barrel and oil is selling on the open market at $50 per barrel, that would save the U.S. about $115 billion per year. If the reactors each cost $20 billion, they would pay for themselves in about six years (the shale has to be heated for 3 to 4 years before it produces oil and natural gas). The savings would continue for as many years as the U.S. imports this amount of oil. If the cost of oil goes up, the amount of savings will increase. Nuclear power cannot replace gas in cars, but nuclear power can help put gasoline in cars. .

That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/35060.pdf (page ES-4, trough costs)

 

[mheslep]

Just announced US energy chief and nobel laureate Steven Chu on fast reactors this past year in a public talk:

...There is a possibility for greatly reducing the waste of nuclear fission by having a small fraction, about 20-25% of the fission reactors use a fast spectrum – high energy neutrons, and what that does is it burns down the long lived waste to much shorter lived waste and it also converts some of the fuel, which can be used. That technology is not deployable today. The generation of nuclear reactors that are now being designed are much, much safer than old, but that new technology - the fast neutrons - is less safe...

starting at 1:36


in the same talk:

...Nuclear won't be a major factor no matter what, because of the money issue. ...
Its about 20% in the US, it will go down I think...

 

[RobertW]

Just announced US energy chief and nobel laureate Steven Chu on fast reactors this past year in a public talk:

starting at 1:36


in the same talk:

I would love to hear Chu debate Dr. Charles Till (one of the inventors of the IFR) about the IFR - INL had everything working, they just wanted to tweak the pyroprocessing a bit. Yes, one has been built, but Clinton & Co. made them tear it down.

 

[vanesch]

When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.

I actually agree with you. That's why I find it also strange that people would consider nuclear plants in hot desert countries to do desalination of seawater...

Concerning Chu's interview, it is a pity that even a guy like this resorts to "well-known" urban legends about nuclear power. What on Earth would make him think that fast breeders *have to be* less safe than PWR ? He's right of course that that technology is not immediately commercially deployable, it will take still some prototyping and engineering which might take 10 years or so, before a commercial series can be designed. That was already the case in the 80-ies. One could have had such a series by 2000 if development had continued. Of course, as long as you don't DO it, it will remain 10 years. If we don't do it for 20 more years, in 2030, it will still be 10 years away of course.

 

[Astronuc]

That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.

Cost and uncertainty will always win out.

For shale oil processing, one would simply use the thermal energy (process heat) directly rather than generate electricity and use that for energy, or perhaps there would be a hybrid system, using both process heat and electricity generated. The deciding factor would be most efficient way to get heat to where it would be used in the shale formation.

The other factor to consider is the matter of keeping radioactive products out of the environment, and this matter is of critical importance in NPP design.

The disadvantage of solar is the daily cycle which impacts availability.

 

[sloughter]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary. Since a base load IFR program would have eliminated the need for the Hot Fusion Program at MIT (Sort of the AC/DC debate 100 years ago), the most obvious beneficiaries of closing down the research would have been MIT. No other Senators tried as hard as Senator Kerry to shut down the program. Perhaps he was just protecting his constituents.

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.

 

[sloughter]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:

1)Site the reactor complex on the Hudson Bay,
2)Form the Canadian-American Corporation (CANAM). I envision a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors. CANAM does everything but build the plants. They buy the land, perhaps as much as 100 square miles along the Hudson Bay. They do the environmental impact statements over 20 years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. They put in the railroads. They establish the transmission corridors. They build perhaps the first dozen light-water plants i.e. existing nuclear technology.

If the reactor complex is never approved, then the dozen or so plants can crack hydrogen with electrolysis, or more efficiently with high temperature gas cooled reactors. Then they serve as the respository for all toxic, biological and solid waste from Montreal, Canada, Chicago, New York and Boston. They will process 10,000-100,000 tons of solid waste/day. Waste goes in and the cheapest steel anywhere in the world (free oxygen), metal hydrides (solid hydrogen), ingots of glass, rolls of aluminum, sheets of plastic and various and sundry metals come out.

The project requires that all the treaties necessary for the project be worked out and get indemnity from any future legal challenges without a 2/3 vote of Congress.

CANAM recoups its investment by taxing the electricity and the worker's wages. The power companies just build power plants. If the reactor complex is approved it could generate 1,500-3,000 gigawatts of power.

Here are the cost savings of the project.

1)CANAM provides a stable economic environment---utilities need stability. They don't want or need another Shoreham,

2)Spread out over 1000 plants, the environmental impact statements would cost only $10 million/plant,

3)The Hudson Bay thermal sink permits once through cooling, the cheapest kind of cooling,

4)Standardized design---there are no separate designs for each plant as has been the case for nuclear power plants in this country.

