Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

38 Comments

  1. This has all the characteristics of a project that languishes until cancelled.

    It’s been nearly a year since NuScale received standard design approval and there is no line of customers. The TerraPower offerings seem particularly forced.

    Let’s see the Versatile Test Reactor make some progress before we start imagining deploying its derivative with thermal storage vats in the least populous part of the American frontier.

    1. Last I heard, Congress did not fund the VTR.

      There is no reason to wait for a change of heart before deploying a commercial technology designed to solve real world challenges and market demand.

  2. @mike scarangella says August 12, 2021 at 7:25 AM:
    “It’s been nearly a year since NuScale received standard design approval….”

    Only NRC Staff has approved the NuScale design, it still requires full (3/5) NRC approval as announced in the Federal Register notice asking for public comment. There are NRC Staff open technical issues that must be resolved before a COL can be issued. Plus any potential valid public comment issues.

    1. I’m not a big nuscale fan, however whatever administrative and obstructive delays to come, NuScale’s full approval is a foregone conclusion. TP offerings are (to understate it), not as far along. Thanks for the clarification.

  3. The notion of re-powering coal plants using nuclear reactors is attractive.  I dug into the Elysium reactor and then had a look at the requirements of a modern ultrasupercritical steam plant.  It turns out that 650°C is adequate to supply the plant in question, and it requires only one reheat.  Any of Elysium, Thorcon or LFTR could do that with ease.

    The other issue is capacity factor.  Coal plants usually follow demand, but a nuclear plant’s fuel is so cheap it doesn’t need to.  A nuke can run flat out 24/7/365 and just dump power to other loads if the grid doesn’t need it.  So what do we do with this power?  Make cement?  Process garbage, sewage sludge and crop residues into fuels and chemicals?  Capture CO2 and pump it into the ground?  The list certainly isn’t short.

    1. I’m curious. Why didn’t your list include HTGRs?

      A demonstration should be starting operations in China within the next year – HTR-PM.

      That project has had some delays – but I expect delays in first of a kind projects, even when preceded by a much smaller prototype.

      1. True. HTGRs are the historical choice for subject application. That’s the whole story behind AGRs… coal plant plug and play (although they had to back off temperature in practice).

        “MSRs and flying cars”, I always say…

      2. I’m curious. Why didn’t your list include HTGRs?

        Fuel costs too much.  Elysium fuel appears to have negative cost.

        1. Negative cost! If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

          I’m risking spinning you up, but seriously now: When has fuel handling ever been cheap? Just putting the stuff in casks is a multi-million dollar affair, with or without the paperwork bloat and checks and balances and oversight futurists love to denigrate. It’s not used lead acid batteries or dioxins or whatever – it’s irradiated fuel, and it is dangerous.

          1. @Michael “scaryjello” Scarangella:

            Negative cost! If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

            When someone will pay you to take it off their hands, and your processing costs are less than that?  Seriously, a dry cask costs over $1 million.  If you can relieve a nuclear plant of that expense by taking their UNF, they’ll happily pay you to do it.

            I’m inferring a lot, but Elysium is definitely right about things like fission and neutron-capture cross-sections.  They’ve done their homework.  What I think they’re doing is simply dissolving UNF in a chloride bath, ala pyroprocessing, and then extracting much of the FPs and a lot of the uranium to get a fuel mix which will support a fast-spectrum chain reaction.  They’re not separating Pu, so it’s not a proliferation threat.  Ed Pheill claims that the reactor may continue to run until the fuel mix is 40% FPs.  40%!  Other speculation I’ve seen is that the design relies upon Cs salts to lower the fuel melting point.  CsCl has a MP of about the reactor operating temperature, but salt mixtures tend to have higher entropy and thus stay liquid at lower temps.

            I’m risking spinning you up, but seriously now: When has fuel handling ever been cheap?

            Never… maybe until now.  Seriously, dig into the subject a bit.  It certainly opened MY eyes.  I’d like to know the specifics but the company might be playing cagey for a reason.  I can hardly blame them.

        2. @Engineer-Poet

          How much does the fuel cost per MWh of heat?

          Where can I look this information up?

          It seems clear to me that HTGR fuel is something that is well suited for mass production economies where ever-increasing production would lead to rapid cost reductions as processes are refined and automated.

          It also is apparent that resistance to fuel damage at temperatures that are in the range of 1600-2500 C offers an opportunity to eliminate several whole systems needed in conventional reactors to keep fuel from overheating.

          That high temperature capability also offers a path for improved heat cycle efficiencies and air cooling.

          It’s too facile to dismiss the technology because the nearly handmade fuel for small scale uses has been “expensive”.

          1. (1/2)

            How much does the fuel cost per MWh of heat?

            Where can I look this information up?

