Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of Small Nuclear Plants
ColdWetDog writes "The Oil Drum (one of the best sites to discuss the technical details of the Macondo Blowout) is typically focused on ramifications of petroleum use, and in particular the Peak Oil theory. They run short guest articles from time to time on various aspects of energy use and policies. Today they have an interesting article on small nuclear reactors with a refreshing amount of technical detail concerning their construction, use, and fueling. The author's major thesis: 'Pick up almost any book about nuclear energy and you will find that the prevailing wisdom is that nuclear plants must be very large in order to be competitive. This assumption is widely accepted, but, if its roots are understood, it can be effectively challenged. Recently, however, a growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies, and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units, and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size — extra large.'"
I would assume the nuclear plants found on submarines and large warships both provide a lot of energy and are not in the category of 'extra large.'
as a small nuclear plant still needs almost as much safety, inspection infrastructure not forgetting the larger number of armed guards (the nuke police had guns way before they where that common in the rest of the uk) as a big one.
Let's call it what it is. The BP disaster.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Peak Uranium? So then we move to thorium, or get uranium out of the sea, or burn our spent fuel. This is a solvable issue.
"Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
It also has a bidet function, which isn't wimpy and French; it's got a firehose pump powered by a small nuclear plant.
Ya almost had me up to that point, ya cheese-eating pansy!
The enemies of Democracy are
WRONG. The technology to reprocess nuclear fuel has existed for more than half a century and is currently employed the world over. Just not in the U.S. In fact breeder reactors incorporate reprocessing into the design to use a fraction of the fuel and produce a fraction of the waste of those reactor types permitted in the U.S.
The problem with nuclear waste is one of politics, not of technology. Following on the heels of Gerald Ford's ban of commercial plutonium reprocessing, Jimmy Carter signed an order to ban the reprocessing of spent commercial nuclear fuel. Regan overturned the ban in 1981 but there was no funding provided to start up reprocessing facilities nor has the DOE provided license for anyone to do it. While they've waffled a bit during the Bush-Obama presidencies the DOE presently doesn't want domestic reprocessing. This has accordingly put a rather big crimp in the success of the GNEP which had closed loop nuclear power as a primary goal.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Saying nuclear won't fulfill our needs because of "peak Uranium" is at best stupid, at worst a lie to try to stop development of nuclear power. We likely have enough fuel (Uranium, Thorium, Plutonium, etc) for _thousands of years_ at our current energy consumption. That's the electrical grid, cars, everything. If we can just make everything run on electricity and build the best reactors our scientists can design, we would be fine for hundreds of years at a _minimum_. And I think it's safe to assume we'd be switched over to fusion by then :)
The problem is not the technology, it's not the resources, it's the regulations and the industry. We aren't building new plants because power companies aren't willing to invest large sums of money. Because regulations make it hard for them to _acquire_ large amounts of money (limits on how much profit utilities can take in.) We can't build breeder reactors because, for an extremely short period of time, they produce enriched uranium. Without breeder reactors, we can't take care of the waste problem because it lasts freakin' forever (without breeder reactors) and nobody wants it stored or transported anywhere within a thousand miles of them.
If you got a bunch of engineers and said "figure out how to solve our energy problem", they could throw together a nuclear power system that could power the world into the next millennium - and it would be cheap, it would be clean, and it would be safe. It's only restrictions like "you can't create highly radioactive products, even for a few seconds, you can't build anything big, you can't build anywhere near populated areas, and you can't use the word 'radioactive' or 'nuclear'" that causes problems.
Really? and how would keep anyone from taking the whole thing breaking it apart somewhere else and selling the valuable fuel grade uranium on the black market?
Or worse yet, using the uranium and all the radioactive parts of the reactor for a dirty bomb?
Or even worse yet, trying to do one of the above, but fucking up and letting all kinds of radioactive liquids drain in the drinking water underground?
In most of these small reactor designs the fissionable material has nearly no value as a weapon. For example, a Pebble Bed Reactor uses balls of graphite and fissionable material which can be difficult to re-process into something other than fuel. A dirty bomb is of little concern because, again, it's much easier to just mine new material rather than use the fuel for these reactors.
Lastly, the modern designs for reactors are extremely safe. They have less chance of contaminating groundwater supply than building solar panels (a process that requires tons of heavy metals, organic wastes, and wastewater) or operating a coal-fired power plant. Not to mention that once you are done using the fuel and reprocessing it into new fuel you are left with a small amount of concentrated waste with either extremely short (degrades quickly to harmless elements) or extremely long (emits nearly no radiation) lifetimes.
The modern nuclear reactor designs are vastly better than the units built 40+ years ago, it's a shame that we haven't been building them. Instead we are maintaining older units because the red tape is too much to bother building new units to replace the aging ones. THAT'S your recipe for disaster!
Sapere aude!
Even if you use all our nukes someone will still make it.
Depends on how you use them.
If the cold war had gone hot, most of those nukes would have been aimed at targets in the northern hemisphere, with several warheads per target (as insurance, in case some didn't launch, didn't work, or got shot down). Contrary to popular belief, most of the targets were military, rather than civilian - cities were a low priority, missile silos were a high priority, for reasons that should be obvious. Post nuclear losses due to radiation poisoning, starvation and infrastructure collapse would probably have been higher than the actually death toll inflicted by the bombs, and as you correctly say, people would survive. Contrary to some predictions, nuclear winter would not have been likely, but we didn't know that at the time.