5)Pre-fabricated construction. These smaller plants (300-500mW) are already predicted to be built in three years instead of the existing ten; seven years of extra power generation matters. Their components will be carried by rail,

6)A stable work force. Since this project would be operational for at least 100 years, we can predict that we would be able to approximate the assembly line approach by shuttling clusters of workers from construction site to construction site. They might work on as many as a dozen plants in any given year,

7)Elimination of the need for Yucca Mountain. The IFR can burn up all the radioactive wastes from existing light-water reactors; this would save about $100 billion,

8)The high temperature gas cooled reactors, in tandem can generate 50% more hydrogen than electrolysis by using a patented process involving copper and chlorine,

9)A "Ponzi" scheme to lure investors to come on board early; they get a cut of the action of every power plant built later in the complex,

10)Saving in line losses by perfecting high-temperature superconductivity over the next several decades,

11)Charging other utilities and other countries to dispose of their wastes from light-water reactors,

12)Since the reactor complex will serve as a sink for all special nuclear materials, the cost of the fuel should be inexpensive as the complex acquires, among other sources, all the plutonium left over from decommisssioned nuclear warheads,

13)The residual IFR radioactive wastes require sequestration in the 100's of years, not 10,000's of years. That waste can be enclosed in a silica gel and injected by hydrofracturing at great depth where it is allowed to die with practically no environmental effects.

Does anyone think that this project would be uneconomic?

Relative to the other types of reactors in current use, IFRs of the EBRII design are the safest reactors in the world at this time. The Russians have had a fast neutron reactor in continuous operation on their power grid since 1981. The world has about 290 reactor-years of experience with fast neutron reactors. See:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

The IFR negative that comes to mind first is that the "fuel reprocessing cell" is costly. However, the cost of creating huge water reserviors for cooling light water reactors is also costly. Considering the safety advantage in not having to transport highly radioactive fuels on our highways and railroads, I believe the fuel reprocessing cell is worth its cost.

Another problem with metal-cooled reactors is that the liquid metals, particularly lead, used for cooling may cause problems with the piping used in the reactor. For example, liquid lead can leach some of the metal from the piping. I understand MIT has done research on the leaching problem with highly favorable results. MIT found that chromium and nickel alloys are very resistant to leaching.

I would like to know if you have found anything else WRONG with the IFR.

 

[mheslep]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:
...

Send it to Sec. Chu and ask for stimulus grant. DOE has $4.29B of the supposedly urgently needed stimulus budget and so far has spent $46M, 1%.
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/agency-summary&agency_code=89

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:


2)Form the Canadian-American Corporation (CANAM). I envision a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors. CANAM does everything but build the plants. They buy the land, perhaps as much as 100 square miles along the Hudson Bay. They do the environmental impact statements over 20 years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. They put in the railroads. They establish the transmission corridors. They build perhaps the first dozen light-water plants i.e. existing nuclear technology.

If the reactor complex is never approved, then the dozen or so plants can crack hydrogen with electrolysis, or more efficiently with high temperature gas cooled reactors. Then they serve as the respository for all toxic, biological and solid waste from Montreal, Canada, Chicago, New York and Boston. They will process 10,000-100,000 tons of solid waste/day. Waste goes in and the cheapest steel anywhere in the world (free oxygen), metal hydrides (solid hydrogen), ingots of glass, rolls of aluminum, sheets of plastic and various and sundry metals come out.

The project requires that all the treaties necessary for the project be worked out and get indemnity from any future legal challenges without a 2/3 vote of Congress.

CANAM recoups its investment by taxing the electricity and the worker's wages. The power companies just build power plants. If the reactor complex is approved it could generate 1,500-3,000 gigawatts of power.

In addition to approval of the US government, one also needs approval of the Canadian government.

Here are the cost savings of the project.

There is no indication of cost savings. There are claims without any technical or financial basis.

2)Spread out over 1000 plants, the environmental impact statements would cost only $10 million/plant,

3)The Hudson Bay thermal sink permits once through cooling, the cheapest kind of cooling,

4)Standardized design---there are no separate designs for each plant as has been the case for nuclear power plants in this country.

