Major Ontario nuclear milestone - criticality
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Pew
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I am not very well versed in nuclear technology. But I wish that the US had pursued nuclear and not abandoned it after TMI. I like the Canadian units and I think we missed out by not adopting and using that technology. Just think of the incredible amount of emissions that would not be in existence had we been an adopter of nuclear energy.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Well put you money were your mouth is a offer up your back yard to build one.
I live less than 100Km from Darlington, and just a bit further from Pickering, that's 10 nuclear reactors. I'd gladly have one in my backyard, though I expect it isn't sufficiently large. I've toured both Bruce and Darlington, posted pictures on here of both. I have absolutely ZERO concern about the safety of our CANDU's.
Well put you money were your mouth is a offer up your back yard to build one.
I live less than 100Km from Darlington, and just a bit further from Pickering, that's 10 nuclear reactors. I'd gladly have one in my backyard, though I expect it isn't sufficiently large. I've toured both Bruce and Darlington, posted pictures on here of both. I have absolutely ZERO concern about the safety of our CANDU's.
Originally Posted by CT8
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
I'm not impressed can you say Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi?
Instead of saying Chernobyl or Fukishima Diachi we should ask why and who is responsible.
Can you say US Navy? No fewer than 30 nuclear reactors, all perfectly safe, running right now, right in my backyard at Norfolk Navy Base. Roughly a hundred worldwide.
I used to live right on top of two Westinghouse AW-4 reactors. Zero radiation exposure. Zero problems.
Nuclear power generation, like flying, has risk, but can be done safely and economically.
Also like flying, nuclear power is very unforgiving of shortcuts, ineptitude, and human error.
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
I'm not impressed can you say Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi?
Instead of saying Chernobyl or Fukishima Diachi we should ask why and who is responsible.
Can you say US Navy? No fewer than 30 nuclear reactors, all perfectly safe, running right now, right in my backyard at Norfolk Navy Base. Roughly a hundred worldwide.
I used to live right on top of two Westinghouse AW-4 reactors. Zero radiation exposure. Zero problems.
Nuclear power generation, like flying, has risk, but can be done safely and economically.
Also like flying, nuclear power is very unforgiving of shortcuts, ineptitude, and human error.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by CT8
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
I'm not impressed can you say Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi?
Instead of saying Chernobyl or Fukishima Diachi we should ask why and who is responsible.
Can you say US Navy? No fewer than 30 nuclear reactors, all perfectly safe, running right now, right in my backyard at Norfolk Navy Base. Roughly a hundred worldwide.
I used to live right on top of two Westinghouse AW-4 reactors. Zero radiation exposure. Zero problems.
Nuclear power generation, like flying, has risk, but can be done safely and economically.
Also like flying, nuclear power is very unforgiving of shortcuts, ineptitude, and human error.
Nuclear is the only way we are going to successfully decarbonize shipping as another example. There isn't another power source on the planet that's capable of doing it.
Originally Posted by CT8
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
I'm not impressed can you say Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi?
Instead of saying Chernobyl or Fukishima Diachi we should ask why and who is responsible.
Can you say US Navy? No fewer than 30 nuclear reactors, all perfectly safe, running right now, right in my backyard at Norfolk Navy Base. Roughly a hundred worldwide.
I used to live right on top of two Westinghouse AW-4 reactors. Zero radiation exposure. Zero problems.
Nuclear power generation, like flying, has risk, but can be done safely and economically.
Also like flying, nuclear power is very unforgiving of shortcuts, ineptitude, and human error.
Nuclear is the only way we are going to successfully decarbonize shipping as another example. There isn't another power source on the planet that's capable of doing it.
When they increase the output ability of a plant, doesn"t it shorten the useful life of the fuel proportionally to the increase in power generated? I think in general you only get about the same number of Watt-Hours out of a fuel bundle regardless of how fast you use it up. I do not thing there is any free lunch.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by JimPghPA
When they increase the output ability of a plant, doesn"t it shorten the useful life of the fuel proportionally to the increase in power generated? I think in general you only get about the same number of Watt-Hours out of a fuel bundle regardless of how fast you use it up. I do not thing there is any free lunch.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
Most nuclear plants run close to 100% capacity all the time, because that's where they are most efficient and the most economical. A typical LWR can get close to or up to 2 years out of a fuel load using this process but even during a refuel, all the fuel is not replaced, some new fuel is added and other assemblies are simply relocated. CANDU's and other HWR's because they use natural uranium, cycle out fuel bundles (and shuffle them around the reactor, the centre is the hottest; has the highest burn-up, so you move bundles around to smooth that) more frequently, but they do not have fuelling outages.
