Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 19, 2017 10:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: May 14, 2012 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
Hi Jagdish.
Some of Russia's efforts are pretty impressive too, and when the infatuation with impractical renewables in Japan and Germany blows over their floating lead reactors might be able to be towed into place and do a job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 14, 2012 11:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
It might take a decade or more. Chinese and Russians are not going to sit idle.
I hope the nuclear construction remains big enough to keep the cost curve declining.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 15, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 11, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4
Location: Blue springs, Mo.
Everyone seems really negative about making this happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 16, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
I am positive about Russia, China, India and Korea. Russia are the sellers and others are buyers and consumers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 17, 2016 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Garrett wrote:
Everyone seems really negative about making this happen.

Hi, Garrett. It's been four years. It's a brand nuclear day; perfect for fission! I agree with you on your lament here.

Do a forum search on "4979" and note the U.S. is getting ready to innovate and modernize the nuclear energy rules in support of advances in nuclear energy technologies that "[enables] the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies by enhancing accountability in the NRC’s budget and fee programs as well as ensuring that the Commission develops a modern, technology-neutral framework that allows for the phased and expedited licensing of advanced reactor technologies. This legislation follows a number of the key recommendations that were included in the Advanced Reactor White Paper that NIC issued on February 22, 2016."

Re: Advanced Reactors Technical Summit, ORNL, Feb. 10, 2016

"The Nuclear Renaissance" is about to get signed into law. It'd help if we all join in bipartisan support.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 17, 2016 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Personally, I think the rewording of the COP Agreement by COP21 from "renewables" to "low carbon" will have the greatest long term effect.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24, 2016 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
Thing seem to be going largely as I guessed.
China is the biggest builder of reactors in China locally and exporting to Pakistan. Seriously investing in UK.
Russia is biggest exporter of nuclear plants.
US shuttering nuclear plant in favour of gas.
France thinking in terms of 50% power from nuclear from near 80%.
Germany has ordered closing of all nuclear plants.
The epicentre of nuclear energy has moved east.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24, 2016 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
jagdish wrote:
US [is] shuttering nuclear plant[s] in [favor] of gas.
The epicentre [sic] of nuclear energy has moved east.

Interesting declarations, Jagdish. Are you an American citizen?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 28, 2016 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
I have just put down my observations. I am not an American.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 29, 2016 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Jagdish, thank you for answering my direct question.
Apr 23, 2012 10:27 pm, topic author, Garrett wrote:
So I was just wondering what the different opinions were out there in triggering the Nuclear renaissance?
Garrett has posted to this forum 4 times. Cyril R, The Mercurial, takes the prize at 4971 posts as of this post. Lars, ThorCon, is at 3077, and our host, Thor, is at 2815.

Garrett stated this topic four years ago. Triggering the nuclear renaissance? The assumption being that it hasn't happened yet.
Garrett wrote:
With the future of humanity essentially depend [sic] upon over coming people’s perception of nuclear power what the easiest most practical way to implement LFTR to do so?
Is he asking, assuming a sudden public focus on nuclear power, a vetting of the issue, the formation of a positive consensus, and a majority vote for Dr. Weinberg's 1970 vision for domestic nuclear energy, whether the public will influence the NRC licensing process for the Flibe Energy reactor design based on the pure thorium fuel cycle?

Policy to help move forward by Alec Herbert (May 20, 2016 11:16 am) shows our "nuclear renaissance" depends to a large part upon U.S. leadership as it always has, and our leadership is actively working on regulatory reform and federal support for the existing fleet and especially for advance nuclear reactors.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 16, 2016 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2016 5:01 pm
Posts: 18
Tim Meyer wrote:
jagdish wrote:
US [is] shuttering nuclear plant[s] in [favor] of gas.
The epicentre [sic] of nuclear energy has moved east.

Interesting declarations, Jagdish. Are you an American citizen?


I'm not an American citizen but being from Canada we're not in a terribly dissimilar situation, progress is slow but the potential is there, etc etc.

What does concern me is that as Jagdish suggested, the competition is moving on. I've been interested in nuclear for a while so I welcomed the good news about the BN-800 starting up and producing power. It's definitely a solid sign of progress towards Gen IV that we haven't really seen mirrored elsewhere which suggests that the Russians are in a strong if not leading position in terms of making and deploying Gen IV plants. What got me truly concerned though is the dominance in PWRs. I counted up 32 VVER 1000/1200 reactor builds in progress or planning, not counting finishing old projects started under the Soviets, most of these are abroad. If that alone wasn't enough take a look at Finland as a microcosm of what seems to be happening in the industry as a whole. Initially the western firms have advantages due to a better safety record and perceptions of quality but as the western builds invariably run into huge cost inflation where there's little desire amongst the firms to take responsibility for things and move on the VVERs take over, thus Finland's next nuclear build is going to be a VVER. In places where cost is considered more important from the get go the VVER just wins outright.

