Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Dec 16, 2017 12:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Quote:
The first 220-tonne steam generating unit - including a 35 MWe KLT-40S reactor - was installed in the vessel's reactor compartment on 27 September at the Baltiysky Zavod-Shipbuilding shipyard in St Petersburg. The second one was installed today. The operation to install the reactors, carried out using a special floating crane, was held in the presence of Rosenergoatom and the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping.

Russia's OKBM Afrikantov completed the assembly of the two reactors for the country's first floating nuclear power plant, the Akademik Lomonosov, in 2009. The assembly and acceptance testing of the reactors was conducted at the Nizhniy Novgorod AtomEnergoProekt (NN-AEP). OKBM Afrikantov designed and provided technical support for the manufacture of the reactors, while Izhorskiye Zavody produced the reactor vessels and NN-AEP manufactured parts for the reactors and assembled them. They have been stored at Baltiysky Zavod while the hull of the vessel was completed.

Deputy general director of Rosenergoatom's directorate for building floating nuclear power plants Sergey Zavyalov commented, "We, as the customer, can see that work on the project has intensified in the past months, which gives us strong confidence that the floating unit will be ready in time."

The keel of the Akademik Lomonosov was laid in April 2007 at Sevmash in Severodvinsk, but the project was subsequently transferred to the Baltiysky Zavod. The 21,500 tonne hull was launched in 2010, although construction work was frozen in mid-2011 amid bankruptcy proceedings against the shipyard. The company was subsequently acquired by state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation and Rosenergoatom signed a new contract in December 2012 with Baltiysky Zavod shipyard for the completion of the first floating nuclear power plant.

The plant is now scheduled for delivery on 9 September 2016 and will be deployed near the port of Pevek on Russia's Chukotka peninsula on the East Siberian Sea.


Reactors installed on floating plant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2013 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
Additional photos here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 970&type=1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 02, 2013 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
It is a good start for niche use.
A salt cooled reactor will reduce the mass of reactor vessel, the heaviest part.
A 100-300MW SVBR deserves to be put on a raft for more extensive use..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 17, 2014 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
A new article on the subject has come up.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/16/56209 ... -disasters
A nuclear power plant out on the sea may be more acceptable than in ones backyard. A developer could build one or two to meet urgent requirements any where on the world's coastlines when a thermal, gas or nuclear powered is closed for periodic maintenance. Some users may opt for extended lease and the plant could be jacked up.
I had sent a similar suggestion to the Indian DAE when there were demonstrations against starting operation of Russian built plant at Kudankulam and to building of the French plant at Jaitapur..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 17, 2014 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3353
Location: Alabama
I've been thinking along these lines for many years. Except I think it should be submerged.

Energy from Thorium: (Utility-Scale) Submarine Power Plants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 17, 2014 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 31, 2008 12:09 am
Posts: 236
Location: Berkeley, CA
MIT is also working in this area, see

MIT designs a floating, tsunami-proof nuclear plant

and

New concept for offshore nuclear plant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 18, 2014 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
For a submerged reactor, the Chicken Little response would go from ' Anyone could fly a plane into it!' to ' Anyone could drop depth charges on it! '
More seriously, wouldn't an underwater MSR, like a sodium cooled one but unlike a PWR, lead- or gas-cooled reactor, have issues with seawater reacting with the coolant if containment was breached?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 18, 2014 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Per Peterson wrote:


That's very clever, they just use a flooded hull around the containment for passive cooling, then supposedly conduction through the hull to the sea. There would never be any need for electricity or water addition for emergency cooling. It would be walk-away safe.

A NuScale type approach would work well with this concept.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 20, 2014 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
The Russians are already using the small power plants of what are essentially ice-breakers diverted for dispatching power to coast. It reminds me of Indian farmers using the tractor engine power for pumping water or other uses. This is admirable but there is a new niche.
What is now required is to build medium sized nuclear power plants on self-propelled rafts in the shipyards and deliver working power plants to buyers/leasers. The plants would be delivering the benefit of power availability before the resistance to nuclear power builds up politically. Such plants could be moored off Singapore or Los Angeles, for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 21, 2014 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB ... 04147.html
The idea is not new to US either. Just gone out of fashion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 22, 2014 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 25, 2011 1:55 am
Posts: 89
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
I've been thinking along these lines for many years. Except I think it should be submersed.


Something along the lines of DCNS's concept then? Perhaps tradeoffs in whether it contains equipment for surfacing built-in, or requires external support (i.e. air supply) to surface?

Cyril R wrote:
Per Peterson wrote:


That's very clever, they just use a flooded hull around the containment for passive cooling, then supposedly conduction through the hull to the sea. There would never be any need for electricity or water addition for emergency cooling. It would be walk-away safe.

A NuScale type approach would work well with this concept.


Flooded hull is pretty similar to a tanker in concept. Use that new US Navy synfuel system and store production synfuels in the outer tanks, while tanks surrounding the reactor vessel are still water? At that point it wouldn't be all that different from an FPSO. Park that sucker outside the 12 mile line to make licensing easier?

A lingering issue is leasing and reposession. Having a creditor repo your powerplant could be construed as economic terrorism...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 23, 2014 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
You want to store large amounts of flammable liquid inside the emergency heat sink of a nuclear reactor.

Are you feeling allright?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 23, 2014 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 570
Location: Iowa, USA
Cyril R wrote:
You want to store large amounts of flammable liquid inside the emergency heat sink of a nuclear reactor.

Are you feeling allright?


You mean like putting pure zirconium in a pool of boiling water? What could possibly go wrong!

Hydrocarbons are used for cooling and lubrication in all kinds of places. Not sure why I should think a nuclear reactor would be any different. I recall proposed nuclear reactor designs that used hydrocarbons for its desired radioactive properties. I don't recall what those properties were. I suspect hydrocarbons would be analogous to graphite in uses and properties.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 23, 2014 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1494
Putting it there is likely to expose the hydrocarbons to massive gamma flux.

Which means it will turn to char and hydrogen gas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 23, 2014 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Kurt Sellner wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
You want to store large amounts of flammable liquid inside the emergency heat sink of a nuclear reactor.

Are you feeling allright?


You mean like putting pure zirconium in a pool of boiling water? What could possibly go wrong!


The amount is small and it is quite refractory, unlike huge amounts of (say) low flash point gasoline, though you do have a point. Nothing wrong with stainless steel cladding. On balance the fuel savings from Zr are offset by higher containment cost, hydrogen recombiners, igniters, etc. I think this is a historic mistake from the industry, optimizing one system while getting back higher cost and risks in others. BWRs would benefit particularly from not having hydrogen around since hydrogen can't be pressure suppressed. Building, containment, offgas costs would be greatly reduced.

Quote:
Hydrocarbons are used for cooling and lubrication in all kinds of places.


Yes, and they have routinely caught fire in almost every single one of these applications. However, the amounts of oil in cooling systems and lubrication is small and the flash points are high, making the risk manageable... nothing like, say, storing a day's worth of low flash point gasoline production from nuclear synfuel plant, next to the nuclear plant itself!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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