Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Small Modular Reactors

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by BMD, Sep 16, 2017.

  1. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    A very nice site.

    http://lftrnow.com


    Ha!
    [​IMG]

    After €190bn in subsidies to renewables, the result is ever more dirty coal, more gas, destroyed palm forests in Malaysia and Indonesia (biomass lol).
     
  2. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Good starter read.

     
  3. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
  4. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    The Nuclear Integral Fast Reactor IFR and S-PRISM EFFICIENT FOURTH GENERATION NUCLEAR DESIGN

    IFR BURNS ALL Nuclear waste.

    IFR 30,000% INCREASED Efficiency. IFRs use virtually all of the energy content in the Uranium or Thorium fuel whereas a traditional light water reactor uses less than 1% of that energy content. This means that breeder reactors can power the energy needs of the planet for over a billion years.

    1. It can be fueled entirely with material recovered from today’s used nuclear fuel.

    2. It consumes virtually all the long-lived radioactive isotopes that worry people who are concerned about the “nuclear waste problem,” reducing the needed isolation time to less than 500 years.

    3. It could provide all the energy needed for centuries (perhaps as many as 50,000 years), feeding only on the uranium that has already been mined.

    4. It uses uranium resources with 100 to 300 times the efficiency of today’s reactors.

    5. It does not require enrichment of uranium.

    6. It has less proliferation potential than the reprocessing method now used in several countries.

    7. It’s 24×7 baseline power.

    8. It can be built anywhere there is water.

    9. The power is very inexpensive (some estimates are as low as 2 cents/kWh to produce).

    10. Safe from melt down because if something goes wrong, the reactor naturally shuts down rather than blows up.

    11. And, of course, it emits no greenhouse gases.
     
  5. Gessler

    Gessler Mod MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,561
    Likes Received:
    9,045
    Country Flag:
    India
  6. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Large amount from wind too it seems, see pale green.
     
  7. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    All interested countries will be investing and they will have ownership based on the cost of investment.

    The point of this exercise is to provide cheap energy to countries with deficits. Since projects of such a large scale will have cost advantages, people will buy the power.

    We need some really good HVDC lines for this. They can transmit power over long distances and can connect to asynchronous grids.

    http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-longest-power-transmission-lines-4167964/
     
  8. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    Don't be silly. What I pointed out is workable and the technology for it already exists. What you are propounding doesn't exist. India hasn't even started building the AHWR, let alone a LFTR.

    India will grow to a 1 to 1.5TW consumer by the end of 2030. There will be no commercially viable LFTRs by then.

    We need cheap power now as a growing country, we can't afford to be a power deficit country. Once we are sufficiently richer, thorium reactors can become viable. Thorium is definitely our future, but we are not there yet.
     
  9. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Show me a commercially viable, independently operable, solar pv plant and I will show you a LFTR.
    -Abraham Lincoln​
     
  10. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    ML-1 Mobile Power System: Reactor in a Box

    [​IMG]



    November 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

    The ML-1 experimental reactor was unique. It was not a pressurized water reactor with a steam energy conversion system. Instead, ML-1 was the first nitrogen cooled, water moderated reactor with a nitrogen turbine energy conversion system. Its major design criteria was compactness.

    ML-1 could be packed into 6 shipping containers – one for the reactor, one for the complete heat conversion system, one for the control room, and three others for cabling, auxiliary gas storage and handling equipment and miscellaneous tools and critical supplies.

    The two major containers weighed 15 tons each while the four additional containers each weighed between three and four tons. They were designed to fit into any of the Army’s transport systems including C-130 aircraft, standard Army trucks, and rail.

    In order to reduce the weight of shielding needing transport, the reactor was designed to be installed with a human exclusion boundary of 500 feet.

    Design Challenges
    In order to minimize the engine volume and mass, the decision was made to operate the engine with nitrogen pressurized to approximately 9 bar – 9 times normal atmospheric pressure – at the compressor inlet. This decision, though it helped reduce the size of the heat exchangers and turbomachinery somewhat, made the design uniquely difficult.

    Essentially every other gas turbine ever built has operated with air at atmospheric pressure as the working fluid. The designers of ML-1 had the difficult challenge of making the machine perform as desired with a high density working fluid. This requires the reduction of critical machine clearances and makes accurate balancing far more critical for long term, reliable operation.

    A second design decision that made the engine construction more challenging than required was the decision to add a recuperator to the system. Though recuperators have proven that they can improve gas turbine efficiency by several percent in stationary applications, they are not normally used in mobile engines because the additional heat exchanger adds more weight and space than it is worth.