Now, if you actually wanted to achieve total human genocide using the worlds current nuclear arsenal, I'm not at all sure you couldn't. Don't bother with the cities, just hit all the arable land, and let starvation take its course. Of course that is a very morbid thing to consider, and is sufficiently horrible, not to mention suicidal, that we'd never actually do it, but you were discussing whether it was possible, rather than whether it was likely.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
ADM Rickover thinks differently:
Nuclear power is cheap and clean. It is cheap enough that France exports large amounts of electricity to Italy, Germany, and the UK. The importing countries closed or scaled down their nuclear power investments to placate local enviro-weenies but are OK importing it, even if the reactors are right next to the border. France has some of the cheapest electricity costs in Europe. So I do not get where you are coming from.
Check the DOE energy reports. In the US nuclear power generates more electricity than wind, solar, hydro and other renewables combined. If CO2 is considered a pollutant there is no clean coal.
I'd recommend looking at this post.
First, the nuclear power industry pretty much has the best safety record going. Per dollar of product produced, it kills the least amount of people. Let's see, in the past decade it's killed, what, 3 people (the 3 Japanese workers in a reprocessing plant that got stupid by using a steel bucket instead of the multi-million machine intended for the purpose). Just this year, in the USA, for oil and natural gas we have the Deepwater horizon, which killed 11. China regularly loses hundreds each year, we lost 25 in the explosion at Massey this year. 34 miners lost their lives the year before in various incidents.
Second - Let's look at Yankee Rowe - third commerical nuclear reactor. Shut down early due to concerns that the reactor vessel might be becoming brittle.
Cost: $36M in 1960, $209M in 2k dollars
Decommission: $450M($567M), worst case. $320M($403M) is the 'basis average'.
During it's life, Yankee Rowe produced 34 Billion kwh, achieving a sub-performing 74% capacity factor - most of the newer reactors still in service are well over 90%.
So, going by an average 3 cents a kwh, that's $1.02B in electricity produced. That leaves $244M for operations and profit during it's time. So not very expensive, though not as good as would be hoped. If you go by the worst case decommission costs. Basis average would be a lot better, as would it have been if the reactor had lasted it's expected lifetime.
Third - You have got to be kidding me. 19.4% in 2007
Fourth - So nuclear power needs loan guarantees to proceed. Wind and Solar power need cash subsidies, often in excess of half their cost! Heck, your 'clean coal' got more subsidies than nuclear - $29.81/MWh for 'clean coal', Solar $24.34 and wind around $23.37, nuclear got only $1.59/MWh
In total dollars:
Refined Coal: $2,156M
Solar: $14M
Wind: $724M
Nuclear: $1,267M
The biggest problem with coal is air pollution. There is technology available to reduce pollution to negligible levels, but nobody wants to use it because it's "too expensive". Instead of flushing a few Billion down the toilet with nuclear power, we could put that money into clean coal technology.
Still have the problems with fly ash and such, so it's still not 'clean', and at that point your 'clean coal' is more expensive to install than nuclear, as well as more expensive to operate.
I don't read AC A human right
Why not call it the Deepwater Horizon blowout? That's the phrase everyone else seems to be using.
It's more specific than 'BP Blowout' (for obvious reasons)
It's also more specific than 'Macondo Blowout' (The Macondo Prospect, as wikipedia tells me, is the name of the field, which presumably might still have another blowout at some point in the future. Deepwater Horizon, having sunk to the bottom of the ocean, is unlikely to have any future blowouts.)
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
And that is why you toss it back into a feeder reactor as fuel to and let the neutron radiation break it down for you.
I suggest watching the current Russian efforts at getting a large liquid sodium reactor going before putting all your faith in such a thing. There are major problems to solve that the French and the US were unable to sort out in the 1990s that made such a technology unworkable at a large scale, that's the real story behind the cancelled program. If the Russians can get it to work or some local R&D can solve the problems you'll have something to talk about, but for now what you are selling as a done deal is nothing but hopeful dreaming.
I thought it was interesting the reason given when the cancellation of the IFR was mentioned in Clinton's first state of the union speech. It was that we would never need it, and thus it was a waste of money.
To say the least, I disagreed.
Yes, sodium gets activated by the neutrons. Yes, it's highly radioactive then. But, it's quite short lived (15 hours for Na-24, 2.6 years for Na-22) so it's not as big a problem as you imply. Na-22 is a beta decay, so that's not problematic. Na-24 is the one that has dangerous radiation as it emits gammas. But with a 15 hour half life, it decays very quickly.
The daughter products aren't a problem either (Ne-22 and Mg-24), they're both stable.
The future of energy is in thorium. It a) cant be weaponized, b) is cleaner, c) does not need to be throttled up like uranium. They are developing these plants in other parts of the world such as india.
In the US in situ leaching is used.
Basicly you pump a mix of water and baking soda into the ground and the uranium disolves in it.
Then you pump it back up and extract the uranium.
Baking soda isn't high on my list of things I'm afraid of getting in my water.
Pretty clean and safe.
waste storage wouldn't be too hard if it was treated as a technical problem, unfortunatly politicians who consider the words "nuclear" and "satanic" interchangable screwed that one up.