            That I do not know.  I’ve done a search for PDFs on the Elysium Energy website and come up empty.  Everything that Ed Pheill has put forth seems to be in YouTube videos, which are notoriously poor for firm information.  He puts graphics in them, but I can’t find them on the website.  It seems plausible to me, but more expert opinions may differ.

            It seems clear to me that HTGR fuel is something that is well suited for mass production economies where ever-increasing production would lead to rapid cost reductions as processes are refined and automated.

            IIUC, the majority of the cost of both LWR and TRISO fuel is the fabrication.  Mining and enrichment are not big components.  If Ed Pheill is right, the fuel for (at least the first few) Elysium reactors will have negative cost.  Conversion of used LWR fuel to Elysium fuel will take the cost of storage off the table and create a supply of relatively non-radioactive, slightly enriched U which can fuel the reactor for many decades.  This is just about the ideal scenario; the only downside is that there isn’t nearly enough of it to do what we need to do.  However, the claim is that an Elysium reactor can be run on enriched U as well, with the enrichment level falling steadily over time as Pu builds up and the neutron economy improves.  Eventually it can run on reclaimed U or DU.

          2. (2/2)

            It also is apparent that resistance to fuel damage at temperatures that are in the range of 1600-2500 C offers an opportunity to eliminate several whole systems needed in conventional reactors to keep fuel from overheating.

            Much the same is true of Elysium.  The elimination of liquid water from the containment itself is a stroke of genius (saturated steam goes in, superheated steam comes out; superheated steam is used to boil the feedwater outside the containment).

            That high temperature capability also offers a path for improved heat cycle efficiencies and air cooling.

            Elysium has that too.  The backup cooling is essentially a heat pipe.

            It’s too facile to dismiss the technology because the nearly handmade fuel for small scale uses has been “expensive”.

            You can’t beat negative fuel cost, at least until the supply is all used up.  You can’t beat unpressurized systems and minimal containments with a high-pressure vessel.  You can’t beat something without an internal structure to build or maintain with a system of highly-engineered pebbles.

            Like I said, it’s genius.

            1. It’s not ‘genius’…
              instead it is paper. Elysium, like the original Greek mythical afterlife, is a fantasy.

              while fantasy can be entertaining (startrek), and ruminated on endlessly, it does not become real if the premise is bad. You can look at Star Trek and say, “see we have cell phones, so Star Trek was right.” that’s ridiculous.

              You bounced from wanting to build little sodium fast reactors to extolling the virtues of Ed’s MSR concept in a year. If you were right the first time, why would you be right this second time bouncing to a completely different concept? Seems scattered and disorganized

            2. Elysium, like the original Greek mythical afterlife, is a fantasy.

              Was the “fireball reactor” a fantasy?  Was the MSRE a fantasy?  Both worked pretty well right out of the gate; we just didn’t find uses for them at the time.

              We have more than uses for them now; we have deep, burning needs (like the fires in Siberia).  We really needed them 32 years ago when the IPCC was established, but there’s no use crying over spilled milk.

              You bounced from wanting to build little sodium fast reactors to extolling the virtues of Ed’s MSR concept in a year.

              Elysium is still a fast reactor, and pretty compact.  It’s radically simplified compared to conventional solid-fuel FSRs, with the potential to be much cheaper.  I still think the Terrapower thing trying to find a site in Wyoming is a good idea, but it may be obsolete before it’s built.  That’s fine; it represents progress.

              If you were right the first time, why would you be right this second time bouncing to a completely different concept?

              I took in the new facts and changed my opinion.  I’ve taken the time to try to put the facts in front of you.  You’ll either be convinced or you won’t.

    2. If you have a small reactor that produces high temperatures, then just store the excess heat for future use. You could use molten salt technology that has already been developed for solar plants or something like ceramic bricks. I’m sure there are other possibilities for storage.

      HTGRs and molten-salt-cooled reactors would be prime candidates for this type of load-following scheme.

      1. “…prime candidates for this type of load-following scheme.”

        Honestly, I always thought EP’s idea (excerpt below) was the way to go rather than storage.

        ” A nuke can run flat out 24/7/365 and just dump power to other loads if the grid doesn’t need it.”

        If diverting electrical energy to arbitrarily variable loads were economical, it would be done… so obviously it isn’t. What kind of industrial processes lend themselves to be idled for days while the public needs AC in the summer?

        “Storage” – never has such a simple word represented such a complex topic, yet the word is perfect for mass consumption. Ruinable proponents can simply blurt out: “Yeah but storage is coming along fine,” and watchers of “The View” believe.

        1. Michael Scarengella:

          If diverting electrical energy to arbitrarily variable loads were economical, it would be done… so obviously it isn’t.

          Not while the balancing is done with fossil-fired generation.  If carbon emissions were priced at the appropriate cost, it would be.