    The reactor heat system also required a stretch of existing technology. In order to minimize the size of the reactor, designers decided to use water inside pressure tubes as the neutron moderator. In order to prevent boiling, the water in the tubes was circulated to maintain the temperature below 250 F.

    The water tubes were interspersed throughout the core between the fuel bundles. The nitrogen gas flowed past both the water tubes and the fuel bundles and ranged in temperature from 800 F at the core inlet to 1200 F at the outlet. The physical distance between the inlet and the outlet was less than two feet; the temperature extremes made material selection very important.

    Testing Experience
    The designers of the ML-1 decided to test two different heat engines that could each be connected to the reactor heat source. Once of the machines had an 11 stage axial flow compressor designed and constructed by Fairchild-Stratos Corporation while the other included a two stage centrifugal flow compressor designed and built by Clark Brothers Company.

    Neither heat engine was able to meet its designed power output because neither compressor was able to produce the required flow at the required differential pressure. Rather than achieving a power output of 300 kw the best that the tested system could achieve was less than 200 kw. Engineering evaluations were made indicating that some minor adjustments could be made that would raise the performance of the machine, but it is not apparent from the historical record that this kind of rework was ever completed.

    A second problem that surfaced during the testing program was related to the moderator water tubes. The high thermal and temperature stress of the tubes combined with manufacturing flaws to cause cracking in the tube welds. The cracks allowed water to enter into the coolant system and required a lengthy hiatus in the test program to correct the problem.

    A final problem that had a major effect on the system was the failure of the internal insulation of the regenerator. This was installed under the assumption that it would reduce heat losses and thus improve performance. The insulation consisted of a blanket of fine particles covered with a metal foil. The foil tore loose because of aerodynamic buffeting during testing, causing the distribution of the fine particles throughout the system. After the dust was removed from the engine, testing continued without the insulation.

    Lessons Learned
    Though the difficulties experienced by the ML-1 testers were the type that are common with the first of a kind of any complex piece of machinery, they proved to be fatal for the program and helped destroy any budding interest in nuclear gas turbines.

    Because of the increasing amount of money needed to fight the Vietnam War, the Army’s research and development budget for non weapons items was severely constrained. There was little support for funding experimental nuclear systems in 1963, particularly experimental systems that seemed to have so many difficulties that needed fixing.

    Now, however, after more than 30 years of technological developments, it is worth summarizing the lessons that can be learned for future closed cycle gas turbine development.

    • Pressurizing gas turbine cycles may be a good idea on paper, but there are practical engineering difficulties that must be overcome if it is to be used in a real system.
    • Recuperators are troublesome, particularly if space and weight are constraining factors in system design.
    • Water tube reactors are unnecessarily complex, particularly since there have been excellent results achieved by high temperature graphite moderated reactors.
    • Any material that can potentially contaminate a closed cycle turbine system should be avoided.
    • If possible, well-proven components should be integrated into a complete system rather than designing each component from scratch.

    https://atomicinsights.com/ml1-mobile-power-system-reactor-box/
     
  11. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Nuclear Generator Movable By Cargo Plane. Not Only Possible, But Proven In Early 1960s
    October 4, 2017 By Rod Adams

    Last week was National Clean Energy Week. On Tuesday, there was a wide ranging symposium with talks about nuclear energy, wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectricity, carbon capture and sequestration and natural gas.

    Early in the day, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke participated in a panel discussion moderated by former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte. During that discussion, Sec. Perry spoke about the human tragedy that has been unfolding in the Caribbean since the islands were attacked by two major hurricanes in rapid succession. Naturally, he focused on the U.S. territories, but the same, or worse conditions exist in independent nations, British territories, and Dutch territories.


    He spoke earnestly and with obvious emotion. Here is a partial transcript of the above video.

    “I want to talk about an opportunity that we have right now. The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are devastated. Maybe one of the most tragic events in recent history with the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico. 3.5 million Americans who are without electricity. We’re trying to get micro generators down there. We’re trying to get fuel down there. Wouldn’t it make abundant good sense if we had small modular reactors that literally you could put in the back of a C-17 aircraft, transport to an area like Puerto Rico push it out the back end, crank it up, plug it in that could serve tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people very quickly. That’s the type of innovation that’s going on in our national labs.”

    That statement intrigued other participants enough that they brought it up at least twice in later panels.

    For example, Charles Hernick of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions was the moderator of a panel discussion on innovation, research and development. He asked Marc Nichol, the senior project manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute’s program on new reactor deployment, small modular reactors and advanced reactors to help the audience understand how real that scenario might be.