Nuclear fuel is the cheapest part of operating a nuke plant. Heavy cycling of generators is actually harder on them, that's part of the reason peakers and fast-ramp gas plants are paid a premium. Things last the longest in stead-state operation. That said, we do have one plant, Bruce, that practices maneuvering, using steam bypass to control output while still operating at full reactor power. It can do this on up to 4 units at a time, though the more units doing it the greater the heat created by the process and thus outlet temp constraints could come into play.
Nukes are the least stable at very low power levels, that's not to imply it is dangerous, but it is where you'll experience the most variance. That's where the infamous Chernobyl RBMK blew up, trying to force it back up from what was essentially an almost completely shutdown state despite it not responding well to those inputs and going well outside the safe, and permitted, configurations of the unit to do so (pulling out WAY too many control rods, which the construction of which was also a design issue: graphite tipped). This (low power levels) is where small changes in adjustment can lead to dramatic swings in output which may not be even across the reactor, which is why bringing a reactor up to power is a very carefully controlled and heavily monitored process. At full power, in a steady state, it is very easy to keep things working optimally. Dramatic reduction in power level will result in xenon poising which is another hurdle to be dealt with which is why large changes in reactor power levels are typically avoided. This is why using steam bypass at Bruce is so novel, as it avoids those pitfalls.
All that said, the french have become quite adept to varying nuclear power levels; employing flexible operation profiles because nukes are the largest component of their generating mix. We are at about 60% nuclear here in Ontario. I expect they, like us, favour varying steam output rather than actual core power levels for the same reasons we do.
When they increase the output ability of a plant, doesn"t it shorten the useful life of the fuel proportionally to the increase in power generated? I think in general you only get about the same number of Watt-Hours out of a fuel bundle regardless of how fast you use it up. I do not thing there is any free lunch.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
Most nuclear plants run close to 100% capacity all the time, because that's where they are most efficient and the most economical. A typical LWR can get close to or up to 2 years out of a fuel load using this process but even during a refuel, all the fuel is not replaced, some new fuel is added and other assemblies are simply relocated. CANDU's and other HWR's because they use natural uranium, cycle out fuel bundles (and shuffle them around the reactor, the centre is the hottest; has the highest burn-up, so you move bundles around to smooth that) more frequently, but they do not have fuelling outages.
Nuclear fuel is the cheapest part of operating a nuke plant. Heavy cycling of generators is actually harder on them, that's part of the reason peakers and fast-ramp gas plants are paid a premium. Things last the longest in stead-state operation. That said, we do have one plant, Bruce, that practices maneuvering, using steam bypass to control output while still operating at full reactor power. It can do this on up to 4 units at a time, though the more units doing it the greater the heat created by the process and thus outlet temp constraints could come into play.
Nukes are the least stable at very low power levels, that's not to imply it is dangerous, but it is where you'll experience the most variance. That's where the infamous Chernobyl RBMK blew up, trying to force it back up from what was essentially an almost completely shutdown state despite it not responding well to those inputs and going well outside the safe, and permitted, configurations of the unit to do so (pulling out WAY too many control rods, which the construction of which was also a design issue: graphite tipped). This (low power levels) is where small changes in adjustment can lead to dramatic swings in output which may not be even across the reactor, which is why bringing a reactor up to power is a very carefully controlled and heavily monitored process. At full power, in a steady state, it is very easy to keep things working optimally. Dramatic reduction in power level will result in xenon poising which is another hurdle to be dealt with which is why large changes in reactor power levels are typically avoided. This is why using steam bypass at Bruce is so novel, as it avoids those pitfalls.
All that said, the french have become quite adept to varying nuclear power levels; employing flexible operation profiles because nukes are the largest component of their generating mix. We are at about 60% nuclear here in Ontario. I expect they, like us, favour varying steam output rather than actual core power levels for the same reasons we do.
Originally Posted by JimPghPA
When they increase the output ability of a plant, doesn"t it shorten the useful life of the fuel proportionally to the increase in power generated? I think in general you only get about the same number of Watt-Hours out of a fuel bundle regardless of how fast you use it up. I do not thing there is any free lunch.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
I think you are confusing a few things. There are many ways to increase output of a power plant. I used to work at a gas power plant years ago. It's not about getting a free lunch. You would use more fuel to get more power, but the output of the plant would increase. In the gas power plant, a couple ways would be to increase the efficiency of the combustion turbine. They tend to degrade over time but they'd do these annual maintenance on the turbines and the entire plant. Technology gets better. They can install more efficient generators. At one point they were considering putting in intercoolers so that would lower the air temperature so you could run more fuel through it, they ran at fixed air/fuel mixtures just like a car. One kind of amazing thing is that while they've shut down a bunch of older nuclear plants, the power output of them has been increasing over the years so the percentage of power the US gets has been about the same for nuclear power over the years.
