The Nuclear Power Thread

In summary, the author opposes Germany's plan to phase out nuclear power and argues that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. He also argues that nuclear power is a good solution to a number of issues, including air pollution, the waste situation, and the lack of an available alternative fuel. He also notes that the research into nuclear power has been done in the past, and that there are potential solutions to the waste problem.
  • #141
joelupchurch said:
I checked the reference and the Westinghouse CEO did say that:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_575073.html" ..
I only check this reference - it says China wants 100, not bought. I've never gotten a volume discount for wanting anything (so far)

Regards the US plants, even Vogle in Georgia is bit early to call an order. The utility and the state utility commission have given the go ahead, but the NRC doesn't give final signoff until 2011, if then. So ground breaking is several years away, if if happens.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html
I hope it does go ahead, but I expect this administration won't let it happen - not in 2011 anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #142
mheslep said:
I only check this reference - it says China wants 100, not bought. I've never gotten a volume discount for wanting anything (so far)

Regards the US plants, even Vogle in Georgia is bit early to call an order. The utility and the state utility commission have given the go ahead, but the NRC doesn't give final signoff until 2011, if then. So ground breaking is several years away, if if happens.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html
I hope it does go ahead, but I expect this administration won't let it happen - not in 2011 anyway.

If the Chinese build 100 AP1000 plants, I'm not sure if Westinghouse cares if they see much money from them. There is a whole international supply chain being built for the AP1000. This gives them a lot of leverage when they are bidding against Areva and GE. That's assuming that Westinghouse only licensed the design for construction in China.

The second point is probably valid. The NRC just announced a delay in licensing the AP1000 because Westinghouse hadn't answered all their questions about the sump design.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/a-nuclear-renaissance-stumbles-forward/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
Am I Reading This Right?

DOE Has $40M for Design and Development of Next Gen Nuclear Plants

The $40 million funding announcement made today will support phase one activities including the development of cost-shared conceptual designs, cost and schedule estimates and a business plan for integrating Phase 2 activities. The data gathered in Phase 1 will be used to determine if Phase 2 should continue. Applications for receiving funds from the $40 million are due by November 16 and the DOE expects to make two awards in February 2010 with each supporting a unique reactor concept.

A demonstration plant is expected to be produced by 2021.

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16304

$40 million to be split in half for two separate research projects? They are spending billions to bail out dubious investors and then they are giving out jump change for the development of NGNPs?

That's a slap in the face...
 
  • #144
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on gas turbine modular helium reactors (GT-MHR). I recently came across the technology and found it very interesting but wasn't able to find many details on it. Some details can be found here, http://gt-mhr.ga.com/" . How does this technology compare to AP1000 reactors?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Some info on GA's MHR.

http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/MISCONF06/A25381.pdf


Some info on GT-MHR:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/0863E2E6-0F70-4843-B2C0-541EC6CD8F59/0/gtmhr.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/labar.htm

http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969/1531/etd-tamu-2004C-NUEN-Cocheme.pdf?sequence=1 (particulars on core and fuel are on pages 38-46)


Operational Parameters on the Gen IV Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor

Code: 
Reactor power                      600 MWth
Net plant efficiency               48% (direct cycle helium)
                                    
Coolant inlet/outlet temperature   490°C/850°C
  and pressure                     90 bar
Average power density              100 MWth/m3
Reference fuel compound            UPuC/SiC (70/30%)
                                    with about 20% Pu content
Volume fraction,Fuel/Gas/SiC       50/40/10%
Conversion ratio                   Self-sufficient
Burnup, Damage                     5% FIMA; 60 dpa

Ref: http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
5% FIMA is about 51-52 GWd/tHM, which is comparable to discharge burnups in modern LWRs.

Fast reactors can achieve much higher burnup ~100 GWd/tHM, or about 10% FIMA.

The GT-MHR unit would produce 288 MWe based on 0.48 * 600 MWt.


In contrast, the AP-1000 produces ~3400 MWt (~1100 MWe) using 157 fuel assemblies. The fuel is a 14-ft (4.27 m) 17x17 fuel design, which is typical of STNP or French REP1300 or N4 reactor fuel designs.

The AP-1000 produces approximately the same power (~3411 MWt, without uprate) as a standard Westinghouse 4-loop 17x17 plant with a 12-ft core of 193 assemblies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #146
tmyer2107 said:
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on gas turbine modular helium reactors (GT-MHR). I recently came across the technology and found it very interesting but wasn't able to find many details on it. Some details can be found here, http://gt-mhr.ga.com/" . How does this technology compare to AP1000 reactors?
Reading the GA material suggests the major difference is simply the He cooling instead of water, which provides:
o high temperature operation and a Brayton cycle
o no corrosion potential from the coolant
o no phase change (water - steam - water) complications, reducing the size/cost of the balance of plant.
I can't find a reference, but I expect the fuel is still enriched U. Graphite encased.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
Just to add this, I don't know if it is true but I heard that France was working on a way to reactivate, and reuse the nuclear waste that is produced by the nclear plants.
 