I don't believe that western firms are incapable of doing just as well if not better but there's a deadline and some corporate culture things that might have to change, perhaps in a drastic fashion. If you look into the details of the Finnish EPR build you can see several changes to the joint venture that started the project which I suspect added to the delays and cost of the build. If western firms want to compete against the Russians, and in future against the Chinese and Indians, then I'm of the opinion that they're going to have to cut that out and perhaps even consider stepping away from being a public company. Put simply exposing a company with such long-term projects to the volatility of the stock market seems like a pretty critical disadvantage and rearranging corporate and venture structures mid-build is borderline unacceptable. Also we have to get this fixed before the Russians/Chinese/Indians build and deploy SMRs of their own, there just won't be much of an opening after the first generation or two of SMRs roll off the line, the disruption of the new technology will be important to letting the west level the playing field and perhaps take over. From what I can tell there's plenty of western firms that are well on their way to doing just this, as evidenced from this website, but we need to get that ball rolling and soon, it's going to be hell to pay first-of-a-kind costs on a new American/French/Canadian SMR when there's a proven Russian/Chinese/Indian SMR that's well into serial production.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 17, 2016 4:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
It is just that centre of nuclear development was in most technically developed parts of the world and is now moving to where it is most needed. An interesting sidelight is that nuclear weapon haves are hindering, via the NPT and NSG, the acquisition of reactors by energy havenots including giving it a bad reputation. The energy needs are likely to prevail and Russians are on way to benefit most by nuclear commerce. Koreans are catching up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 17, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Good points, Jagdish and A. Tiger. The first working TMSR with online salt processing unlike the Canadian TE IMSR or THORCON (based in Florida?) or TAP's WAMSR (Cambridge, MA) will be the winner of the race. President Putin will have the Russian thorium report 1 March 2017. Let's see if the Russians decide to win the race.

This month, 17 countries [are] cooperating on molten salt nuclear reactor design and development through the IAEA.

Meantime, the Flibe Energy design should have been built and running by now, all things considered—easy to say. Kirk's vision is the best from where I sit. His LFTR beats all the competition—Huntsville, Alabama, USA, down the road from where the technology was invented and tested. World: You're welcome. If the FE LFTR is not the first, then anywhere else I bet the design will be a copy of his.

A main reason I posted the "Toshiba Ships Turbine for Net Power Supercritical CO2 Power" subject I'll first enter under "the" nuclear renaissance. When the world learns of the NET Power Allam Cycle with the most efficient cleanest power tech, natural gas and coal will probably kill nuclear unless people can see beyond a few hundred years. It's oxyfired and 100% carbon capture, and more efficient than Rankin Cycle. It's being first implemented with NG but it's coal version will follow. Exelon is the utility and will get the trophy.

Thousands of talking heads on the networks and not one with any vision? How does that happen?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 18, 2016 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2016 5:01 pm
Posts: 18
Tim Meyer wrote:
Good points, Jagdish and A. Tiger. The first working TMSR with online salt processing unlike the Canadian TE IMSR or THORCON (based in Florida?) or TAP's WAMSR (Cambridge, MA) will be the winner of the race. President Putin will have the Russian thorium report 1 March 2017. Let's see if the Russians decide to win the race.

This month, 17 countries [are] cooperating on molten salt nuclear reactor design and development through the IAEA.

Meantime, the Flibe Energy design should have been built and running by now, all things considered—easy to say. Kirk's vision is the best from where I sit. His LFTR beats all the competition—Huntsville, Alabama, USA, down the road from where the technology was invented and tested. World: You're welcome. If the FE LFTR is not the first, then anywhere else I bet the design will be a copy of his.

A main reason I posted the "Toshiba Ships Turbine for Net Power Supercritical CO2 Power" subject I'll first enter under "the" nuclear renaissance. When the world learns of the NET Power Allam Cycle with the most efficient cleanest power tech, natural gas and coal will probably kill nuclear unless people can see beyond a few hundred years. It's oxyfired and 100% carbon capture, and more efficient than Rankin Cycle. It's being first implemented with NG but it's coal version will follow. Exelon is the utility and will get the trophy.

Thousands of talking heads on the networks and not one with any vision? How does that happen?


I'm not sure that the first generation of SMRs will be as 'winner take all' as you suggest. The various advantages ( and drawbacks ) of the different designs out there will have to be proven out through years of operation, the desire for various nations to buy local and the desire for various regulators to stick with what they know are all likely to make for a fairly broad mix of reactors out there initially ( presuming enough SMRs are built in general to create a broad mix but if not that many SMRs are built then there's no real winner anyways ).

Indeed just from a prudence perspective I'd rather have the first generation of SMRs to be a mix of reactor types then all of the same type, even if that type is expected to be superior. We haven't run these reactors yet and as the French trouble with high-carbon steel has shown having a problem, even a minor one, come up impacts the whole fleet, betting the future of the nuclear industry all on one specific design seems pretty risky given that all of the Gen IV designs offer huge benefits compared to the competition, coal and gas. If LFTR runs into trouble in mass-deployment due to mining complications ( an example, not a prediction ), I'd like there to be ready-to-go alternatives from light-water SMRs like NuScale or sodium cooled ones like PRISM.

Of course as the various designs start to put years of operation behind them the comparative advantages and disadvantages will become a lot more clear and likely see the industry focus on a specific type, LFTR being a top candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 18, 2016 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Amur_Tiger wrote:
I'm not sure that the first generation of SMRs will be as 'winner take all' as you suggest.
Thanks for the reply, Tiger. I believe SMR means solid fueled. The fluid-fueled reactor where the fluid is a particular molten salt has not been given the chance to perform. Kirk—our host here—has for many years now shown what the inventor of the MSR (Alvin M. Weinberg) first recognized that the thorium fuel cycle is best in the fluid phase thermally moderated, and in particular using the FLiBe salt with HD lithium. As director of ORNL, he was working on the molten salt breeder reactor—and not for a "small" power plant. I think the design was a quad of TMSRs for a 1 GW power plant.

I believe one reason the TMSBR is potentially the highest performing is its ability to achieve high burn up without elevated TU accumulation. The SMRs (NuScale?) face the same challenges as LWRs. When the Exelon/NET Power scCO2 Allam Cycle begins performing, the zero-emissions advantage of nuclear is met using carbon.

Nuclear is a million times more powerful than burning carbon (NG). That's a natural fact. But its complexity is greater especially given the dangers of radioactive waste. I believe NG and coal have some and various radioactive content.

I wish Flibe Energy could build its LFTR to could get the performance information.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group