Largest continuous oil and gas resource potential ever

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
NuScale is testing this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-passes-biggest-hurdle-yet/#4fd446755bb5






Great read. Thanks MolaKule. What I like about this type of technology is the smaller footprint involved compared to solar or wind. To me, the huge amount of acreage used to put up the solar and wind systems is wasteful. The end result is not worth it. The idea of putting several SMRs in a 60 acre footprint that would equal one if the nuclear plants of today is much more efficient. Add in the better safety and it's a winner.

They do some excellent research work out at the Idaho National Laboratory.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
NuScale is testing this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-passes-biggest-hurdle-yet/#4fd446755bb5



I haven't done much research on these, but I'd like to know more about their XC scheme.

From what's shown in the article, it appears as if they're still relying on SG's for XC for a period of the highest amount of DH generation. What happens of the SG's pressure boundary is breached or the safeties fail to lift (assuming no operator action, I mean).

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
The biggest problems I see with the alternatives to coal/gasoline/CNG is that there are no really viable storage solutions for them. Hydrocarbons store the energy locally and are available for use at any time.

This. Hydrocarbons are a blessing, we should be kissing the ground they're extracted from. If one puts the propagandist ideology on pause for a moment, seriously ask whats wrong with using them and driving the critical, life-sustaining carbon cycle?? Better than leaving them there to burn up uselessly the next time a comet hits or the earths crust rolls over. Hydrocarbons have been great for the trees; not only do they need the CO2 but also because we powered the industrial revolution with hydrocarbons instead!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
NuScale is testing this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-passes-biggest-hurdle-yet/#4fd446755bb5



There are a PILE of SMR's in various stages of contracts for builds and implementation. Canada has been extremely receptive to SMR adoption and testing and many of the major utilities are participating in our SMR roadmap program, which I've linked to here in the recent past.

For us, given our mass of CANDU reactors, the Moltex Waste Burner reactor seems to be the obvious choice. It's specifically designed to run on CANDU waste and the minimal final waste product has a storage requirement of only 200 years. Of course you could couple it with a breeder and close the fuel cycle, which is another option once you've used up your spent fuel stores.

Regarding NuScale in particularly, OPG, our provincial (crown, public) generator has signed an MOU with them as of the 7th of November, 2018:
https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/p...ign-mou-support-smr-expansion-canadian-m

61% of Ontario's electricity comes from Nuclear and there is a lot of excitement that the current administration may actually allow OPG to build Darlington B, which was the second set of units that was supposed to occupy the OPG Darlington site. At this juncture it'll probably end up being another 4-pack of CANDU's, which would push Ontario to ~77% Nuclear. I've proposed, and received some support, for the refurbishment of Pickering B (it's never received its mid-life refurbishment) and the replacement of Pickering A with SMR's once it reaches EOL.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by MolaKule
NuScale is testing this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-passes-biggest-hurdle-yet/#4fd446755bb5



There are a PILE of SMR's in various stages of contracts for builds and implementation. Canada has been extremely receptive to SMR adoption and testing and many of the major utilities are participating in our SMR roadmap program, which I've linked to here in the recent past.

For us, given our mass of CANDU reactors, the Moltex Waste Burner reactor seems to be the obvious choice. It's specifically designed to run on CANDU waste and the minimal final waste product has a storage requirement of only 200 years. Of course you could couple it with a breeder and close the fuel cycle, which is another option once you've used up your spent fuel stores.

Regarding NuScale in particularly, OPG, our provincial (crown, public) generator has signed an MOU with them as of the 7th of November, 2018:
https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/p...ign-mou-support-smr-expansion-canadian-m

61% of Ontario's electricity comes from Nuclear and there is a lot of excitement that the current administration may actually allow OPG to build Darlington B, which was the second set of units that was supposed to occupy the OPG Darlington site. At this juncture it'll probably end up being another 4-pack of CANDU's, which would push Ontario to ~77% Nuclear. I've proposed, and received some support, for the refurbishment of Pickering B (it's never received its mid-life refurbishment) and the replacement of Pickering A with SMR's once it reaches EOL.



That's good news.

Down here we're still being ignorant thinking wind turbines and Solar will do it all and be available all the time.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by MolaKule

That's good news.

Down here we're still being ignorant thinking wind turbines and Solar will do it all and be available all the time.

It really is.