    Nichol responded by describing the fact that there were at least 20 different companies in various stages of developing new reactor designs, some of which are much smaller and more flexible than currently operating plants. He also described how some of them are specifically being designed for independent operation in small grids where the plant can be kept operating and ready to supply power as soon as off site power lines can be restored.

    Skepticism From An Energy Pundit
    Dr. Joe Romm, a Clinton Administration Department of Energy official, was dismissive of Perry’s description of future SMRs in a piece written for his Think Progress blog.

    “Such small nuclear power plants are not expected to be commercialized until the mid-2020s, and even if they are, they are projected to be wildly expensive — just like current reactors — and not that small (650 tons). Nobody’s going to be “literally” putting one in a C-17 and pushing it out the back end on a small island ready to go. The U.S. territory doesn’t have time for such political pipe dreams.”

    Dr. Romm has a different prescription for providing power to areas devastated by natural disasters.

    “Microgrids built around cheap renewable power and battery storage are now the fastest and cheapest way to restore power — while at the same time building resilience into the grid against the next disaster.”

    Who Is Right?
    There are no air transportable nuclear plants available now. They are not expected to be available until sometime after the mid 2020s. Perry wasn’t suggesting that such systems were on the shelf.

    Romm is also correct in noting that areas devastated by the one-two punch of Hurricanes Irma and Maria need power now. They cannot afford to wait two weeks, much less two months or ten years.

    He is provably wrong, however, to describe Perry’s vision as a pipe dream and also to imply that there was no way anyone could literally put such a system onto an aircraft. It’s been done before. There’s video evidence from an era before computerized special effects that show actual hardware in the act of moving into and out of an airplane.

    Army Produced Electricity With Air Transportable Nuclear Generator In September 1962

    In the 1950s through the mid 1970s, the U.S. Army had a nuclear energy research and development program. That program, implemented at a time when there were many World War II veterans in decision making positions, was aimed at taking advantage of the incredible energy density of uranium fuel to solve a well understood logistical problem.

    As noted in the above public information movie released by the Army in 1963, moving fuel represented 50% of the logistical effort of supporting a field army. At the time, about 1/8th of the fuel moved was dedicated to producing electricity.

    One of the systems that the Army developed, the ML-1, was specifically aimed at providing a capable electricity generator that could be transported by air, rail, ship or truck. The designation, ML, stood for Mobile, Low Power Reactor. The ‘1’ meant it was the first of a kind.

    Because of its evident potential for low weight compared to steam plants, the ML-1 used a closed Brayton Cycle compressor and turbine as the power off take system. It used nitrogen as the working fluid to transport heat from the reactor. The hot, pressurized nitrogen could spin a turbine, which was coupled to an electrical generator. After leaving the turbine, the nitrogen would be cooled and fed back into the compressor that pushed the gas through the reactor cooling channels.

    The main part of the system fit on two skids, each weighing about 15 tons. One skid held the reactor, the other held the compressor, turbine, generator and heat exchanger. With a total weight of 30 tons, the two skids could be loaded onto a single truck. Cables and a control van would be carried on separate trucks.

    With the state of material engineering and gas turbine machinery technology available in 1962, the ML-1 was expected to be able to produce 300 to 500 kilowatts of electricity. It’s fuel was expected to last at least two years before needing to be replaced. Set up time was measured in hours. Relocation after operation would have to wait a day or so while short lived fission products decayed.

    ML-1 worked. It generated electricity for the first time in September 1962. However, it did not work very well because the designers had no experience in matching compressors to turbines for systems where the gas had to flow through nuclear reactors and exhaust through heat exchangers instead of directly into the atmosphere. Instead of the hoped for 300-500 kilowatts, the first of a kind (FOAK) unit produced a maximum of about 180 kilowatts.

    After testing the system for a few hundred hours of operation, the designers were ready to make improvements. Unfortunately, Army budgets in 1963 cut research and development funds to nearly zero in order to fund increased operations in Vietnam. In an era of “guns and butter” budgets, no one made room for nuclear energy research and development in the Army.

    Regulations And Public Perceptions
    As Secretary Perry noted, there are now regulations that would inhibit the development and operation of systems like the ML-1. As he also noted during his talk, many of those regulations have been imposed based on technological misunderstandings. Perry was not correct in blaming the public for those misunderstanding.

    The public’s knowledge of nuclear energy and its potential is largely based on what the experts, the activists and the authorities have told them. Since the actual nuclear experts are cautious, speak very softly and mostly to each other, public knowledge has largely been shaped by more aggressive activists and by authorities who were moved by efforts of the vocal activists.

    The compact nature of nuclear fuels is a matter of undeniable physics. So is the fact that nuclear fission does not produce any air or water pollution and the fact that hardened nuclear power plants have operated reliably in the most stressful environments available on earth and in space up to the limits of our solar system.

