In Perspective, Planet: Small-scale local nuclear electric power plants using recycled fuels!

[James Lemon]

This is a discussion that grew out of this original thread of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

How time flies...

All spent fuel finally removed from reactor at Fukushima plant according to the following article:

All spent fuel finally removed from reactor at Fukushima plant | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

www.asahi.com

We often associate nuclear with disaster rather than innovation. Tiny reactors are about to revolutionize American energy. They are talking about reactors of the megawatt size, just one could power about 650 homes. In May of 2020 Russia's first floating plant started to produce power.

A 2019 small modular reactor design from Oregon startup NuScale is about 1% the size of a traditional power plants containment chamber. NuScales design reaches 60 megawatts, in comparison the smallest plant in the U.S. producing 600 megawatts. In California a startup Oklo is taking things further. Their advanced fission micro reactor can use sodium as a coolant (among other methods) so it doesn't require water.

 

[Jerome Marot]

We often associate nuclear with disaster rather than innovation. Tiny reactors are about to revolutionize American energy. They are talking about reactors of the megawatt size, just one could power about 650 homes. In May of 2020 Russia's first floating plant started to produce power.

A 2019 small modular reactor design from Oregon startup NuScale is about 1% the size of a traditional power plants containment chamber. NuScales design reaches 60 megawatts, in comparison the smallest plant in the U.S. producing 600 megawatts. In California a startup Oklo is taking things further. Their advanced fission micro reactor can use sodium as a coolant (among other methods) so it doesn't require water.

Asher may want to move this to a new thread, but I would like to add a reference to the Russian "floating nuclear reactor" design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

It certainly makes sense for the cities on the arctic coastline, remote from any power lines.

And, as a side note, I would not invest in shares of Oklo with their sodium coolant. But if I could predict the stock market, I would be richer than I am presently.

 

[James Lemon]

Asher may want to move this to a new thread, but I would like to add a reference to the Russian "floating nuclear reactor" design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

It certainly makes sense for the cities on the arctic coastline, remote from any power lines.

And, as a side note, I would not invest in shares of Oklo with their sodium coolant. But if I could predict the stock market, I would be richer than I am presently.

Jerome a prudent business man should never put more than 2% of his capital at risk. Since I am up on my oil investments from the spring meltdown my gains allow for such speculation. Besides one can write it off as a loss as well or we could always sell it short but I love the look of the building! Rendering of Oklo distributed nuclear micro-reactor site

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/09...t-oklos-fast-fission-micro-reactor-to-market/

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jérôme and James,

I like the fact that it’s a huge organization, business risk and regulatory challenge which tests our appreciation of the values and hidden hazards of advanced technology. It also raises, once again, the ethical conundrum of whether we should do what we can do or what we “should“ do!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

The reason I would not invest in a company advertising sodium coolant is that it was already tried and proved to be a nightmare from an engineering perspective. There is even a wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor

 

[James Lemon]

The reason I would not invest in a company advertising sodium coolant is that it was already tried and proved to be a nightmare from an engineering perspective. There is even a wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor

Based on the fact that sodium coolant has more benefits than liabilities makes it a worthwhile endeavor. You would be surprised what manganese can do.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Based on the fact that sodium coolant has more benefits than liabilities makes it a worthwhile endeavor. You would be surprised what manganese can do.

Like what?

 

[James Lemon]

Like what?

There is a lot of R&D on 1V generation nuclear plants. You should look it up.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There is a lot of R&D on 1V generation nuclear plants. You should look it up.

You referred to manganese: what do you know that I might appreciate knowing?

 

[James Lemon]

You referred to manganese: what do you know that I might appreciate knowing?

R&D of Mg0 Based Matrix Fuel

Magnesium oxide inert diluent has been chosen not by chance as follows • MgO does not form intermediate phase with PuO2; • MgO does not react with sodium; • MgO exhibits high stability under irradiation; • MgO may by easily reprocessed; • MgO possesses satisfactory heat conductance (12 Wt/m°C at 900°C for specimen with porosity level 0%).