As said earlier, nuclear plants are run at base load which means they're at 100% all the time unless the plant trips for whatever reason and is shut down. When they shut it down for maintenance they can do things like refuel. But if you get a few extra megawatts out of the plant, they get paid by the megawatt so it's worth it relative to the cost of the fuel. That's a minor part of the entire cost of running the plant and depreciating the asset.
As for the control room, with the gas power plant, it ran at base load and after hours when the people at the plant left, there were basically just a couple people in the control room and that was it. I remember getting a tour once and hoping that as we walked by the combustion turbine that it didn't throw a blade. One of them had done so years ago and the whole town a few miles over heard it.
When they increase the output ability of a plant, doesn"t it shorten the useful life of the fuel proportionally to the increase in power generated? I think in general you only get about the same number of Watt-Hours out of a fuel bundle regardless of how fast you use it up. I do not thing there is any free lunch.
And I believe it is also true that both: making a nuclear plant larger, and running it at 100% of capacity reduces the amount of time the operators have to react and prevent serious consequences when something does go wrong.
I think the positive side of larger plants is that as the size of a plant increases the physical efficiency increases, and some of the cost to run them is a constant that can be spread out over a larger output.
I think you are confusing a few things. There are many ways to increase output of a power plant. I used to work at a gas power plant years ago. It's not about getting a free lunch. You would use more fuel to get more power, but the output of the plant would increase. In the gas power plant, a couple ways would be to increase the efficiency of the combustion turbine. They tend to degrade over time but they'd do these annual maintenance on the turbines and the entire plant. Technology gets better. They can install more efficient generators. At one point they were considering putting in intercoolers so that would lower the air temperature so you could run more fuel through it, they ran at fixed air/fuel mixtures just like a car. One kind of amazing thing is that while they've shut down a bunch of older nuclear plants, the power output of them has been increasing over the years so the percentage of power the US gets has been about the same for nuclear power over the years.
As said earlier, nuclear plants are run at base load which means they're at 100% all the time unless the plant trips for whatever reason and is shut down. When they shut it down for maintenance they can do things like refuel. But if you get a few extra megawatts out of the plant, they get paid by the megawatt so it's worth it relative to the cost of the fuel. That's a minor part of the entire cost of running the plant and depreciating the asset.
As for the control room, with the gas power plant, it ran at base load and after hours when the people at the plant left, there were basically just a couple people in the control room and that was it. I remember getting a tour once and hoping that as we walked by the combustion turbine that it didn't throw a blade. One of them had done so years ago and the whole town a few miles over heard it.
Originally Posted by WyrTwister
And how do you know no one was killed by Fukushima Daiichi ? Last I heard , it was still leaking large amounts of radioactive substances into the ocean ? That can not be good for animal / fish life or humans .
What constitutes a large amount? They are constantly testing the ocean water all around that facility. The levels are low enough to allow some fishing to start back up.
And how do you know no one was killed by Fukushima Daiichi ? Last I heard , it was still leaking large amounts of radioactive substances into the ocean ? That can not be good for animal / fish life or humans .
What constitutes a large amount? They are constantly testing the ocean water all around that facility. The levels are low enough to allow some fishing to start back up.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...-1s-water-woes-slow-recede/#.XprUf2kpCDY
Quote
Fishing in the area has resumed on a trial basis and workers still perform radiation checks before shipping their hauls to fish markets. The waters off Fukushima Prefecture are at the confluence of two ocean currents — the Oyashio from the north and Kuroshio from the south — which make for the good fishing grounds that have been a vital part of the agrarian prefecture's economy.
Eight years after the meltdowns, however, residents are still struggling to convince the world that fish from the area are safe to eat. Many believe public perception alone will cripple Fukushima's fishing industry anew if the tainted water is expelled into the ocean — even if the tritium has been reduced to below international standards.
Quote
Fishing in the area has resumed on a trial basis and workers still perform radiation checks before shipping their hauls to fish markets. The waters off Fukushima Prefecture are at the confluence of two ocean currents — the Oyashio from the north and Kuroshio from the south — which make for the good fishing grounds that have been a vital part of the agrarian prefecture's economy.