          What kind of industrial processes lend themselves to be idled for days while the public needs AC in the summer?

          Things like conversion of sewage sludge and MSW to fuels, maybe?

          1. Nice.

            I always figured that plain old electrolysis of water could be done with the unwanted power, but it’s got to be cheaper to obtain oxygen from compressing and refrigerating the atmosphere. We’ve all heard that steam methane reforming is the process to benchmark against fo H2. I kind of think that diverting process heat is a bit of a non-starter if you want to license your plant to provide electricity…. now the reliability of the industrial process is important to safety, being the sink for part or most of the core heat balance.

        2. Michael

          Crypto currency miners are starting to make arrangements with both existing and planned nuclear plants to use their power output.

          When grid demands near a peak and power prices skyrocket, the miners will presumably stop operating. Once the peak demand subsides, it should be relatively simple and quick to start back up.

          That would free up power to supply the grid.

          There are well established industrial processes that could follow a similar operating pattern.

          1. Rod,

            You’re right; crypto mining processes may be hung as needed like a grocery store order when you forget the onions…., but it provides no work or benefit in the traditional sense. AFAIK heating a room does no kg*m*m/s/s work, it only increases entropy. I’m one of the few people that will say it out loud: crypto mining is the most expensive way to heat a room. I’m only 43, and I’m not supposed to be this cranky and inflexible, but I sincerely wonder what the world is coming to if a 101 year-old company like PPL (i.e. Susquehanna SES) would consider *wasting* ++100MW on a crypto mining facility to be a *wise* investment strategy. I’m not denying the reality that crypto has value and provides incentive to waste electrical power, I’m just stating that ‘proof of work’ is a non sequitur if we apply the logic that words have meaning.

            Thanks for humoring me,

            1. Perhaps ‘proof-of-work’ is an oxymoron, and not a non sequitur.

              Today’s reality is dominated by mass hysterias of one form or another. Cryptocurrency is vapor, but everyone piling on their believe sauce makes it as real as whatever new viral variant. We have these schizophrenic movements that claim to be concerned with problems like AGW, while investing in entropy checksums instead of property.

              None of this is healthy psychology…. we’re actually getting sicker.

              as far as liquid metal cooled reactors, go ahead and build them if you can.

    3. My only comment is that there is a concerning precedence for converting coal stations to nuclear (sort of). The Zimmer Power plant in Ohio was converted from a nuclear power station to a coal power station before it was completed. Granted, the portion from the nuclear plant was used as a bottoming cycle, however, it was probably one of the most expensive coal plants on a per unit basis at the time.

      It’s my feeling the reverse will also be true. Integrating nuclear heat into a power conversion system designed for coal won’t be simple.

      1. David, I am pleased to report that Staffan Qvist and other researchers have studied this question for Poland and have found there is real decarbonization cost-savings associated with converting coal to advanced nuclear. I found this report very interesting, including his analysis of which AN designs are most suitable for replacing coal furnaces. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/9/2557/htm

  4. Any industrial process designed for intermittent power consumption has intermittent productivity, but must still pay interest to the banker during its downtime. Consequently a process that uses intermittent excess power from a nuclear+renewables grid needs to be a low capital venture, or at least have a low capital/power ratio.

    Desalination requires modest capital and high energy demand, and can be run intermittently. During periods of high demand, exhaust heat from the nukes’ condensers would continue to raise the temperature of a sufficiently large store of brine. During low demand, excess electricity would be diverted from the grid to pump the latent heat between a series of evaporating tanks, and pump the input and output stores.

    In the variety of desalination processes, the electrically driven (reverse osmosis, vapour compression, electro dialysis) can claim to be more efficient users of energy – but in the form of electricity. Thermally driven processes (multistage flash, multiple effect distillation) consume energy in the form of condenser heat, which is available at all times, while only needing to intermittently use the cheaper off-peak electric power for pumping. Losing heat from the pipe farm and output storage, thermal desalination would reduce the need for cooling towers for the nukes and potentially eliminate their need to consume cooling water.

    1. Roger, your knowledge of desalination technologies is very impressive! This sound like dispensing with standard cooling towers and replacing that with a thermally-driven desal system could be quite financially beneficial. Potentially even produce clean water as a collateral service at a fraction of the cost of an electrically-driven system. (Yesterday’s declaration that the Colorado River is not able to supply all the usual demand may be just the beginning impetus: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-water-cuts.html.)

      Building more nuclear power and finding high value ways to use the excess power that results from their integration into grids that have high levels of intermittent generation, is one of the challenges that needs more attention—and this discipline is now called “Macro Energy Systems—since we are entering an era when there are significantly more climate stresses. Desalination is definitely a prime candidate

      But there is an increasing array of possibilities, not least is carbon capture and utilization technologies that can help to reduce or reuse the carbon that is already in the atmosphere, which needs a huge amount of capital quipment and power to have any effect.