 

[Asher Kelman]

What is the “m” unit?

 

[James Lemon]

What is the “m” unit?

mass of a given molecule

 

[Jerome Marot]

Mg is the symbol for magnesium, Mn is the symbol for manganese. A quick search shows Mg0 Based Matrix Fuel to be a replacement for MOX fuel.

 

[Jerome Marot]

What is the “m” unit?

meter

 

[James Lemon]

meter

I think Asher is referring to 12 Wt/m°C . The molecular mass (m) is the mass of a given molecule:

 

[Jerome Marot]

I am not so sure what you are talking about. Thermal conductivity is measured in watts per meter-kelvin (W/(m⋅K)), which are equivalent to W/(m⋅°C) as kelvin and centigrades are equivalent in this equation. Molar mass, which is the mass of a mole of a compound is measured in kg/mol or g/mol.

 

[James Lemon]

Thanks Jérôme!

Make sense! I was thinking of something like that.

Asher

Excuse me who are you referring to Asher

I am not so sure what you are talking about. Thermal conductivity is measured in watts per meter-kelvin (W/(m⋅K)), which are equivalent to W/(m⋅°C) as kelvin and centigrades are equivalent in this equation. Molar mass, which is the mass of a mole of a compound is measured in kg/mol or g/mol.

Molecular mass is not to be confused with molar mass or mass number. The molecular mass (m) is the mass of a given molecule: it is measured in daltons (Da or Different molecules of the same compound may have different molecular masses because they contain different isotopes of an element. This thread seems to be getting off topic why the details?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_mass

 

[Jerome Marot]

This thread seems to be getting off topic why the details?

I am simply trying to figure out what you are talking about. It is a bit confusing, as we are moving from Russian nuclear reactors (which are repurposed ice-breakers reactors) to new designs using sodium as a coolant, then manganese, then magnesium oxyde, then thermal conductivity, then units of quantities of matter, etc.

 

[James Lemon]

I am simply trying to figure out what you are talking about. It is a bit confusing, as we are moving from Russian nuclear reactors (which are repurposed ice-breakers reactors) to new designs using sodium as a coolant, then manganese, then magnesium oxyde, then thermal conductivity, then units of quantities of matter, etc.

It is just a general discussion on nuclear power and all types of designs are included. I don't think using sodium as a coolant is anything new? BN-800 reactor is a iv generation fast breeder reactor that uses sodium as a coolant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor One main point is the scalability of such technology to be able to make modular small units compared to large nuclear plants that require a 10 mile buffer zone. New generation nuclear benefits, liabilities and innovation verses the bad reputation of nuclear disaster's. Nuclear waste management and how are things going with that is something to consider is well. Across the United States, nuclear waste is accumulating in poorly maintained piles. 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste requiring disposal are currently in temporary storage. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuclear-waste-management-united-states/ The French recycle nuclear waste. Partitioning and transmutation (P&T) is a potential complementary route in the management of spent fuel resulting from the generation of nuclear power. https://www.iaea.org/publications/7...transmutation-in-radioactive-waste-management . A look at a modular nuclear reactor 1/100 the size of a traditional reactor and is supposedly safer, built in Oregon by NuScale.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Using sodium as a coolant is indeed nothing new, but the problem it poses are far from being solved. Small nuclear reactors are also nothing new, they have been used in ships and submarines since 1955.

Your post reads a bit as taken from he overoptimistic publications that small startup companies write for unsuspecting investors, which is the reason why I advised against investing money in this kind of projects. The problem does not lie where you describe it. The main problem is that present, operating reactors run on Uranium-235. That isotope is rare and we are slowly running out of it. This is the reason why Europe is presently at war in Mali/Niger, btw.

The solution to that problem would be to convert some other material (Uranium-238, Thorium) into a fissile material suitable for use in a nuclear reactor. One may hope to do that by bombarding it with neutrons, which is what happens in a nuclear reactor. So the project is to build a nuclear reactor that would "breed" fuel. It produces energy and converts some readily available metals into more fuel at the same time.

