As i understand it, using spent fuel id not economically viable.
Wyoming might be the home of the first sodium cooled nuclear plant in the U.S.
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
France has used reprocessed fuel over and over at least several times. I can't find for sure if it's been done in the US. Most I can find is fuel was reprocessed and ran once and I don't know for sure if it was reprocessed and ran beyond that first time, for commercial power production that is. In the US it's been common practice to use new fuel and throw it away or leave it in temporary storage and forget about it.
It depends.
At one time it wasn't economically viable to run a uranium mine either.
So reprocessing it would have also been a bust. All because of politics. The US has been awash in Russian enriched uranium leftover from the cold war for about 20 of the last 25 years and only recently ran out. That's why Obama quietly restarted US fuel reprocessing in 2016 after more than a decade of no reprocessing. As it just started to run out within the last several years.
That's basically a fast reactor designed and hopefully run with perfect scenario and not have to be refueled. My concern is they are just selling the idea of best case scenario and what would be the scenario for worst case? Low performance till the end and a waste of the core? or would it be controllable and still run well after a few hiccup?
Are there better more affordable easier to maintain reactor design that works just as well?
I think it was banned in the US (Carter if I remember banned this). But regardless of banned or not, it is much more expensive than just use it once and then burry it underground.
Fast reactor can use it without reprocessing so in theory it is the savings. In reality this means the refueling / manufacturing of the fuel rods cost more because of the radioactive nature of the spent fuel.
Yes politicians strike again.
US reactors also don't run a varying power levels because like France because of regulations it's on or off, all or nothing.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,216
Yep
That's crazy that he banned it because he believed we didn't need to reprocess fuel but then here we are trying to figure out what to do with it.
I don't think that was the main reason. The main reason is probably nuclear proliferation and sometimes you want to discourage research / science heading into a direction that would commoditize nuclear weapon in everyone's military.
I don't think nuclear weapon is the biggest concern today. Most nations on earth knows it is the financial power that supports the military, and even if you have a warhead you may not be able to afford it for long, and your country can implode financially (Russia, N Korea).
Currently it is really a "does it make sense to even reprocess if it is cheaper to just burry it in the backyard" kind of question. France is small and have no other choice but to reprocess. China, US, Russia, all have the land to do it as well. I think China is probably researching reprocessing / breeder reactors for national security or energy policy reason than cost or disposal reason. Even Russia, their most secure energy supplier, can easily just collapse and left them with no oil or gas, or their relationship sour after Putin's pass and a more pro-US leader came to power.
US have no need to reprocess spent fuel. We have the land, the oil, the military, the stability, to keep them in a desert for 30-50 years. After that they are long half-life and pretty safe.
Yep, Wyoming is a good choice for this project. They are siting it at a coal fired plant, Naughton,
set to retire in a dozen years. The transmission infrastructure is in place. There is a workforce embedded for the lesser technical jobs. You are less than 2 hours to Salt Lake City, so it is reachable by vendors and support in a timely manner. Wyoming already produces yellowcake and would be amenable for concentrating to higher purities if some corporation wanted to step up and invest for this process. I agree that reprocessing spent fuel/warheads is probably a better solution. There is the political will of most of the twelve people who live here. This state is very energy friendly as far as taxes and policies. I am not sold on the process they are using as there are others that seem more practical to me for small modular reactors like this one.
set to retire in a dozen years. The transmission infrastructure is in place. There is a workforce embedded for the lesser technical jobs. You are less than 2 hours to Salt Lake City, so it is reachable by vendors and support in a timely manner. Wyoming already produces yellowcake and would be amenable for concentrating to higher purities if some corporation wanted to step up and invest for this process. I agree that reprocessing spent fuel/warheads is probably a better solution. There is the political will of most of the twelve people who live here. This state is very energy friendly as far as taxes and policies. I am not sold on the process they are using as there are others that seem more practical to me for small modular reactors like this one.
Last edited:
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
LM*O! Thanks for that little bit of humor that gave me a belly laugh! I know the exact type "pop tarts!" LoL that could refer to. My thing has always been in regards to the "pop tarts" is this..... we do not keep enough of them busy enough being constructive or contributing to community / society. So, that is how and why "pop tarts" can and do always seem to be able to POP up to stir mess all over
the place.We already have a place for nuclear waste. We spent over $100 billion building it.
But like everything in this country opposition groups & politicians got involved just as they do with building new nuclear plants.
Sooner later, Americans will wake up as the rest of the world leaves us behind while China becomes the new superpower.
USA development has become polarized by small special interest groups and people unwilling to stand up to them for the betterment of the country
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Last edited:
I am from Las Vegas originally, born and raised, well aware of Yucca Mountain. But even with that facility, there are dangers. None that I can think of encased in glass at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
Water is a great moderator of the fission reaction. Maybe not so much salt water, or maybe better..... but 35k feet under the ocean is a tremendous barrier.
We gotta do something, or get left in the past.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Current plan is to effectively just bury it where it came from: the ground.
The design is self-regulating based on heat, so a the heat increases, reactivity falls off. That's why the designs are referred to as "walkaway safe".
Details on the various fast reactors can be found here, including this one:
Fast Neutron Reactors - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)
No, because of the sodium coolant, which reacts "unfavourably" with water. These reactors have no moderator, they breed their own fissile material as they go (Pu-239) from whatever the source fuel is and the coolant is what allows them to operate, as the unit stops working if it gets too hot.
hmmmm, what could go wrong with that one?
That is what I figured, about the sodium coolant. I suppose there can be no active source of water either, anywhere near, or in a flood area, etc. Sounds cool.
What would happen if the sodium was removed? Or lets say there was a flood, or something along that line?
I suppose one limitation of current PWR reactors require a limitless, nearby water source. It would seem that SFR could be used anywhere, regardless of water source proximity?
Yellowstone proximity isn't enough?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, at least with CANDU fuel, not much. It can't go critical in light water.
Well, the 2nd sodium loop heats steam generators, which turn water into steam, so there is water, you just don't want those two loops contacting each other, or at least that's how the Russian design works.
It should brick itself. It would be a hot brick, but self regulation, it wouldn't melt or do anything bad. I believe most of these designs are planned with placing the unit below the ground, so there's nowhere for the sodium to go:
Yep, that's the idea. That's why some of them, like the USNC MMR are designed to go in a shipping container and power remote communities for ~20 years before you swap out the nuclear module.
There isn't any requirement for plants to do anything permanent with spent fuel waste, so no one does anything other than accumulate it at the plant where it was produced.
Putting nuclear waste into any ocean has long been prohibited by a treaty which the USA and others have signed.
Putting nuclear waste into any ocean has long been prohibited by a treaty which the USA and others have signed.
......that is what i was getting at........better have some great plumbing.........all in all, it could be done reliably I think.
100%. Underground, just in case. I would say this system, even if cheaper, should not replace existing systems, especially if near water. And with a couple of safety systems to ensure that water does not find it's way to the sodium.
I have an issue, as I am sure you can imagine, when people tout anything as being "foolproof" or "unable to fail" and so on. In that world, it is a dangerous claim to make.
I suppose you work in this field?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's not quite accurate, they are required to safely manage it (which could be viewed as in perpetuity if required due to the absence of a DGR), they just aren't required to construct or operate a permanent disposal facility because that's within the purview of the feds, not the owner/operator.
Yeah, intentionally.
From my recollection, there are a few Soviet subs on the bottom that are being "forever cooled" by the ocean.
Last edited:
Similar threads