The previous administration took us down that insane path, drove bills through the roof, to achieve a whopping 9% of our annual supply, variably. They originally, since they were simple and had zero concept of how the grid actually operated, pledged to phase-out nuclear. It became abundantly clear in short order that this wasn't going to happen at which juncture they begrudgingly engaged in the nuclear refurbishment process as advocated by our large generators. Unfortunately, this renewable circus was an expensive detour at roughly 3x the cost of just building Darlington B, which was OPG's plan to eliminate coal from our generation mix, sidelined by the wind and solar virtue signalling.

As it stands, we are committed to existing nuclear facilities until ~2064, which is when Bruce potentially reaches EOL, at >80 years old. By the time Darlington A's refurbishment completes in the coming decade the first batch of renewable nonsense that was foisted on Ontarians will be reaching EOL and falling off the grid. Bruce will then commence its refurbishment of six units, a facility which broke ground in 1971 and first produced power in September of 1977. Bruce will be generating power long after every single wind turbine and solar panel that was installed when that facility was in its 40's is dead and gone. It will have close to a century under its belt of generation output of almost 50TWh a year before it is slated to retire, an incredible feat. Hopefully at that time Bruce Power will have replacement units already operating on the site, as they are keen on further developing it.

 

[Papa Bear]

Do we have enough O2 in our atmosphere to burn 46 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion C3' of gas ?? .......

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Do we have enough O2 in our atmosphere to burn 46 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion C3' of gas ?? .......

The quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere is not static.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Do we have enough O2 in our atmosphere to burn 46 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion C3' of gas ?? .......




You are not serious, are you?

 

[Cujet]

The announcement is not at all surprising to me.

Many years ago (about 30) I worked for Mobil Oil in their flight department. I'd talk with the engineers every chance I got. Occasionally, I'd talk with the CEO, as he liked my Norwegian Elkhound dog. (the dog would hop in his car for some funny reason)

What I learned was the engineers knew all about the various "oil/shale/natural gas" reserves. They flat out told me that we know we have more oil than we can use in the next 100 years. Back then, oil was cheap and there was not much incentive to go after the deep stuff. But they clearly knew it was there. They also mentioned that while it was more expensive to extract, the additional costs were not likely to be reflected in the pump prices. Those high drilling and extraction expenses are offset by the huge quantities and high flow rates of such "reserves".

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Do we have enough O2 in our atmosphere to burn 46 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion C3' of gas ?? .......




You are not serious, are you?

+1

 

[double vanos]

Ok so that begs the question; how much uranium does the earth have? Some worry about the day we're out of oil. Is this also a concern with what powers these new reactors? Please educate me.....

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by double vanos
Ok so that begs the question; how much uranium does the earth have? Some worry about the day we're out of oil. Is this also a concern with what powers these new reactors? Please educate me.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

If you want to get serious, about 60,000 years.

 

[Shannow]

Throw in thorium and breeders...

 

[Nyogtha]

Correct, we can manufacture plutonium with breeder reactors, we did it for weapons purposes for decades. One of my university professors often complained we'd made a poor decision in the US to abandon fast breeder reactor technology. I happen to agree.

This Wikipedia article states we have enough uranium to power the planet for somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 billion years if seawater uranium extraction is included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

 

[Garak]

And if we can't master fusion by then, well, the sun's fusion will master us then, give or take.

 

[PimTac]

60,000 years is hard enough to comprehend let alone 5 billion.

 

[Nyogtha]

Garak & Pim Tac - exactly.

We mastered weaponizing fusion shortly after fission, and turned to power generation from fission fairly quickly, but we're still struggling with fusion for power generation. A good question is whether our mastery of weaponized fusion will cut short efforts to use fusion for power generation. That's much more realistic than wondering if 60,000 years worth of uranium vs 5 billion years supply of uranium is sufficient.

 

[MolaKule]

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) is upgrading their new spherical tokamak so let's hope we can see some progress in the near future.

My understanding is there are two hurdles as of right now, one physics related and the other engineering.

1) The first one is that after initiation of the plasma, getting more energy out of it that it takes to keep the plasma sustained,

2) even though the plasma does act somewhat as an insulator, the plasma still conducts quite a bit of heat to the sustaining vessel. This a materials science and engineering problem involving some interesting Thermodynamcs calculations.

just to add there are a number of fusion initiatives going on around the world:

https://www.pppl.gov/sites/pppl/files/basic_pages_files/NSTX-U_presskit_print_WorldMachines.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

While Fusion is drool-worthy, a flexible fuel reactor coupled with a breeder for a closed fuel cycle is doable right now. Fission works and is proven. One could couple an AFCR CANDU with a breeder and have perpetual fuel.