That project started in 70s. It has failed since that time.

The problem is that the complexity of developing new nuclear technologies is several orders of magnitude more complex than one would expect. The present designs were possible because money was no object, the USA, Russia and Germany were at war. So it worked in the end, because money was not a limiting factor: whatever it takes.

Since the 70s, states have only be willing to pour so much money into research, because the taxpayers (or private investors in the case of small startups) want return on their investment. The dirty little secret of nuclear energy is that it is expensive, more so than fossil fuels or renewables, especially when taking the cost of cleaning into account.

At the present time, there are only two countries willing to pour as much money as it takes into the development of new nuclear technology: India and China. They both have the knowledge, but China is much more likely to succeed in the near future (say 10-20 years) because of their political structure.

 

[James Lemon]

Using sodium as a coolant is indeed nothing new, but the problem it poses are far from being solved. Small nuclear reactors are also nothing new, they have been used in ships and submarines since 1955.

Your post reads a bit as taken from he overoptimistic publications that small startup companies write for unsuspecting investors, which is the reason why I advised against investing money in this kind of projects. The problem does not lie where you describe it. The main problem is that present, operating reactors run on Uranium-235. That isotope is rare and we are slowly running out of it. This is the reason why Europe is presently at war in Mali/Niger, btw.

The solution to that problem would be to convert some other material (Uranium-238, Thorium) into a fissile material suitable for use in a nuclear reactor. One may hope to do that by bombarding it with neutrons, which is what happens in a nuclear reactor. So the project is to build a nuclear reactor that would "breed" fuel. It produces energy and converts some readily available metals into more fuel at the same time.

That project started in 70s. It has failed since that time.

The problem is that the complexity of developing new nuclear technologies is several orders of magnitude more complex than one would expect. The present designs were possible because money was no object, the USA, Russia and Germany were at war. So it worked in the end, because money was not a limiting factor: whatever it takes.

Since the 70s, states have only be willing to pour so much money into research, because the taxpayers (or private investors in the case of small startups) want return on their investment. The dirty little secret of nuclear energy is that it is expensive, more so than fossil fuels or renewables, especially when taking the cost of cleaning into account.

At the present time, there are only two countries willing to pour as much money as it takes into the development of new nuclear technology: India and China. They both have the knowledge, but China is much more likely to succeed in the near future (say 10-20 years) because of their political structure.

History shows that “overnight successes” in technology are often the result of decades of scientific research. The recent covid 19 vaccines were decades in the making when you you consider RNA was discovered in 1960.

Nowadays some nations (France, Japan as well as Russia) are following research and development of advanced fast reactor core for effective utilization of commercial and weapon grade plutonium. In the light of this trend is formed expediency of development and testing of new plutonium-bearing composition in order to replace uranium-238 by any inert diluent. State Scientific Center Institute of Physics and Power Engineering after 1994 within the framework of the Russian-French cooperation for EFR project and later within the framework of the ISTC contract carries out research and development of MgO-base matrix fuel.

The study is aiming to endorse PuO2 + MgO composition specimen fabrication after route developed by using dummy UO2 composition.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/000/29000280.pdf

 

[Jerome Marot]

That study was published in 1997. It studies a MOX replacement based on magnesium oxide, so as to use available plutonium from the weapons stockpile as fuel in present nuclear reactors. I fail to see the relevance to the subject at hand. At most, it proves that a MOX replacement was at least studied 24 years ago and is still not available. This discussion seems to be running in circles, James. I wonder what motivates you to collect that much information about this particular subject.

 

[James Lemon]

That study was published in 1997. It studies a MOX replacement based on magnesium oxide, so as to use available plutonium from the weapons stockpile as fuel in present nuclear reactors. I fail to see the relevance to the subject at hand. At most, it proves that a MOX replacement was at least studied 24 years ago and is still not available. This discussion seems to be running in circles, James. I wonder what motivates you to collect that much information about this particular subject.

The light bulb wasn’t invented over night. Invention requires research and our association of nuclear with disaster as apposed to innovation may be a problem. Most of the information presented may not be new to you or me but it is to many others.

 

[James Lemon]

The reason I would not invest in a company advertising sodium coolant is that it was already tried and proved to be a nightmare from an engineering perspective. There is even a wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor

If anyone is going in circles it would appear to be you. I have already pointed out to you that this technology is currently in use and has been for sometime.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Indeed I am confused. We started a discussion on how tiny reactors would be about to revolutionise American energy. I still fail to see any evidence of that in what you have posted so far.

I am still advising against betting good money on small nuclear reactors design. Your area of expertise is more about fossil fuels and oil extraction, isn't it? Aren't there any good investments to be made in that general area? I don't know, companies like Schlumberger, maybe?

 

[James Lemon]

Indeed I am confused. We started a discussion on how tiny reactors would be about to revolutionise American energy. I still fail to see any evidence of that in what you have posted so far.

I am still advising against betting good money on small nuclear reactors design. Your area of expertise is more about fossil fuels and oil extraction, isn't it? Aren't there any good investments to be made in that general area? I don't know, companies like Schlumberger, maybe?

Experts are a dime a dozen but capable people are hard to find. I have participated in numerous projects across different sectors other than oil& gas including power generation, renewables, cogeneration, hydrogen fuel cells, gas separation, electrical containment units for submarines, halon gas fire suppression systems and the list is long just to name a few.

Just because something is not on the market now does not mean it wont be in the near future and probably a lot sooner than you may think.

The Micro Modular Reactor (MMR™) system is a 4th Generation nuclear energy system that delivers safe, clean, and cost-effective electricity and heat to remote mines, industry, and communities. It is the leading SMR project in Canada and the first so called "fission battery" concept worldwide.

The MMR™ reactor is a walk-away safe reactor. In the case of an accident, the MMR™ reactor cannot melt down, as all heat dissipates passively into the environment, no matter the scenario.
The plant has no need for active systems to remove heat. Additionally, the plant does not need any outside services, including electrical power, to operate safely.
The fuel safety margin is so large that fission product retention is accomplished entirely by the fuel; no other containment is needed. There are no sudden temperature rises – the reactor shuts down naturally in all accident conditions.

https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/

 

[Asher Kelman]

Sounds like “Nirvana”, James, but what do critics and opponents allege?

What spent fuel does it yield?

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Sounds like “Nirvana”, James, but what do critics and opponents allege?

What spent fuel does it yield?

Asher

The fuel lasts its lifetime on one charge. https://usnc.com/fcm-fuel/

Its being endorsed by many Canadian government bodies, and USNC is collaborating with Idaho National Laboratories & University of Illinois.

Today, after travelling nearly 300 million miles powered by solar panels, NASA’s Perseverance rover will set wheels on the Martian surface. After that, it will be powered exclusively by its nuclear power source. Perseverance, which NASA has dubbed its “most capable rover” ever, carries a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) that will power everything the rover does, day and night, for the entirety of its 687-day mission. With this power, Perseverance will continue the ongoing search for signs of life on Mars in the air and soil while preparing humanity for future crewed missions to Mars with key technology demonstrations.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The fuel lasts its lifetime on one charge. https://usnc.com/fcm-fuel/

Its being endorsed by many Canadian government bodies, and USNC is collaborating with Idaho National Laboratories & University of Illinois.

Again Peter,

What are the arguments against this by naysayers, environmentalists and other opponents?

....or perhaps this is like “Apple Pie” , “Motherhood” and bonuses for Christmas with everyone agreeing how wonderful it is?

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

I would imagine that this project is popular in Canada which, first, is major producer of Uranium, second, has remote communities for which building a power line may not make economical sense and, third, may not enjoy as much sun as countries on lower latitudes.