  • #149
Forbes - Where The Jobs Are: Nuclear Plant Work

Atomic power is coming back, and so are the jobs to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/12/nuclear-power-jobs-leadership-careers-employment.html

America hasn't built a new nuclear plant in three decades. That's about to change. With 28 license applications pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and construction likely to begin on at least four plants within the next five years, companies like Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Areva, URS and the Shaw Group are staffing up, according to Edward Quinn, a past president of the American Nuclear Society, a nuclear power industry group.

The jobs aren't just for nuclear engineers. In fact, only 5% to 10% of the employees who work on a plant hold a nuclear engineering degree, says Quinn. Those specialists work on the core, which uses nuclear technology. There are plenty of other types of engineers employed at nuclear plants and the companies that service, design and construct them, including civil, mechanical and electrical engineers. Beyond engineers, there are a slew of jobs for workers in the construction trades, from welders to grinders. There's also plenty to do for electricians, pipe fitters, iron workers, carpenters and boiler makers.

. . . .
 
  • #150
  • #151
The NRC is waiting on utilities.

The ABWR and AP1000 are certified although there are some open issues.
 
  • #152
Astronuc said:
The NRC is waiting on utilities.
Eh? Waiting on them for what? The power companies submitted the applications for the 17 of these plants years ago.
 
  • #153
Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html
Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.
. . . .
"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.

He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.
. . . .
 
  • #154
Astronuc said:
Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html
The small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.
  • The B&W reactor would be built at the factory by one company, so the NRC can focus its attention there, and pay less attention to the construction process of every site contractor as there is at the large reactor projects.
  • It is underground. I forget at the moment, but decades ago one of the icons of nuclear physics said commercial reactors should probably be buried. Finally. Burial should reduce the requirements of the containment structure, and ease public fears.
  • On site, inside the containment structure storage of waste and new fuel reduces maintenance, and reduces much of the to/from transport of fuel/waste. Relieves the pressure of the waste issue until better approaches are found.
  • Small size equals smaller cost, so no more bankrupt nuclear utilities leaving the public holding the bag.
  • No water supply required.

I certainly hope it receives due attention.
 
  • #155
If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas? I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people.

What kind of mining practices are needed to mine thorium? I did a quik google search but didn't come up with anything.
 
  • #156
DnD Addict said:
If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas?
Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution.
I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people.
I'm not sure what overlap you're seeing, but it may just be a biproduct of radical environmentalists being the most prominent opponents of nuclear power (that's basically by definition) and essentially all radical environmentalists are AGW proponents. For the rest of the population, I'd be surprised if there is much of a corellation.

[edit] Meh, the logic may be even more basic: AGW=bad for the environment, nuclear power is perceived as bad for the environment, therefore opponents of nuclear power will tend to be proponents of AGW theory.
 
  • #157
mheslep said:
The small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.

I certainly hope it receives due attention.
The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis, so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.
 
  • #158
It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?
 
  • #159
DnD Addict said:
It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?
Gas plants are primarily peaking units. When the price of gas surged a few years ago, they actually became uneconomical to operate.

Most BWRs in the US have gone to 24 month cycles and are generally run as baseload, and many have been uprated on the order of 15-20% of the last two decades. Large capacity units are most economical as baseload - high capacity factor.

Nuclear plants compete primarily with coal. Natural gas plants generally are more competitive in terms of capital cost, and getting them online.
 
  • #160
If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways?

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ?
 
  • #161
DnD Addict said:
If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways?
Part of that is the fuel costs, and O&M. The new Gen 3+ plants, at least the AP1000, is supposed to have less piping and wiring, and a smaller footprint. On the other hand, cost of steel and concrete has driven up capital costs. The thing about coal is the ash-waste with its heavy metal content. In some cases, the material is just dumped rather disposed of as hazardous waste.

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ?
In some Gen-IV systems, they are looking at process heat/energy, e.g., for producing hydrogen. The higher the operating temperature, the more deleterious the environment is on materials. I certainly question the 'realism' behind Gen-IV.
 
  • #162
russ_watters said:
The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis,
Agreed.
so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.
Perhaps, but doesn't necessarily follow. It may be that people will much more readily accept a small reactor that is buried out of sight, couldn't do as much damage even given some fantastic failure scheme, only has to have fuel or waste transport once every 60 years (if ever after startup), and doesn't need to be sited on some prime river or lake front property. Also since the small reactor construction time is so much faster (built off site) there's less time for mischief law suits and mauling in the agenda press.
 