Eight years after the meltdowns, however, residents are still struggling to convince the world that fish from the area are safe to eat. Many believe public perception alone will cripple Fukushima's fishing industry anew if the tainted water is expelled into the ocean — even if the tritium has been reduced to below international standards.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by WyrTwister
And how do you know no one was killed by Fukushima Daiichi ? Last I heard , it was still leaking large amounts of radioactive substances into the ocean ? That can not be good for animal / fish life or humans .
Because the official reports have confirmed nobody was killed by the incident. Unlike Chernobyl, Fukushima was not a "large" radiologic release, despite being a triple meltdown. This is because the old GE BWR's used there had secondary containment. The current issue at Fukushima is large volumes of tritiated water on the site, which has been collected from the cooling/flushing efforts, had the more dangerous components removed from it, and is being stored there. Tritium is a relatively short-lived isotope and the levels in the stored water are reasonably low, if released into the ocean, there is no hazard posed, however as wemay pointed out, the optics of doing that, to a public who generally doesn't understand radiation, could potentially be the final nail in the coffin for the fishing industry in the area, which I am sure is one of the things being considered and why they haven't started disposing of it yet.
And how do you know no one was killed by Fukushima Daiichi ? Last I heard , it was still leaking large amounts of radioactive substances into the ocean ? That can not be good for animal / fish life or humans .
Because the official reports have confirmed nobody was killed by the incident. Unlike Chernobyl, Fukushima was not a "large" radiologic release, despite being a triple meltdown. This is because the old GE BWR's used there had secondary containment. The current issue at Fukushima is large volumes of tritiated water on the site, which has been collected from the cooling/flushing efforts, had the more dangerous components removed from it, and is being stored there. Tritium is a relatively short-lived isotope and the levels in the stored water are reasonably low, if released into the ocean, there is no hazard posed, however as wemay pointed out, the optics of doing that, to a public who generally doesn't understand radiation, could potentially be the final nail in the coffin for the fishing industry in the area, which I am sure is one of the things being considered and why they haven't started disposing of it yet.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by WyrTwister
Even if no accidents ever occur , I have never heard of a " good " way to dispose of the radioactive waste .
I covered it in a previous post, please put in the effort of reading the whole thread if you are going to comment.
Even if no accidents ever occur , I have never heard of a " good " way to dispose of the radioactive waste .
I covered it in a previous post, please put in the effort of reading the whole thread if you are going to comment.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Pew
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
Originally Posted by Pew
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Pew
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
I believe it's just the general anti nuclear belief which is why we don't do #2. If you reprocess it, I think you end up using a breeder reactor which makes more fuel that could be used in nuclear bombs which people aren't too happy with. Plus they don't like the idea of tons of waste being shipped all over the country back and forth all the time. Right now it normally just gets stored on site.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Pew
I love nuclear energy. It was the only topic I liked in Chem class.
But what happens to the nuclear waste?
There are two schools of thought on that:
1. Store it, because it's a solid and isn't going anywhere and can be safely stored in a deep geologic repository
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2.
Designs like the Moltex SSR for example, which I chose because it specifically targets used CANDU fuel bundles, will use up the remaining actinides and viable fission products which in turn results in far less volume of final waste and whose overall constituents are reasonably short-lived. The end product from the Moltex SSR for example is only mildly radioactive and has a required storage time of ~200 years, at which point radiation levels reach background and the material is benign. There are of course other designs that cater more toward spent LWR fuel (LEU) and then there are breeders which not only consume used fuel, but can produce viable fuel for existing designs, ideally closing the fuel cycle.
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
I believe it's just the general anti nuclear belief which is why we don't do #2. If you reprocess it, I think you end up using a breeder reactor which makes more fuel that could be used in nuclear bombs which people aren't too happy with. Plus they don't like the idea of tons of waste being shipped all over the country back and forth all the time. Right now it normally just gets stored on site.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Pew
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
On Camp #2, that's exactly the purpose of the SMR's that run on spent fuel, they'll be built adjacent, or in close proximity, to existing nuclear power plants and start to consume the used fuel bundles. NB Power has plans to build two SMR's adjacent to their Point Lepreau CANDU nuclear plant, which runs a single CANDU 6. One of those designs is the aforementioned Moltex SSR, which will reprocess and consume the existing CANDU fuel bundles stored onsite. It's a great setup!
