De-regulating nuclear power is dumb, dangerous, and expensive

[CaughtInThe]

God. We're ****ed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is not the first successful thorium reactor. We did build and operate an experimental form for four years. The USA abandoned the project. Maybe we were unable to scale it to a practical level.

Good luck China.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I could see old coal power plants using several SMR's to replace coal as the heat source.
The plants are already physically where they need to be and are grid connected, just their heat source is dirty.
Almost all coal power plants also have ether rail or a dock to bring in the coal, so heavy lift capability. (To bring in the SMR's).

Hi Longview,

I actually like your idea. In all practicality this means that you will only have the land and the grid connection, but still that is better than nothing. Oh, and the railway connection.

But you need one more ingredient to run a nuclear power plant. Brains. I mean no disrespect, but you're gonna struggle to find a few 100 engineers who voluntarily go and live between the 'Hill Billies' in the Appalachians I think. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that could be a serious issue.

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Can you show us a link where a working thorium reactor is supply commercial power?

I have looked, and never found one.

Hi Planar,

There aren't any. Lol. But the science has been tested in various reactors all over the world.

For me the thing is this. Yeah, I love science, so from this angle it is all cool. And new technologies should be investigated and tested. So I'm still cool there as well. This costs shitloads of money. And sometimes you need to draw a line. Or simply say; Let's wait 20 years and revisit this later when we have new materials.

As it stands, it is extreme engineering. It may not yet be viable. Not for us. Not yet. But, maybe later!

For many years I have done a lot of none-destructive testing. Mostly in the pharmaceutical industry and in the oil industry. I have seen many instances where corrosion rates were completely underestimated. Science has improved. But people still make mistakes. When I hear of fluorides at 650C, I get scared. Many of them are nasty as hell at room temperature, so forget about 650C.


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

This is not the first successful thorium reactor. We did build and operate an experimental form for four years. The USA abandoned the project. Maybe we were unable to scale it to a practical level.

Good luck China.

Hi Planar,

They abandoned it because they could not produce Plutonium with this. Back in the day that was an important criterium for many science projects.


Joey

 

[longview]

Hi Longview,

I just wrote about that as well. And I give them credit for that. Well done to China.

But...

China seriously struggles to make quality. I do not mean toys or electronics. I mean the very basics. They struggle to make high quality specialty steels consistently. And now they did not just design a new reactor. They let it run on a molten salt at about 650 degrees Celsius. This salt is so corrosive that the salt has to be produced extremely accurately to not further increase corrosion... Both contamination and ratios are very accurately monitored. This implies the sensitivity of the steel used for the reactor.

I hope it works and goes well. It's a good lesson for all. I worry though... I not worry it will blow up tomorrow. But I do worry that this is what will happen in time. Or worse, the issue is not found and then reproduced in other reactors where it does go wrong...

And the second reactor is coming online in just a few years I heard.


Joey

China is not the only country doing research.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

There aren't any. Lol. But the science has been tested in various reactors all over the world.

For me the thing is this. Yeah, I love science, so from this angle it is all cool. And new technologies should be investigated and tested. So I'm still cool there as well. This costs shitloads of money. And sometimes you need to draw a line. Or simply say; Let's wait 20 years and revisit this later when we have new materials.

As it stands, it is extreme engineering. It may not yet be viable. Not for us. Not yet. But, maybe later!

For many years I have done a lot of none-destructive testing. Mostly in the pharmaceutical industry and in the oil industry. I have seen many instances where corrosion rates were completely underestimated. Science has improved. But people still make mistakes. When I hear of fluorides at 650C, I get scared. Many of them are nasty as hell at room temperature, so forget about 650C.


Joey

Again, it has to do with being able to scale up from experimental to commercial.

I am aware of thorium, and the thorium cycle. Thorium reactors have been spoken of before here. Do you understand how difficult the small ones are to start and maintain?

Thorium is not naturally fissionable. It's half life is too long. I believe 10 billion years. That is why another radioactive element is used to start the chain reaction.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

They abandoned it because they could not produce Plutonium with this. Back in the day that was an important criterium for many science projects.


Joey

No. Plutonium 239 is made from Uranium 238. Thorium 232 is too far away in mass to even consider it practical.

 

[longview]

Hi Longview,

I actually like your idea. In all practicality this means that you will only have the land and the grid connection, but still that is better than nothing. Oh, and the railway connection.

But you need one more ingredient to run a nuclear power plant. Brains. I mean no disrespect, but you're gonna struggle to find a few 100 engineers who voluntarily go and live between the 'Hill Billies' in the Appalachians I think. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that could be a serious issue.

Joey

Who said all the coal power plants are out in sticks?
Keep in mind that for the most part Power plants need to be within about 300 miles of their demand area.
Map of Coal-fired Power Plants in the United States

While I only know of one coal plant near Houston (Smithers Lake) it is on the edge of town, perhaps 5 miles from the major metropolitan areas.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

No. Plutonium 239 is made from Uranium 238. Thorium 232 is too far away in mass to even consider it practical.

