Nuclear Investing?

[SecondAttempt]

So I have a question for you nuclear engineers here. Is there anything technically from stopping us from deploying thousands of nuclear submarine sized power plants around the US?

I understand waste disposal is an issue.

 

[Gumby]

So I have a question for you nuclear engineers here. Is there anything technically from stopping us from deploying thousands of nuclear submarine sized power plants around the US?

I understand waste disposal is an issue.

There are normal site considerations, such as:

1. Located near a source of cooling water for the condenser - lake, large river, ocean.

2. Located on or close to a rail spur to deliver the components during construction and so spent fuel can be removed to permanent storage or to a reprocessing facility. (safer than going by road).

3. Located close enough to easily connect to the existing electric grid so that the power can be transmitted,

4. Located somewhere that you can safely and securely store depleted fuel temporarily while the government continues to mess around with Yucca Mountain.

5. Located in a place where predictable natural disasters will not lead to a nuclear accident - i.e. - not high tornado, earthquake or flooding areas

6. Not actually a technical requirement, but located in a lightly populated, out of the way location to reduce NIMBYism


One additional issue, which is not specific to any location, is a national security issue - in order to have a submarine sized nuclear reactor, you need very highly enriched uranium for fuel. Current commercial power plants use fuel that is lightly enriched, hence the plants are much larger. Highly enriched fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, so you need to keep it out of the hands of malefactors.

 

[Closet_Gamer]

Fundamentally, the US Navy has been using nuclear power safely for 60 years. It can be done. And the military is all about following regulations. Maybe they can teach us how to save the world.

It can be done.

To me, the question is can it be done at massive scale, by civilians, and by companies with a profit requirement.

I think there is a secondary terrorist risk that goes up as you try to protect so many more high impact targets.

 

[ERD50]

It can be done.

To me, the question is can it be done at massive scale, by civilians, and by companies with a profit requirement.

I think there is a secondary terrorist risk that goes up as you try to protect so many more high impact targets.

Maybe the govt/military could be in charge/control of the enrichment process, the fuel, and its disposal, while a regulated utility does all else? A regulated utility is already a quasi-government run operation.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

...

One additional issue, which is not specific to any location, is a national security issue - in order to have a submarine sized nuclear reactor, you need very highly enriched uranium for fuel. Current commercial power plants use fuel that is lightly enriched, hence the plants are much larger. Highly enriched fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, so you need to keep it out of the hands of malefactors.

You mentioned this earlier, I was going to ask more about the enrichment process, but it probably gets pretty deep for a forum thread. But I found some good search terms for anyone that wants to investigate further, and this brief quote:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ghly-enriched-uranium-fuel-risk-proliferating

Hypothetically, though, there do exist nuclear submarines that use non-weapons grade Lightly Enriched Uranium (LEU) for fuel instead of HEU. That suggests an Australian-based LEU submarine could avoid some of the proliferation pitfalls described above.

But there’s a catch: only two countries currently operate LEU-powered submarines. China’s nuclear submarines are believed to use only five percent enriched fuel, and France’s new Suffren-class attack submarines are estimated to use ten percent enriched material.

Try searching on "naval reactors HEU LEU" for a start.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Here's a brief description of the enrichment process. Conceptually, it sounds simple, but I suppose the implementation is pretty tricky (I didn't find any simple to understand info on the cost to enrich):

https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

Gas Centrifuge

Gas centrifuge enrichment is the current process by which commercial enrichment is being performed in the United States. UF6 gas is placed in a gas centrifuge cylinder and rotated at a high speed. This rotation creates a strong centrifugal force so that the heavier gas molecules (UF6 containing U238 atoms) move towards the outside of the cylinder. The lighter gas molecules (containing U235) collect closer to the center. The stream that is slightly enriched in U235 is withdrawn and fed into the next centrifuge; the next higher stage. The slightly depleted stream (with a lower concentration of U235) is recycled back into the next lower stage.

A gas centrifuge facility contains long lines of many rotating cylinders. These cylinders are connected in both series and parallel formations. Centrifuge machines are interconnected to form trains and cascades. At the final withdrawal point, the UF6 is enriched to the desired amount.

Currently, the only gas centrifuge commercial production plant is the URENCO USA (UUSA) facility licensed as Louisiana Energy Services (LES). UUSA is currently operating in Eunice, NM. Two other licenses were granted by the NRC for the construction of commercial gas centrifuge facilities. The status of these licensees are found in this chart.