    Though Romm cited a few examples of using solar power and batteries to supply small quantities of power in the aftermath of power outages following a hurricane, those systems cannot provide much electricity and they do not necessarily represent an improvement in resilience for withstanding future storms. That is especially true for “cheap” versions of the technology.

    Here is a thought provoking photo of a large solar farm located near Charlotte Amalie on St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands following Hurricane Irma.

    [​IMG]
    CHARLOTTE AMALIE, US VIRGIN ISLANDS – SEPTEMBER 17: Hurricane Irma destroyed almost all of the 16,748 panels in this solar farm September 17, 2017 in Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas, The U.S. Virgin Islands. Hurricane Irma slammed into the Leeward Islands on September 6 as a Category 5 storm, killing four and causing major damage on the islands of St. John and St. Thomas. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images,)

    There are ways in which currently available nuclear energy systems can provide some comfort, safety and power for the devastated areas hammered by Hurricanes Irma and Maria – nuclear aircraft carriers have a long history of exceptional response in humanitarian crises. Not as well known, but reasonably well demonstrated is the fact that nuclear submarines have some capacity to supply electricity to islands.

    The U.S. should do everything it can to assist and provide power now, but we should also diligently pursue responsible commercialization of the small nuclear power systems that were initially developed and proven possible by past generations.

    https://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-generator-movable-cargo-plane-not-possible-proven-early-1960s/
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 9:31 AM
  12. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    The economies of scale of such a large project will easily take care of it.

    Fact: Solar power will sustain itself without subsidies in the next 3 years. LFTR will become commercially viable only after 2030 or even 2040.
     
  13. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Can the U.S. nuclear construction cost curve be bent downward again? And more importantly, can new nuclear power generation cost less than current fossil fuel alternatives, especially natural gas? Presentations at the recent Advanced Nuclear Summit in Washington, D.C., suggest that this might be possible. At the very optimistic end, the nuclear start-up ThorCon claims that the capital costs for its molten salt reactor would amount to $700 per kilowatt of capacity. Less optimistic analyses for new reactor designs put the costs at around $2,000 to $3,400 per kilowatt. This is comparable to building a coal-fired plant, but considerably more pricey than natural gas plant construction. On the other hand, Terrestrial Energy estimates that, if fuel costs are taken into account, its molten salt reactor would produce electricity at a lower cost than do natural gas plants.

    In any case, throwing off excessive regulatory precaution to speed up the approval of new advanced nuclear power plant designs would go a long way toward finding out which energy sources are ultimately cheaper and safer for people and the planet.

    https://reason.com/archives/2016/02/05/the-new-nuclear-energy-revolution/print
     
  14. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    To fuel one-third of the United States’ 2050 electricity demand with nuclear power would require only 440 sq-km [169 square miles], according to the land use figures compiled by Brook.

    If solar provided one-third of Americans’ electricity in 2050, it would require just 4,000-11,000 sq-km [1500-4250 square miles

    Powering one-third of the country's projected 2050 electricity demand with wind energy could take a land area spanning on the order of 66,000 sq-km… [25,480 square miles]:rofl:



    A 1,000-MW wind farm would require approximately 85,240 acres of land (approximately 133 square miles). Accounting for a range of capacity factors (32-47 percent), between 1,900 MW and 2,800 MW of wind capacity would be required to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-MW nuclear plant in a year. The land needed for wind energy to produce the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear plant is between 260 square miles and 360 square miles. A 1,000-MW solar photovoltaic (PV) facility would require about 8,900 acres (approximately 14 square miles).
    Accounting for a range of capacity factors (17-28 percent), between 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW of solar PV capacity is required to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-MW nuclear plant in a year. The amount of land needed by solar to produce the same generation as 1,000 MW of nuclear capacity in a year is between 45 and 75 square miles
    .

    Vs 1.3 sq mile per nuclear.:treadmill:j

    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.in/2015/07/how-much-land-does-nuclear-wind-and.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM
  15. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    To sum up.

    New nuclear can build 1 GW of power at $700mn - $3bn

    Old nuclear, i.e Gen 3, 3+ after sufficient orders can deliver it at $5-$6bn

    Wind, the cheapest of renewables can, after altering land usage on a giga scale, deliver it at a range of 10's of billions

    Solar, which Germans finally started abandoning will do it for $100's of billions.

    BIOMASS requires destruction of all forest land on Earth, creating more pollution than coal, likely trigger for Mass Extinction event, can also do it. Probably cheaper than old nuclear. ( Yay!)

    /Thread
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 10:12 AM

Share This Page