Hi Planar,

You're aware we said the same thing right?

Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

They abandoned it because they could not produce Plutonium with this. Back in the day that was an important criterium for many science projects.


Joey

It was abandoned because it was too expensive to maintain operation.

Hi Planar,

You're aware we said the same thing right?

Joey

My point is that they would not have even tried to use it for that purpose.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

It was abandoned because it was too expensive to maintain operation.

Hi Planar,

Well, I think we're both on thin ice here. There is neither a public statement saying that the lack of plutonium was the reason they shut it down nor a statement that it was too expensive.

What has been said:

- They wanted to redirect funds. (which could be used as an argument that it is too expensive)
- Political interest had waned. (this could be explained by the lack of plutonium production, but this is a little far fetched if you ask me)
- MSR did not align with military requirements. (this one is most often cited as the source of 'it doesn't produce plutonium...)

And those are basically the only public statements I can find on this.

The project itself was actually never cancelled. The project was a research project and was completed successfully. The follow-up projects were cancelled. Much of the effort (read money) was redirected to LMFBRs which could produce plutonium. It is this move in particular why people claim that the MSRE failed to ensure continued funding because of its lack of plutonium production.

My point is that they would not have even tried to use it for that purpose.

Ah, but than we completely misunderstood each other here. You are correct that they are too far away from each other. But that was not the point of adding it the first place. Thorium can not start and a nuclear reaction by itself. However, if enough neutrons are released around the Th-232, it converts this Th-232 to U-233. And it is this U-233 that allows a sustained reaction. To get these initial neutrons to convert the Th-232 to U-233 they need either U-235 or Pu-239. So after the initial loading of Plutonium, new plutonium doe snot need to be added to get a sustained reaction anymore because the newly produced U-233 from the Th-232 will now sustain the reaction. And this too has been successfully demonstrated in Oakridge. Now since the use of U-235 here would be much cheaper than using Pu-239 there is little incentive to use plutonium. Similar to why they not add U-233. However, the Pu-239 can and has been used to 'recycle' plutonium. It is not exactly an easy material to get rid off. lol. Anyways, Plutonium is used as a fuel in various reactors, for this reason. Specifically for Thorium, there is an other reason in addition though. The Pu-239 reaction produces more neutrons compared to U-235. This results in the Th-232 being converted into U-233 quicker compared to when U-235 is used instead.

I have read about this many times in the past, but when we discuss like you and I do, I really try to be as accurate as I can, so I have checked most everything. I have learned an awful lot again today. For that I say thank you. But please let me know if I am incorrect or inaccurate.

Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

Well, I think we're both on thin ice here. There is neither a public statement saying that the lack of plutonium was the reason they shut it down nor a statement that it was too expensive.

What has been said:

- They wanted to redirect funds. (which could be used as an argument that it is too expensive)
- Political interest had waned. (this could be explained by the lack of plutonium production, but this is a little far fetched if you ask me)
- MSR did not align with military requirements. (this one is most often cited as the source of 'it doesn't produce plutonium...)

And those are basically the only public statements I can find on this.

The project itself was actually never cancelled. The project was a research project and was completed successfully. The follow-up projects were cancelled. Much of the effort (read money) was redirected to LMFBRs which could produce plutonium. It is this move in particular why people claim that the MSRE failed to ensure continued funding because of its lack of plutonium production.




Ah, but than we completely misunderstood each other here. You are correct that they are too far away from each other. But that was not the point of adding it the first place. Thorium can not start and a nuclear reaction by itself. However, if enough neutrons are released around the Th-232, it converts this Th-232 to U-233. And it is this U-233 that allows a sustained reaction. To get these initial neutrons to convert the Th-232 to U-233 they need either U-235 or Pu-239. So after the initial loading of Plutonium, new plutonium doe snot need to be added to get a sustained reaction anymore because the newly produced U-233 from the Th-232 will now sustain the reaction. And this too has been successfully demonstrated in Oakridge. Now since the use of U-235 here would be much cheaper than using Pu-239 there is little incentive to use plutonium. Similar to why they not add U-233. However, the Pu-239 can and has been used to 'recycle' plutonium. It is not exactly an easy material to get rid off. lol. Anyways, Plutonium is used as a fuel in various reactors, for this reason. Specifically for Thorium, there is an other reason in addition though. The Pu-239 reaction produces more neutrons compared to U-235. This results in the Th-232 being converted into U-233 quicker compared to when U-235 is used instead.

I have read about this many times in the past, but when we discuss like you and I do, I really try to be as accurate as I can, so I have checked most everything. I have learned an awful lot again today. For that I say thank you. But please let me know if I am incorrect or inaccurate.

Joey

A Thorium reactor in those times was far more expensive to maintain than an uranium reactor.

U233 was considered as a weapon, but had no real advantages over plutonium after they completed that research.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

U233 was considered as a weapon, but had no real advantages over plutonium after they completed that research.

Hi Planar,

And that's the whole reason why people pushed for the technology. It would help control proliferation.