They also note that the earlier process was very inefficient, and required massive amounts of electricity. IIRC, the enrichment for the WWII atomic bombs utilized power from the TVA hydro-electric dams.

-ERD50

 

[Closet_Gamer]

Maybe the govt/military could be in charge/control of the enrichment process, the fuel, and its disposal, while a regulated utility does all else? A regulated utility is already a quasi-government run operation.

-ERD50

Perhaps. The downside failure risk is still huge...and you only know you have it wrong when it goes wrong.

The FAA and NTSB do a great job of regulating airline safety. Hopping on a plane is a super-safe thing to do in the US because of the quality interlock between government regulation and profit seeking industry.

But when a plane does go down, we count a few hundred tragedies, pay a boatload of compensation, (hopefully) learn what happened and make changes so it doesn't happen again.

If a reactor "goes down" like a plane...we're back to things that are much, much worse.

 

[SecondAttempt]

It can be done.

To me, the question is can it be done at massive scale, by civilians, and by companies with a profit requirement.

I think there is a secondary terrorist risk that goes up as you try to protect so many more high impact targets.

Why does there have to be a profit requirement? Power could be like roads. It could just be somehing the governmen does. I'm generally not for bigger government but this could be one area where it makes sense.

 

[Closet_Gamer]

Why does there have to be a profit requirement? Power could be like roads. It could just be somehing the governmen does. I'm generally not for bigger government but this could be one area where it makes sense.

I think its one of things that make sense in theory but be really sub-par in reality.

I'm currently living in the UK have a fresh appreciation for the pros/cons of heavily intrusive government. To be clear, there are pros....but wow am I aware of the cons. Particularly when it comes to infrastructure investments.
Personally, I would really struggle to sign up for heavier govt operation of a heavy industry.

But this is certainly an area where reasonable people can differ.

 

[USGrant1962]

SMR developer NuScale Power is planning to go public.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...o-public-using-spac-process-financial-adviser

 

[Chuckanut]

SMR developer NuScale Power is planning to go public.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...o-public-using-spac-process-financial-adviser

They are advertising on a local radio station along with roofers, insurance agents, tort lawyers, car dealers, and the stem cell doctors. For a while I was hoping they would offer a compact cold fusion reactor to power a future EV. But, while their product is interesting, it's still much too big for such an individual use.

 

[Out of Steam]

I just received an ad for NuScale on the right of this page.

 

[Bikechuck]

On Sunday, August 8th 2021, the National Ignition Facility appear to have triggered fusion ignition in the laboratory for the first time in the 60+ year history of the ICF program.[210][211] The shot yielded 1.3 Megajoules of fusion energy, an 8X increase over tests done in spring of 2021 and a 25X increase over NIF 2018 record experiments.[212] Early reports estimated that 250 kilojoules of energy was deposited on the target (roughly 2/3 of the energy from the beams), which resulted in a 1.3 Megajoule output from the fusing plasma.[213]

You seem to understand this stuff and I suppose your post is helpful to people smarter than me that have the ability to comprehend it.

For physics challenged people like me can you say some more about this? Is it a good thing? Does it have as much or more promise for replacing fossil fuels than solar and wind? How many years into the future will it be before this can begin coming online?

Thanks for expanding on your post if you choose to do so. I am interested in better understanding the promise that fusion might or might not offer. I first began hearing about it in college in the early 1970s but I have not heard much about it since then.

 

[Chuckanut]

You seem to understand this stuff and I suppose your post is helpful to people smarter than me that have the ability to comprehend it.

For physics challenged people like me can you say some more about this? Is it a good thing? Does it have as much or more promise for replacing fossil fuels than solar and wind? How many years into the future will it be before this can begin coming online?

Thanks for expanding on your post if you choose to do so. I am interested in better understanding the promise that fusion might or might not offer. I first began hearing about it in college in the early 1970s but I have not heard much about it since then.

So far power from fusion is still about 20 years away. Just like it's been since the 1980's.

 

[USGrant1962]

So far power from fusion is still about 20 years away. Just like it's been since the 1980's.

+1

And I know some of the NIF guys. Ignition is a great milestone. But is only a small step toward commercial fusion power.

 

[aja8888]

He's a bit of reading on fusion energy progress:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...on-Dollar-Start-Of-A-Nuclear-Fusion-Boom.html

Theoretically, two lone nuclear reactors running on small pellets could power the entire planet, safely and cleanly. That's the promise of nuclear fusion. So, why are we still relying on fossil fuels? What's stopping us from building these reactors everywhere?