Here in Ontario, the new build will be on the existing Darlington Nuclear site (the topic of this thread) and OPG already holds a valid site license for new construction. Odds are the design will either be a Terrestrial MSR or a NuScale unit, though it is possible it will be something else. This is the current status of vendors working their way through our VDR:
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/index.cfm
There's a Federally-sponsored program for SMR's (Canadian SMR Roadmap) that provides financial support as well as access to a test site where these units can be constructed, operated and evaluated at Chalk River. From there, major utilities like OPG, Bruce Power, NBPower, Saskpower, MB Power...etc can choose to further sponsor these designs (OPG is doing that right now with the USNC/GFP MMR, the first design slated to be constructed at Chalk River) to expedite the construction and testing or to provide their own grounds for construction, like the Darlington B site or Point Lepreau, for commercial deployment.
I'm in camp 2 also, pretty awesome that we can re-use the fuel. I wonder though, if the fuel can be reused why not make a reactor close-by that can use it; relatively speaking vs shipping the uranium overseas France? (Unless I'm wrong that used fuel is shipped overseas to be reused?)
With Option #1, I've read some issues with Yucca Mountain and I'm not sure if this applies to most nuclear waste repositories, but I believe the current studies from the DoE show that the fuel still has to cool off above-ground before it can be stored underground and they were also having issues with possible moisture corroding the canisters?
On Camp #2, that's exactly the purpose of the SMR's that run on spent fuel, they'll be built adjacent, or in close proximity, to existing nuclear power plants and start to consume the used fuel bundles. NB Power has plans to build two SMR's adjacent to their Point Lepreau CANDU nuclear plant, which runs a single CANDU 6. One of those designs is the aforementioned Moltex SSR, which will reprocess and consume the existing CANDU fuel bundles stored onsite. It's a great setup!
Here in Ontario, the new build will be on the existing Darlington Nuclear site (the topic of this thread) and OPG already holds a valid site license for new construction. Odds are the design will either be a Terrestrial MSR or a NuScale unit, though it is possible it will be something else. This is the current status of vendors working their way through our VDR:
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/index.cfm
There's a Federally-sponsored program for SMR's (Canadian SMR Roadmap) that provides financial support as well as access to a test site where these units can be constructed, operated and evaluated at Chalk River. From there, major utilities like OPG, Bruce Power, NBPower, Saskpower, MB Power...etc can choose to further sponsor these designs (OPG is doing that right now with the USNC/GFP MMR, the first design slated to be constructed at Chalk River) to expedite the construction and testing or to provide their own grounds for construction, like the Darlington B site or Point Lepreau, for commercial deployment.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Wolf359
I believe it's just the general anti nuclear belief which is why we don't do #2. If you reprocess it, I think you end up using a breeder reactor which makes more fuel that could be used in nuclear bombs which people aren't too happy with. Plus they don't like the idea of tons of waste being shipped all over the country back and forth all the time. Right now it normally just gets stored on site.
Current traditional reprocessing is banned in the US, which is, to put it bluntly, nuts. This process, which is employed in France, is called PUREX and separates the Plutonium and Uranium from the lower value components and allows for re-fabrication of MOX fuel, which can then be run in traditional reactors. A breeder is a whole different beast and while a number of them have been operated over the years, I believe only the Russians are currently constructing and operating them.
Of course some of the SMR's have breeding options and one of the Moltex designs is a breeder, but they aren't actively working on trying to get that constructed right now. We have a ton of used fuel at present, so closing the fuel cycle with a breeder really only makes sense once we've sufficiently depleted those used fuel stores.
I believe it's just the general anti nuclear belief which is why we don't do #2. If you reprocess it, I think you end up using a breeder reactor which makes more fuel that could be used in nuclear bombs which people aren't too happy with. Plus they don't like the idea of tons of waste being shipped all over the country back and forth all the time. Right now it normally just gets stored on site.
Current traditional reprocessing is banned in the US, which is, to put it bluntly, nuts. This process, which is employed in France, is called PUREX and separates the Plutonium and Uranium from the lower value components and allows for re-fabrication of MOX fuel, which can then be run in traditional reactors. A breeder is a whole different beast and while a number of them have been operated over the years, I believe only the Russians are currently constructing and operating them.
Of course some of the SMR's have breeding options and one of the Moltex designs is a breeder, but they aren't actively working on trying to get that constructed right now. We have a ton of used fuel at present, so closing the fuel cycle with a breeder really only makes sense once we've sufficiently depleted those used fuel stores.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2
Same here!
"storing" some indefinitely (that actually has the potential to be recycled) is plain stupid.
2. Use it, because it's highly radioactive, still has tons of potential generation left in it and using it further will reduce the required storage time
I'm in camp #2
Same here!
"storing" some indefinitely (that actually has the potential to be recycled) is plain stupid.
Similar threads