  • #163
russ_watters said:
Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution...
Well in the US at least. Overseas (Asia) nuclear has been much less expensive, highlighting the political cost attached nuclear in the US. Wind power in the wind belt is more or less competitive with natural gas.
 
  • #164
DnD Addict said:
It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

The reason units (of any type) are operated as base load is because they are the cheapest to operate at that time. Nuclear units are perfectly capable of daily load following, but the Utility companies don't operate them that way - because at any time of day or night, they are the cheapest to run (once the company has made the significant investment required to build the unit). What makes the most sense at any given moment is the operating cost, not the capital cost, which has already been spent. The reason the nuclear units have a low operating cost is that the fuel is practically free. Compared to coal or gas, the uranium fuel is very inexpensive (and cheep to transport due to the limited amount of fuel required, relative to fossil fuels). There is a factor of approximately one million there, between the energy in a pound of uranium and the energy in a pound of coal. The only fuel cheaper than uranium is the wind - and it isn't really that much cheaper.

Gas fired plants aren't run for base load - for the same reason: They are the most expensive to operate, because their fuel is so pricey. So the Utility companies turn them on last and turn them off first (that's what it means to be a peaking unit.

BWR or PWR really doesn't matter in this context.

DnD Addict said:
If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc.,

Where did you get that idea? Nuclear units produce 1/5 of our electricity in the US; in fact, nuclear units are the only competition that the coal plants have (and the coal plants have traditionally been given a free pass on their external costs).
 
  • #165
Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.
 

Attachments

  • BWR core and fuel.jpg
    BWR core and fuel.jpg
    6.8 KB · Views: 438
  • #166
Astronuc said:
Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.
Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better.
 
  • #167
mheslep said:
Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better.
Unfortunately not. I took that off a presentation. I'll look to see if I can find a larger one.
 
  • #170
gmax137 said:
That's nice - how did you do that? It looks like a search on 'design certification' I didn't know there were 'saved' searches in ADAMS. Are there others like that (say, on other subjects)?

Thanks for the link !
I was slogging through 10 CFR, NUREG 0800, and Reg. Guides, trying better to understand the DCD (and Tier 1 and 2) requirements. I came across, SECY-92-053, "Use of Design Acceptance Criteria During 10 CFR Part 52 Design Certification Reviews", and did a search on Google for that SECY. One of the links just happened to be that page I cited. Those documents are the whole basis behind the design certification and COL process and 10 CFR 52.

There may be other saved searches, but I'm not sure how to find a specific one. It was purely fortuitous and serendipitous to find the one I did.
 
  • #171
Japan Steel Works takes a lead in large forgings.

Japan Steel Works (JSW) has completed its second press for ultra-large nuclear forgings, while Rolls-Royce and Larsen & Toubro will collaborate on instrumentation.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Links_for_the_supply_chain_0104101.html

WNA list of large forging shops.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html
 
  • #172
Looking down into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) of a PWR during a refueling. The core is about 10 m (33 ft) underwater, and the glow is the Cerenkov radiation.

Now imagine trying to do measurements and inspections at 10 m. Nowadays, rad-hardened digital cameras are used. Measurements are done in the spent fuel pool with the fuel also under about 10 m of water.

A ring of studs or bolts sorrounds the opening of the PV. The tall posts are alignment posts. The upper head has to precisely align within a few mils (~ 1 mm) in order for the control elements and control rod drives to be directly over their respective fuel assemblies.
 

Attachments

  • PWR core.jpg
    PWR core.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 441
  • #173
so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?
 
  • #174
alcurad said:
so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?

Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

Finally, the temperatures in the LWR design (reactor coolant at say 600 F in a PWR) are low by comparison to the gas temperatures in a coal fired unit or in a gas turbine, so you're not going to see anything other than a water-based Rankine cycle used. But then, that may be arguing in a circle (since the operating temperatures are selected to match the steam cycle).
 
  • #175
thanks, that explains a lot.

gmax137 said:
But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?
 

Similar threads

Can Small Modular Reactors Revitalize Nuclear-Powered Surface Combatants?
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Radioistope Power Systems (RPS) and Pu-238
Replies
0
Views
2K
Safe zero base reactivity level nuclear fission reactor?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Question about Midland Cogenerating Nuclear Power Plant
Replies
2
Views
2K
What Are The Economics Of Pebble Bed Reactors
Replies
26
Views
6K
Questions about the state of nuclear power in the U.S.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Nuclear fusion power plants - why is it taking so long to make them?
Replies
25
Views
5K
Chernobyl loses power, spent fuel storage question #Ukraine
Replies
20
Views
2K
How long can nuclear plants last without power? (CME hit)
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
What will be the economic purpose of modular reactors?
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top