Joey

 

[Volunteer]

Can one of the comrades post exactly what was "deregulated?"

One of Trump's executive orders (EOs) aim to speed up the permitting process for new types of nuclear technology like micro-reactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV and Generation III+ reactors, which have “revolutionary potential." Within that goal, the order directs the establishment of a new pilot program for reactor construction with the target of having three reactors operating by July 4, 2026.

New types of technology "potential?" Three new reactors operating by next year?? How many regs will be bypassed in one year for nuclear projects that, historically, average 10+ years to build?

Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissioners, and one a former Chair, have warned us.

Trump just assaulted the independence of the nuclear regulator. What could go wrong?

Trump's incursion will hamper the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission of ensuring the safety and security of US nuclear facilities.

thebulletin.org

 

[Uncensored2008]

One of Trump's executive orders (EOs) aim to speed up the permitting process for new types of nuclear technology like micro-reactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV and Generation III+ reactors, which have “revolutionary potential." Within that goal, the order directs the establishment of a new pilot program for reactor construction with the target of having three reactors operating by July 4, 2026.

Okay, all good moves.

So no actual deregulation at all?

New types of technology "potential?" Three new reactors operating by next year?? How many regs will be bypassed in one year for nuclear projects that, historically, average 10+ years to build?

Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissioners, and one a former Chair, have warned us.

Trump just assaulted the independence of the nuclear regulator. What could go wrong?

Trump's incursion will hamper the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission of ensuring the safety and security of US nuclear facilities.

thebulletin.org

So the green scam democrats are again lying to try and protect the green scam.

Got it.

 

[Volunteer]

So the green scam democrats are again lying to try and protect the green scam.

The Democrats have pushed nuclear energy since the industry's troubled beginning. And it's not green at all.
How did you like Biden's and Newsome's last multi-billion dollar taxpayer give-away to nuclear power in California? Did you applaud that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Democrats have pushed nuclear energy since the industry's troubled beginning. And it's not green at all.
How did you like Biden's and Newsome's last multi-billion dollar taxpayer give-away to nuclear power in California? Did you applaud that?

It may not be green in the way some people want green to be, but it does not pollute the earth unless we have an accident. The accidents we have had, have been insignificant in scale that what poverty and war do. Poverty and war happen due to economics mostly. What we are doing now with green energy is making power cost more, putting more people in to poverty.

 

[Volunteer]

it does not pollute the earth

Non-polluting? You would approve of a nuclear waste dump in your town?

The accidents we have had, have been insignificant

Then why won't any insurance company write a liability policy?

green energy is making power cost more, putting more people in to poverty.

That's an extreme position, even for this forum. There are no economics to support that claim.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Non-polluting? You would approve of a nuclear waste dump in your town?

Modern waste containment is not a problem.

Then why won't any insurance company write a liability policy?

Where did this come from? I doubt they even should. Do private insurers provide insurance for other forms of power generation?

That's an extreme position, even for this forum. There are no economics to support that claim.

There is plenty of support. Wind power especially. You are just not aware of the excessive subsidies and future costs. What about the landfills used for eroded wind power blades? What happens when the subsidies to wind and solar are no longer maintained?

 

[Volunteer]

Modern waste containment is not a problem.

Explain "modern waste containment." What is that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Explain "modern waste containment." What is that?

Do your own homework.

Suffice it to say we know enough from past failures what works, and what does not.

Unlike lefties, most people learn from the past, instead of trying to bury it.

 

[Volunteer]

Do your own homework..

I did the homework regarding nuclear waste and reported it here, with facts.
Now what have you got on "modern waste containment?"

 

[Gordy327]

Non-polluting? You would approve of a nuclear waste dump in your town?

Then why won't any insurance company write a liability policy?

That's an extreme position, even for this forum. There are no economics to support that claim.

Most nuclear waste is stored on site at a nuclear facility. Some can even be respurposed for other uses. Waste from nuclear plants is also far less than the waste generated and released from a fossil fuel plant like coal or oil.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

You would approve of a nuclear waste dump in your town?

Hi Volunteer,

Of course I wouldn't wanna have a nuclear waste pile in my neighbourhood. But I would not object to the responsible storage of nuclear waste. And just as I would not like a steel mill or a refinery in my neighbourhood, I wouldn't like a waste facility in my yard either. And you know what, the government has recognized this years ago and decided to create industrial zones to put these boys together. Away from neighbourhoods. So what exactly is your point here?

Nuclear waste does not represent the kind of danger it did back in the 80's. Great progress has been made in reducing the amount of waste, reducing the toxicity of the waste and, of course, in reducing the half-time of the waste. In addition to this, we have learned a few things about safety and how to deal with this kind of stuff in a responsible way.

And than of course there is something called statistics. If you include the largest nuclear disasters like Fukushima, 3 Miles Island, and Chernobyl, you are still looking at the safest form of energy on the planet. This is fact. Sorry, I can not change that for you. It appears that your fear is in part based on incorrect and outdated information. Do some catching up and come back later.

Joey