After all, scientists have been working on nuclear fusion technology since the 1950s and have always been optimistic that the final breakthrough is not far away. Yet, milestones have fallen time and again and now the running joke is that a practical nuclear fusion power plant could still be decades away.

 

[38Chevy454]

I used to work at LLNL, where NIF is located. I worked different area, but basically the experiments are trying to get more energy out than what is put in to start the fusion process. NIF may provide some commercial fusion info, but it is first and mainly to study fusion reactions and understanding of nuclear weapons. Commercial energy production is a byproduct or secondary purpose.

 

[USGrant1962]

I used to work at LLNL, where NIF is located. I worked different area, but basically the experiments are trying to get more energy out than what is put in to start the fusion process. NIF may provide some commercial fusion info, but it is first and mainly to study fusion reactions and understanding of nuclear weapons. Commercial energy production is a byproduct or secondary purpose.

Shhh! I was going to say that about NIF. But the first rule of nuclear weapons club is don't talk about nuclear weapons club!

 

[aja8888]

Shhh! I was going to say that about NIF. But the first rule of nuclear weapons club is don't talk about nuclear weapons club!

I certainly won't talk about my 4 years baby sitting large nuclear missiles in underground locations.

 

[Nords]

So I have a question for you nuclear engineers here. Is there anything technically from stopping us from deploying thousands of nuclear submarine sized power plants around the US?

I understand waste disposal is an issue.

Technically, no. Two of them are already at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station to provide operational Navy nuclear power training to military students and civilian staff. They're former submarines now known as Moored Training Ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moored_training_ship
Sadly, @Gumby and I are old enough to remember when SAM RAYBURN and DANIEL WEBSTER were making patrols.

Fundamentally, the US Navy has been using nuclear power safely for 60 years. It can be done. And the military is all about following regulations. Maybe they can teach us how to save the world.

From the design & operations/personnel perspective, Rickover gave it his best shot. The civilians (and the submarine vets) just aren't willing to design or operate utility plants to the same standards as submarines.

It would definitely be a non-profit project, especially due to the lifecycle costs of the spent fuel and radioactively-contaminated components.

 

[Out of Steam]

From the design & operations/personnel perspective, Rickover gave it his best shot. The civilians (and the submarine vets) just aren't willing to design or operate utility plants to the same standards as submarines.

It would definitely be a non-profit project, especially due to the lifecycle costs of the spent fuel and radioactively-contaminated components.

Yes, the ultimate problem with nuclear power is cost.

 

[Chuckanut]

I remember reading an article that stated that if nuclear fuel is reprocessed and used over again, the amount of material to be stored after providing one year's worth of energy for an average American family of four will fit into a lipstick container.

If we are going to make the nuclear industry assume full responsibility for its product from cradle to grave, we need to do the same for others like solar, wind, and geothermal. Otherwise the comparison is slanted

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/75937...by-wind-energy

Ninety percent of a turbine's parts can be recycled or sold, according to Van Vleet, but the blades, made of a tough but pliable mix of resin and fiberglass — similar to what spaceship parts are made from — are a different story.
"The blades are kind of a dud because they have no value," he said.
Decommissioned blades are also notoriously difficult and expensive to transport. They can be anywhere from 100 to 300 feet long and need to be cut up onsite before getting trucked away on specialized equipment — which costs money — to the landfill.

 

[Gumby]

Spent nuclear fuel still contains about 96% of the the uranium it had when new. The other 4% is fission products, which render it no longer useable, unless and until the fuel is chemically reprocessed to remove them. France reprocesses and reuses its fuel and then vitrifies and stores the fission products in a deep granite formation at the La Hague facility. The US does not reprocess its fuel and the spent fuel remains in storage pools or dry cask storage at the various commercial nuclear plants around the country.

 

[BeachOrCity]

Buy uranium. SRUUF

There will be a supply shortage and this trust which just owns the material should do well in coming years.

 

[Chuckanut]

On new idea is to use the sites of existing coal fire plants as locations for the new smaller mini-reactors being developed. It's not without controversy. The idea of small standardized nuclear reactors that are cheap to build and safe to run has not yet been proven.

U.S. utilities and startup firms are trying to convince lawmakers, regulators and customers that they can convert aging coal power plants to house small nuclear reactors, a so-far unproven way to deliver electricity.
The burgeoning idea would place fleets of small, modular nuclear reactors at or near former coal-fired power plants and is taking hold across the electricity industry. Utility companies see it as a way to repurpose coal plants they are set to retire and are joining with startups developing the reactors, looking to tap into billions of dollars in federal funding.