      Just within the last few weeks, there’s been a wave of attention to the possible use of excess nuclear energy with bitcoin mining. Such a pairing could be rather beneficial for both nascent technologies. I found this article by David de Cairns Watson a clear indicator that there’s a triple generational shift happening. https://medium.com/generation-atomic/how-to-turn-nuclear-reactors-into-clean-green-money-printing-machines-c8b35e8b41b8

      1. This sound like dispensing with standard cooling towers and replacing that with a thermally-driven desal system could be quite financially beneficial.

        Someone obviously never took thermodynamics.  Cooling towers can operate at higher cold-side temps than is optimal with desal systems.  Thermal desal requires something like an open-loop cooling system with lake, river or ocean water.  There are tweaks you could do, but the basic issue is that calcium salts in the presence of carbonate ion plate out as scale above a certain temperature.  Coating your equipment with CaCO3 is generally bad for it.  My tea kettles are all coated with scale due to the hardness of my water.

        Potentially even produce clean water as a collateral service at a fraction of the cost of an electrically-driven system.

        Likely the only way you could do this is with an initial processing step using forward osmosis with NaCl or CaCl2 as the secondary medium, and then distillation of the resulting carbonate-free mixture.

      2. Thanks Valerie. Climate change is expanding the deserts polewards. Adjacent areas of reliable rain also are retreating, including depriving the headwaters of the Colorado River. Data from the GRACE satellites shows sinking groundwater levels across most of the USA west of the Mississippi. North Africa and the Middle East are also headed for water scarcity. Power-and-water seems to be a solution. Mass produced power-and-water seems like foreign aid.

        There is no thermodynamic error. For every unit of energy delivered as electricity, a thermal power station must dump about twice as much energy as heat. A cooling tower takes the heat away as latent heat of evaporated cooling water, whereas a desalination plant loses heat by conduction and radiation – requiring a larger area, but saving on water.

        1. re: “Data from the GRACE satellites shows sinking groundwater levels across most of the USA west of the Mississippi. ”

          Irrigation, as the cause here methinks.

  5. If you have some such high temperature nuclear reactor with the molten salt heat storage, so it can economically change its output, would there be any reason to have anything *else* also putting electricity into the grid?
    I suspect the answer is no except that the wind & solar advocates have been so good a PR that most people mistakenly think having them on the grid is desirable.

    1. If you have some such high temperature nuclear reactor with the molten salt heat storage, so it can economically change its output, would there be any reason to have anything *else* also putting electricity into the grid?

      Yet another point I’ve made repeatedly.  The fact that nuclear can do both electric power and district heating (and maybe industrial process heat in many cases) makes it better, hands-down.

      1. Engineer-Poet

        Herein you have described the primary reason that nuclear energy faces such strong headwinds. It’s a matter of being so good that it can push all other energy sources to the sidelines if it is allowed to “play” on anything resembling a level playing field.

        Strength of the opposition doesn’t come from those who stubbornly cling to displaced safety or security arguments. It comes from those who are so concerned about nuclear energy’s ability to crowd them out (words that have been written and spoken by a number of opponents in the Amory Lovins camp). Those efforts have successfully imposed enough burdens that the established nuclear industry is gun shy, timid and unable to control its own costs and schedules.

        The solution lies in attracting new blood that doesn’t have some kind of “original sin” guilt and who sees the vast potential of atomic fission as something that can provide them a rewarding career saving the world while making money in the process.

  6. Yesterday’s edition of World Nuclear News (01 Feb 2022) featured
    an interesting story on an important bill passing both chambers of the
    state legislature of West Virginia:

    Source: World Nuclear News, 01 Feb 2022
    Title: West Virginia to remove nuclear construction ban
    URL: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/West-Virginia-to-remove-nuclear-construction-ban

    The bill repeals existing bans on new nuclear construction by
    overwhelming majorities (House: 76-16; Senate 24-7) but has
    not yet been signed by the governor.

    Like Wyoming, West Virginia has an economy that is strongly
    dependent on coal mining and power generation.

    Though I checked both the Washington Post and New York Times
    for any mention of the West Virginia story, neither paper mentioned
    it. I suppose that if Joe Manchin were to say something indirectly
    related to the bill, both papers would jump all over it. AFAIK neither
    one has said so much as a word about the Green New Deal’s
    overselling of so-called “Renewables”.

  7. Given that Wyoming (specifically the coal of the Powder River Basin, which was both cheap and low-sulfur) helped kill the first big wave of nuclearization, wouldn’t it be ironic if Wyoming helped nuclear energy get going again?

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts