Advanced nuclear reactors as part of a low carbon future

This thread is dedicated to discussing advanced nuclear reactor designs that could form an important component of the push towards widespread EVs.

A number of these advanced nuclear reactor designs offer huge improvements over current water-cooled reactors:
as little as 5% as much nuclear waste, safe from explosions, greatly reduced proliferation risk, higher thermodynamic efficiency.
The designs I like the best can burn our vast stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel accumulated from conventional reactor operation.
The waste from the advanced designs mostly decays within a few decades to a century, vs the 10s of thousands of years for conventional waste.

Some of the advanced reactor concepts: Fast spectrum, both Lead cooled and Helium cooled, Thorium fuel, and molten salt, either with solid or liquid fuel.
This post is about molten salt reactors, which have been in the news recently because the Chinese are building a new molten salt research reactor that will be the first to operate since the 1960s.

http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/

A small MIT-based company Transatomic Power is pushing an upgraded version of the liquid fuel molten salt reactor operated by Alvin Weinberg at ORNL in the 1960s. Its design and benefits are well described here in the context of other approaches:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...tors-part-of-americas-long-termenergy-future/

Transatomic has a white paper with many more design details. It is long, so see the following link first:
http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf

The following web site is supportive, but it also summarizes the challenges remaining:
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html

----------------------

All nuclear reactors operate as base load generators that only adjust their output slowly, so they cannot respond to fast changes in either the load or other generation, such as wind or solar. I did not know the reason until I read the Transatomic paper. If a reactor is shut down too rapidly, Xenon, which is a neutron "poison," builds up. This prevents the reactor from restarting until the Xenon decays, which takes several days.

I'm an engineer, and I've worked for two different companies that did nuclear work, and it was staggering how many checks there were on top of the checks on safety. The amount of paperwork to document that the parts were really, truly, actually, objectively evidentially certifiably good was mind-boggling. The designs in consideration for today are, from my involvement, orders of magnitude safer than the 1960's stuff that's given nuclear its bad reputation for safety and waste management. I am huge fan of nuclear, having been more closely involved with the inner workings than most. It's a great tool to reduce fossil fuel consumption, if regulators and voters can accept that 1960's technology problems don't reflect on 2015 abilities. Anybody here driving a 1960s EV?

+1, but can it it overcome the hurdles of funding and public anxiety?

DNAinaGoodWay said:

+1, but can it it overcome the hurdles of funding and public anxiety?

Click to expand...

Maybe and, sadly, probably not (respectively).

GeekEV said:

DNAinaGoodWay said:

+1, but can it it overcome the hurdles of funding and public anxiety?

Click to expand...

Maybe and, sadly, probably not (respectively).

Click to expand...

Until the nuclear companies are able to get finance for their powerplants without the federal liability cap in this country, I don't see any way they can convince the public of their safety, regardless of what the actual risk is.

GRA said:

GeekEV said:

DNAinaGoodWay said:

+1, but can it it overcome the hurdles of funding and public anxiety?

Click to expand...

Maybe and, sadly, probably not (respectively).

Click to expand...

Until the nuclear companies are able to get finance for their powerplants without the federal liability cap in this country, I don't see any way they can convince the public of their safety, regardless of what the actual risk is.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And as the nuclear industry as a whole continues to lose massive volumes of money as the outmoded concept of 'base load' is proven to be unnecessary, I'm thinking that wind and solar will continue to be the fastest, cheapest, safest, and most reliable option.

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/02/25/dark-times-for-nuclear-revival/

PARIS—Engineering firm Areva SA said it expects its 2014 net loss to widen to about €4.9 billion, or $5.6 billion, from a year earlier, as delays to a reactor project in Finland and low demand for nuclear projects continue to hammer the company.

The French firm’s latest profit warning follows three successive years of reported losses stemming from delays to a nuclear reactor project in Finland and a big write-off after a mine acquisition went sour. The company was also hampered by the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, when many utilities shelved or delayed plans for nuclear power plant construction.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no need for more nuclear generation of any tech age or design in order to continue with the mass expansion of EVs. This is in part due to the expected reduction in the total volume of cars on the road as part of the EV disruption.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjFKXl6wrjY[/youtube]

I'll remind anyone here what I've stated in the other nuke threads - I'm not in any way against nuclear power - the plants in operation should remain until no longer serviceable. But it's clear that it is physically impossible to build enough new nuclear generation on the planet by 2050 to make a meaningful dent in our 'low carbon future' - especially since we must have a 'zero carbon immediate future' - not just low.

edit...fixed youtube tags

OTOH, as that article shows China is going full speed ahead with their nuclear plans, both building/exporting Gen III/III+ and developing Gen 4, and we certainly need them to replace their coal plants. They are obviously convinced they can't do it all with renewables. See http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; updated this month.

We are missing a vital piece of infrastructure, seeming due to Nevada politics played out on the national stage. Given that we are far, far behind the 8 Ball on this scattered mass of nuclear waste I don't think we can move ahead as a practical matter.
Using some of this waste as fuel is a great but so much of the contaminated waste is not fuel.

GRA said:

OTOH, as that article shows China is going full speed ahead with their nuclear plans, both building/exporting Gen III/III+ and developing Gen 4, and we certainly need them to replace their coal plants. They are obviously convinced they can't do it all with renewables. See http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; updated this month.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that China's building more reactors. They're planting wind, solar (PV and thermal), and 'efficiency' much, much faster, though. I suspect but can't yet prove that the main reason for the nuke expansion in China is international pressure from Japan and the US as part of the politics of trade, not because of climate concerns (though it'll be hung on a 'climate' peg in the press for the benefit of the public).

The problem I have with nuclear is storing of the radioactive waste. It has to be stored and guarded, which requires an enduring and uninterrupted advanced and stable society. Unfortunately the half-life of some of the materials is longer than any human civilization has endured.

Some of the advanced designs may cut way down on the waste. But then it seems to me like we're back to the '60s again in terms of technological maturity and I can imagine someone in 2075 explaining how "These are safe -- not like your grandfathers' Thorium reactor technology".

I'd like to see us effectively deal with the already-accumulated piles of reactor waste before considering how great more reactors will be.

Nubo said:

The problem I have with nuclear is storing of the radioactive waste. It has to be stored and guarded, which requires an enduring and uninterrupted advanced and stable society. Unfortunately the half-life of some of the materials is longer than any human civilization has endured.

Some of the advanced designs may cut way down on the waste. But then it seems to me like we're back to the '60s again in terms of technological maturity and I can imagine someone in 2075 explaining how "These are safe -- not like your grandfathers' Thorium reactor technology".

I'd like to see us effectively deal with the already-accumulated piles of reactor waste before considering how great more reactors will be.

Click to expand...

As was pointed out in the first post in the thread, the various fast burn reactors get rid of the waste by burning it as fuel. The much smaller quantity left over is more radioactive, but decays to safe levels in a much shorter timespan (ca. 25-100 years IIRR), and that is a timespan we humans have experience dealing with hazardous sites. And for me, at least, this is transitional; IIRR current reactor designs are aimed at 50-80 year lifespans, so I regard nukes as a bridge technology much like NG until we can go 100% green renewables (or whatever % is ultimately achievable/necessary to avoid a human catastrophe).

For this country it's irrelevant, because the fear-mongers have so achieved their goals that any sort of rational comparative probabilistic risk assessment of nukes versus fossil fuels is impossible.

Here's yet another article (this at GCR) on the molten salt reactor, probably just cribbed from the others:

Nuclear Waste Could Offer Carbon-Free Energy, Scientists Suggest

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096948_nuclear-waste-could-offer-carbon-free-energy-scientists-suggest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tbleakne said:

All nuclear reactors operate as base load generators that only adjust their output slowly, so they cannot respond to fast changes in either the load or other generation, such as wind or solar. I did not know the reason until I read the Transatomic paper. If a reactor is shut down too rapidly, Xenon, which is a neutron "poison," builds up. This prevents the reactor from restarting until the Xenon decays, which takes several days.

Click to expand...

As one who favors nuclear power, yeah!

I did read once that the fuel used can be designed to not have the shutdown poisioning problem. Generally that more expensive fuel is used in things like nuclear submarines, where sitting shut down is not acceptable. (I learned this from a friend some years back who had worked at a research reactor in college. His tales of the exam getting his reactor operating license from the government were interesting...) Their research reactor ran on the fuel that the Navy could no longer use.

For this country it's irrelevant, because the fear-mongers have so achieved their goals that any sort of rational comparative probabilistic risk assessment of nukes versus fossil fuels is impossible.

Click to expand...

Yes, our infiltration and takeover of the nuclear power industry, followed by our implementation of the "Show them we're Nuts" and "Money trumps safety" doctrines, has been a great success. Almost as big as our takeover of military intelligence. Those poor fools never stood a chance...

LeftieBiker said:

For this country it's irrelevant, because the fear-mongers have so achieved their goals that any sort of rational comparative probabilistic risk assessment of nukes versus fossil fuels is impossible.

Click to expand...

Yes, our infiltration and takeover of the nuclear power industry, followed by our implementation of the "Show them we're Nuts" and "Money trumps safety" doctrines, has been a great success. Almost as big as our takeover of military intelligence. Those poor fools never stood a chance...

Click to expand...

It's just a question of human nature. The average person reacts to what are seen as major risks when large but infrequent accidents occur, but ignores the slow drip type of risk which is actually far more risky. Cf. public reaction to a U.S. airplane crash that kills a couple of hundred people, versus annual auto deaths that kill tens of thousands, but in small numbers every day. Measured pretty much any way you spin the numbers, traveling by commercial a/c is far safer than driving yourself, but ask the typical member of the public which is more dangerous, especially in the immediate aftermath of an air crash, and they'll swear that its flying while never giving a second thought about hopping into their car (let alone texting).

Similarly, people worry about the (very real, but overstated) risks of nukes, while ignoring the far higher # of deaths due to say, coal mining and combustion. Despite considerable improvements in safety, Chinese coal miners are still dying by the thousand every year, and epidemiological estimates of premature annual deaths due to coal and its byproducts range from a low of 250,000 to as much as 750,000 (that latter number's in the wiki, quoting a World Bank study: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_deaths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Similarly, the German public's hysterical reaction to Chernobyl and especially Fukushima has caused them to retire nukes early and increase their use of coal while they transition to renewables, despite (AFAIA) not a single death in Germany traceable to a nuclear power plant accident (which isn't to say there won't be any from Chernobyl over the long term, but the number will still be lower than that from routine use of coal - see http://energytransition.de/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), and the unquestioned increase in premature deaths that will result from increased coal use (the Japanese public's response to Fukushima is equally irrational). I have no quarrel with their decision to phase out nukes and transition to renewables, but any rational analysis of the relative risks involved between continued (let alone increased) coal combustion while getting rid of nukes, even if only in the short term, and continuing to use nukes while getting rid of coal, would favor keeping the nukes and getting rid of the coal.

Even in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (when still part of the Soviet Union), epidemiological studies done by international agencies (as the Ukrainians didn't trust the Russians, and vice versa) showed that any long-term extra deaths due to Chernobyl were a few thousand and would be statistically undetectable, lost in the noise. Which isn't to say that there wasn't an increase in thyroid cancers, especially among children in the areas most affected, because there was, see e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a more recent study.

But that result, tragic though it is, can be chalked up to a large extent by the gross mishandling of the aftermath of the incident by the Soviet government. Even though there was a statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer cases, the absolute numbers remained small, and as the paper referenced above states, "Apart from these epidemiologic features, the early cases of pediatric thyroid cancer had distinctive clinical and pathologic characteristics. They were described as poorly differentiated, aggressive tumors that were invasive and metastatic (16–19), in spite of which survival has been excellent."

Unfortunately, far too many of the environmental groups depend on hyping risk among the public, because that's how they boost their membership and generate PR. Having been a member of many of those groups, most of whom have done a lot of good things, I became really disgusted with their anti-scientific, emotional approach, well represented by that draft Greenpeace anti-nuke poster back during the Bush administration which said "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" Of course, that same approach but taking the opposite tack, along with "Everything's fine, and there's absolutely no risk to anyone" approach has long been pursued by the pro-nuke and fossil-fuel people.

I'm not hopeful that we will ever be able to have an informed debate among the public in this country comparing the very real risks of competing approaches. But hey, "Survivor" has just started a new season; the American public is far more interested in wallowing in a bunch of TV make believe about fake problems, rather than seriously thinking about real ones. And now, down off my soapbox.

I think it's nice that we have a topic for the True Believers to call everyone else "hysterical." It must be soothing, in a way that the history of the industry is not...

LeftieBiker said:

I think it's nice that we have a topic for the True Believers to call everyone else "hysterical." It must be soothing, in a way that the history of the industry is not...

Click to expand...

No doubt. Speaking as one that lived in Europe when Chernobyl blew and had access to non-public information, the last thing anyone there was was "hysterical." Fallout from Chernobyl has killed and is continuing to kill, but the nuclear industry and their government slaves are doing a tidy job of spinning another story. We have posts on this forum that show that science is being squashed and that deaths are being called anything but related to radiation in order to better fit the story.

GRA said:

...Similarly, the German public's hysterical reaction to Chernobyl and especially Fukushima has caused them to retire nukes early and increase their use of coal while they transition to renewables, despite (AFAIA) not a single death in Germany traceable to a nuclear power plant accident (which isn't to say there won't be any from Chernobyl over the long term, but the number will still be lower than that from routine use of coal - see http://energytransition.de/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), and the unquestioned increase in premature deaths that will result from increased coal use (the Japanese public's response to Fukushima is equally irrational).

Click to expand...

I would consider that the reaction to Fukushima isn't just in regard to its effects, but that it easily could have been much, MUCH worse.

Nubo said:

GRA said:

...Similarly, the German public's hysterical reaction to Chernobyl and especially Fukushima has caused them to retire nukes early and increase their use of coal while they transition to renewables, despite (AFAIA) not a single death in Germany traceable to a nuclear power plant accident (which isn't to say there won't be any from Chernobyl over the long term, but the number will still be lower than that from routine use of coal - see http://energytransition.de/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), and the unquestioned increase in premature deaths that will result from increased coal use (the Japanese public's response to Fukushima is equally irrational).

Click to expand...

I would consider that the reaction to Fukushima isn't just in regard to its effects, but that it easily could have been much, MUCH worse.

Click to expand...

Sure, it COULD have been, but what's the likelihood? Let's look at the number of known or likely deaths due to the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima (currently zero, but likely to rise to some number greater than zero over the long term; the linked article says epidemiological estimates range from 15 to 1,300, with 130 being the most likely number) and the number of people likely to die from increased use of fossil fuels:

According to the World Data Bank, Japan's coal generation increased by 57 TWh, natural gas 58 TWh, and oil 9 TWh through 2011. It is reasonable to assume this remained the same through 2012.

Deaths/TWh/yr from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear-based generation are 24, 3, 19.2, and 0.052, respectively. See URL

EXTRA fossil deaths and serious ailments over 2 years:

Coal = 24 people x 57 TWh x 2 years = 2,736 deaths, plus 25,000 serious ailments
Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 deaths, plus 3,400 serious ailments
Oil = 19.2 x 9 x 2 = 342 deaths, plus 2,900 serious ailments
Total EXTRA fossil deaths = 2,736 + 348 + 342 = 3,426, plus 31,300 serious ailments

Nuclear = 0.052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments

Click to expand...

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See the Lancet article linked in the above article for more details. I'll happily agree to retire every nuke plant in the world and replace them with green renewables (assuming we can), but only _after_ we've first gotten rid of all the coal plants.

So you guys see little real difference between contaminating an area with, say, plutonium, and putting soot into the air...? Ok.