5)Pre-fabricated construction. These smaller plants (300-500mW) are already predicted to be built in three years instead of the existing ten; seven years of extra power generation matters. Their components will be carried by rail,

6)A stable work force. Since this project would be operational for at least 100 years, we can predict that we would be able to approximate the assembly line approach by shuttling clusters of workers from construction site to construction site. They might work on as many as a dozen plants in any given year,

7)Elimination of the need for Yucca Mountain. The IFR can burn up all the radioactive wastes from existing light-water reactors; this would save about $100 billion,

8)The high temperature gas cooled reactors, in tandem can generate 50% more hydrogen than electrolysis by using a patented process involving copper and chlorine,

9)A "Ponzi" scheme to lure investors to come on board early; they get a cut of the action of every power plant built later in the complex,

10)Saving in line losses by perfecting high-temperature superconductivity over the next several decades,

11)Charging other utilities and other countries to dispose of their wastes from light-water reactors,

12)Since the reactor complex will serve as a sink for all special nuclear materials, the cost of the fuel should be inexpensive as the complex acquires, among other sources, all the plutonium left over from decommisssioned nuclear warheads,

13)The residual IFR radioactive wastes require sequestration in the 100's of years, not 10,000's of years. That waste can be enclosed in a silica gel and injected by hydrofracturing at great depth where it is allowed to die with practically no environmental effects.

Does anyone think that this project would be uneconomic?

2.) 1,500-3,000 gigawatts / 1000 plants = 1.5-3 GW (1500 - 3000 MW) vs These smaller plants (300-500mW)? One means 300-500 MW/plant?

3.) What are the consequences of pouring 1000's GW of thermal energy into Hudson Bay.

4.) Standardization is fine.

5.) Westinghouse project 3.5 years for an AP-1000 plants. AREVA estimate 5 yrs (60 months) for construction of the EPR, but there are quality problems and delays at Flamanville-3 and Olkiluoto-3. Make sure contractors and labor are qualified.

6.) Sounds like a plan

7.) Still need a waste repository for the vitrified waste which encapsulates the various fission products: Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu

8.) Hydrogen production currently assumes a S-I process. Please provide the US patent number for Cu-Cl process.

9.) Good luck with the "Ponzi" scheme. It sounds illegal.

10.) Don't count of superconducting transmission lines. Cooling the lines would be costly.

11.) Cost/benefit. Perhaps the countries will sell their spent fuel to whomever offers the best price.

12.) WG-Pu is already target for MOX in LWRs. I doubt the Russians will provide their WG-Pu to such a group. They have been uncooperative with the current program.

13.) Don't count on it.


One has not made a case for the economics.

 

[sloughter]

Let me meet you 80% of the way. How about a combination of just enough IFR's to breed plutonium for the cheapest, safest power plants and enough of them to burn up all other special nuclear material? Clearly, there is not enough uranium to meet the needs of 3,000 gigawatts of installed light-water reactors.

According to George S. Stanford in his article on the IFR, their wastes need only a few hundred years of sequestration. As I indicated these can be injected under extremely high pressures within a silica gel medium at depths of 3-5 kilometers. There will be minimal impacts on the environment.

As far as safety:
1)No terrorists could overrun the facility,
2)No unauthorized planes could access the facility; there will be an airstrip with fighter jets and the complex will be ringed with surface to air missiles. Besides, why would terrorist target something so remote from population centers?

Now for my safety designs:

A)A multi national multi billion dollar hazmat team will be assembled. They will serve 1/3 of their time at the facility, 1/3 third of their time in their country of origin, and 1/3 of their time off,

B)There are five barriers to keep the plutonium out of the human biosphere,

First, the internal loop of the IFR,
Second, because the plant will be fully automated with only a small staff in the control room, I recommend keeping the plant under positive CO^2 pressure. This will prevent any fires caused by the sodium burning in air,
Third, the containment vessel itself,
Fourth, in the event of a breach of the containment vesse, have dozens of drones fly though the radioactive cloud with either dry ice to cool off the cloud and chelation agents to force the metals out of the cloud where they can be cleaned up on the ground by the Hazmat team,
Fifth, The nearest major city will be over 1000 km away. Distance is a safety feature

Here are additional cost savings I haven't mentioned,

1)The enhanced Carnot Cycle compared to say a thermal plant in Florida. Probably the additional cooling might result in a 1% improvement in terms of efficiency. That would amount to the equivalent of getting 30,000mW of installed capacity for free, or about enough to meet the electrical damands of New York State. This is offset by the increased cost of construction (hostile environment/high labor costs)

2)Taconite, an iron ore, comes from the Lake Superior region. This could be converted into cheap steel by using cheap ore, free oxygen, cheap electricty and state-of-the-art steel mills circa 2030. This will be the cheapest steel anywhere in the world,

3)All the necessary manufacturing facilities can be built on site i.e. every piece of equipment and all the components of the plants can be built on site e.g. the turbines. Transportation costs drop to zero,

4)It should be possible to retire all coal-fired plants, natural gas plants and all old light-water reactors. For the first two, anyway, this would free up thousands of acres of land for commercial and residential development,

5)Charging tipping fees to process solid waste. Then, using the most aggressive recycling techniques, scavange all metals, all glass and all plastics. Burn up any organic compounds that cannot be salvaged.

6)Using electric arc furnaces it should be possible to turn all biological wastes and toxic wastes into harmless elements. Again, the complex will charge a premium for doing this,

7)Spent fuel rods may be a liability or an asset,

Now, to your other issues,

1)Clearly a mix of 2500 installed light-water capacity with 500mW of IFR makes sense,

2)The $10 billion EIS's mean superb data and computer models. If thermal load form the reactors is a problem, then go to cooling towers. My guess is, though, that the thermal burden even from 7500 gigawatt thermal will raise the temperature of Hudson Bay maybe 1/2 degree,

3)I only read the patent once and couldn't get back to it with a search. Don't know where it is on line, now. Sorry,

4)We have a firm in Schenectady working on high temperature superconductivity. Bismuth is looking promising,

5)A Ponzi scheme is only illegal when it is opaque. Here it is transparent i.e. the utilities who risk less, pay more. This is good old fashioned Capitalism,

The greatest legacy baby boomers (Who have engaged in gourmand spending, sucking up the world's natural resources, despoiled the environment, bankrupted social security and Medicare) is cheap energy. This is the least we can do for them.

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.

 

[Morbius]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary. Since a base load IFR program would have eliminated the need for the Hot Fusion Program at MIT (Sort of the AC/DC debate 100 years ago), the most obvious beneficiaries of closing down the research would have been MIT. No other Senators tried as hard as Senator Kerry to shut down the program. Perhaps he was just protecting his constituents.

sloughter,

I very sincerely doubt that Kerry opposed the IFR at the behest of MIT. Both Massachusetts US
Senators; Kerry and Kennedy are intensely anti-nuclear. In fact, MIT has had lots of trouble
from both of them because they have worked to have MIT's nuclear reactor shutdown.

Additionally, I don't see why the IFR and hot fusion should be at odds. You don't put all your eggs
in one basket - there's plenty of need to research both concepts.

NO - as Dr. Till explains in his interview with Frontline; the shutdown of the IFR program began with
President Clinton and VP Al Gore. President Clinton's main adviser on energy and environmental
policy was VP Al Gore who was in charge of energy policy. Senator Kerry was just the "point man" in
the Senate doing the bidding of the President of the same political party. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"The decision was made in the early weeks of the Clinton administration. It was tempered somewhat in the
Department of Energy in that first year. Congress then acted to keep the program alive in that first year.
And then in the second year of the Clinton administration, the decision to really reinforce the earlier
decisions was made final, and the Administration put a very considerable effort into assuring successfully
that the IFR would be canceled."

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0509till.html

"The end of the IFR was signaled in Bill Clinton's second State of the Union address in early 1994. ...
The new Clinton Administration had brought back into power many of the best-known anti-nuclear
advocates...In 1994, Democrats were in the majority in both houses of Congress. Anti-nuclear advocates
were also settling into key positions in the Department of Energy, the department that controlled IFR
funding. Other anti-nuclear people were now in place in the office of the President's science advisor, in
policy positions elsewhere in the Administration, and in the White House itself."

From President Clinton's first State of the Union address:

http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/clinton-1.html

"Our budget will, by 1997, cut 140 billion dollars from the deficit – one of the greatest real spending cuts by an
American president. We are making more than 150 difficult, painful reductions which will cut federal spending
by 246 billion dollars. We are eliminating programs that are no longer needed, such as nuclear power
research and development. We are slashing subsidies and canceling wasteful projects..."

The person most responsible for the shutdown of the IFR program was not Kerry, and was not
Hazel O'Leary. President Clinton gave Al Gore the assignment of "Reinventing Government"
and to slash spending on "unnecessary programs". One of the programs Al Gore determined was
"unnecessary" and needed to be terminated was the IFR. The people most responsible were Bill Clinton
and Al Gore.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary..

sloughter,

The Wikipedia Integral Fast Reactor article states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

"With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the
Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and
O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, ..."

As Dr. Till states in his Frontline interview, the non-proliferation concerns about IFR are just plain wrong:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"Q: The argument most put on the Senate floor was that the IFR increases the risks of proliferation.

A: Yes. Well, it doesn't. As simply as that. There's no technical reason why one would make that
argument. In order to produce weapons, you have to produce pure plutonium. The IFR process will
not do that..."

It was one of the USA's own nuclear weapons design laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory; that told the Clinton Administration that the IFR was not a proliferation threat as two
US Senators wrote the New York Times to say. The original New York Times editorial stated:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/opinion/unnecessary-nuclear-relics.html

The B-2 is wasteful, but the new nuclear reactor is downright wrong. It was originally designed as a
breeder reactor, which produces more plutonium than it consumes. At a time when the world is worried
about nuclear proliferation and cannot keep track of the tons of plutonium it already has, producing more
of this critical ingredient in bombs is perverse.

Financing the Integral Fast Reactor would send the wrong signal to Japan and others who are planning to
produce more plutonium to fuel nuclear power plants.

The Senators' response:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

"You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates
plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A
recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more
proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium...

Senator Paul Simon
Senator Dirk Kempthorne

Unfortunately, when the answer the scientists gives to the politicians is not to the politician's liking;
then the politicians completely ignore the scientists and go on record with an argument that the scientists
have told them is just flat out WRONG.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sloughter]

Much as I would like to believe that Senator Kerry's motivations are pure, I feel constrained to point out: Big tobacco told you that nicotine was not addictive. Big coal told you that CO^2 does not cause global warming. Big physics told you that the IFR was a threat to non-proliferation.

Where did Kerry get the idea that the IFR led to nuclear proliferation? Since the MIT hot fusion scientists stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants (Why would we need a future source of base load power, when we already had a functioning source of base load power, the IFR?), they had spectacular reasons to give Kerry bogus advice.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Senator Kerry, the old non-proliferation Senator, actually caused the spread of nuclear weapony and nuclear proliferation because of his opposition to the IFR? This is the view of Charles E. Till. 2006. Plentiful Energy and the Integral Fast Reactor. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR GOVERNANCE, ECONOMY AND ECOLOGY, 1,2, 212-221. "The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) was a concept that promised inexhaustible, clean, safe, proliferation-resistant energy...The development of the IFR was abandoned by the US Government in 1994, as it neared completion, because too many in the US Congress and Administration did not understand its potential to help control the spread of nuclear weapons."

Who benefited from this confusion? Do you really believe that the hot fusion scientists who stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants had no motive to lie to Senator Kerry? As for Kerry: Was he oblivious to the motivation of scientists whose livelihood was on the line who stood to gain the most by stifling the opposition?QUOTE=Astronuc;1621304]Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.[/QUOTE]

 

[sloughter]

Surprise, surprise---Two Senators from Massachusetts are intensely anti-nuclear. And who are their constituents? Hot fusion scientists at MIT. Do you really believe that these two Senators, non-scientists, when they are told by a bunch of PhD's that nuclear power is dangerous, they would question them? Think about it. The hot fusion program has been in operation for what, about 35 years? What if we had gone the way of France and gotten 70% of our electricity from light-water reactors? Why would we need the hot fusion program at MIT? For 35 years, MIT physicists have undoubtedly been putting a bug in the ear of both Kennedy and Kerry how dangerous nuclear power is. Oooh the dreaded meltdown, the China Syndrome. Oooh---the threat of nuclear proliferation and the spread of nuclear weapony. It is a very effective ploy.

Has anyone done a worst case scenario for wind comparable to a worst case scenario for nuclear? I have. Here it is. Suppose we have 5% of our electricity coming out of the wind corridor in the center of the U.S. All of a sudden a massive high pressure center settles over New Orleans for two weeks, a once in a million year occurrence. This sends hot, moist air at the end of July into 1,000,000 square miles in the center of the U.S. This produces the highest heat indices ever seen over that area. The wind dies. Electrical output goes from 50,000mW to 2500mW. Now for the worst case scenario--75% of the backup gas-fired generators fail. Isn't that what they do with nuclear power plants? We have a shortfall of 45,000mW of installed capacity and a massive increase in demand for air conditioning. Guess what? The grid collapses and a massive blackout grips the center of the U.S. 100 million people bake in their homes with nowhere to go. I was kicked out of WalMart, because in a power outage they had no backup generators. 1,000,000 people die of heat stroke, mostly the elderly, infirm and babies.

Oh, by the way, this is 1000 times more likely than a nuclear meltdown killing 10,000 people. And we're worried about the China Syndrome??

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.