Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

[H2Andy]

I prefer building enough FBRs to use the spent fuel from the conventional reactors as fuel for the breeders – really improves the safety and economics.

what's your reaction to the following quote:

Cheap supplies of uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs . . . represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations.

 

[lamont]

what's your reaction to the following quote:

Cheap supplies of uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs . . . represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations.

Uranium is unlikely to remain cheap if nuclear power is fully embraced.

Already I can point to a number of websites suggesting that investors place bets on increased uranium demand, mining and price.

 

[amascuba]

Uranium is unlikely to remain cheap if nuclear power is fully embraced.

Already I can point to a number of websites suggesting that investors place bets on increased uranium demand, mining and price.

Create a demand then raise the price. Gotta love business.

 

[steeliejim]

Actually I outlined my proposal for increasing nuclear and strategic use of FBRs in conjunction with existing conventional nuke plants back on post 97 of this thread. While the plants you list did officially get licensed (online) in the 80s, they were all permitted much earlier. In fact, the last nuke plant to come on line was Watts Bar 1 in 1996 for the TVA – but it was originally permitted in the mid 70s and has been delayed by lawsuits and dozens of actions by anti-nuclear groups. Until work started this year under the new Energy Act of 2005, it had been over 25 years since a new plant had been permitted and many of those permitted earlier never made it to completion because of changing regulations and frivolous lawsuits.

Recognizing that FBR's really have a lot of "cool" things going for them, what are your thoughts about their one hot and really nasty thing: namely liquid sodium coolant? Corrosion, leaks, and worse seem to be a recurring thread with the reactors in France, Russia and Japan. Seems to me that that issue will be a real deterrent to overcoming public anxiety in the US over their use, even if the technical issue is overcome.

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

???
The 400 gallons is what is still leaking per day after the pipeline was shut off.

"About 21,000 gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf on Sunday before the High Island Pipeline system detected a pressure loss and shut down, Chief Warrant Officer Adam Wine said."

I had to take a break - work getting in the way of interesting discourse again. But I'm back.

The cause was in the same post you quoted - I suppose the concept of line displacement via gravity with the heavier fluid displacing the lighter fluid wasn't worth copying? The section of ruptured line between isolation valves was full of crude oil (light sweet crude in fact) before the rupture - what do you expect to occur between these two fluids of unequal density and low miscibility?

Here's an update on the story - it all looks to be in good hands to me at the moment - no reason to post just one link and never follow up that I can see.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4427681.html

And, this definitely relates to diving (how is the rupture to be repaired otherwise)? The plug(s) will keep the seepage from occuring further until repairs are made underwater. But the weather and sea state need to be factored in for repair crew safety.

 

[Bill51]

what's your reaction to the following quote:

Cheap supplies of uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs . . . represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations.

Not sure who stated it, but they’re leaving out the majority of the economic equation. While technically it’s correct that nuke plant fuel is cheap, regardless of the type conventional plant it’s used in, one must look at the total “fuel cycle” cost – including disposal. Unfortunately WAY too much of the cost of disposal is subsidized and buried from the consumer for political and military reasons. On April 7, 1977, President Carter issued an Executive Order banning fuel reprocessing and canceling the budget approved in 76, to go forward with breeder reactors and reprocessing technologies. Never mind that this order was based on the emotional myth that plutonium in a breeder could be used to manufacture a nuclear weapon, and despite that no country then or today has figured out how that might happen. In order to keep this order Constitutional and not be considered an ex post facto law denying existing plants from continuing to operate, the government had to assume a greater role in waste disposal – and that upset the economics of the fuel cycle. Since President Eisenhower had made early commitments for the government to take spent fuel for military purposes, those played into how the government got into the nuclear waste business at the taxpayer’s expense (though the plants do pay a small part of the cost).

My feeling is that nuclear fuel should be like pop bottles in some states – have a return/recycling fee built in to keep the market honest. Here’s an interesting article by a former NOAA/Navy diver on breeder reactors and nuclear waste disposal.

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors.htm

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

Uranium is unlikely to remain cheap if nuclear power is fully embraced.

Already I can point to a number of websites suggesting that investors place bets on increased uranium demand, mining and price.

Interesting. The domestic uranium industry took a real hit a few years back when China got into the market in a big way. A buddy of mine exited that industry in the 90's when his company told him his future was in Mongolia, not South Texas. The rest of his family had no desire to reside on a former air base in Asia with supplies brought in by armored convoy. He elected to keep his family nuclear and re-specialize in remediation operations rather than mining operations, since that's the way the domestic uranium was headed at the time.

It was similar to the hit domestic oil & gas production received in the 80's (I remember 20% to 25% unemployment rates in that area all too well), except it wasn't as widespread an economic underpinning as petroleum is / was in South Texas. Certain counties were fairly hard hit.

 

[Bill51]

Recognizing that FBR's really have a lot of "cool" things going for them, what are your thoughts about their one hot and really nasty thing: namely liquid sodium coolant? Corrosion, leaks, and worse seem to be a recurring thread with the reactors in France, Russia and Japan. Seems to me that that issue will be a real deterrent to overcoming public anxiety in the US over their use, even if the technical issue is overcome.

I don’t really see sodium coolant as that big an environmental or scientific problem, though it may be an economic problem in large-scale commercial reprocessing breeder reactors. Personally I believe that the light water breeder reactor that we ran back in the 70s and 80s has more potential even if it was killed for political reasons. The market should be allowed to make a large part of the decision (assuming sufficient safeguard standards are implemented) where the market determines the most appropriate plants and how to achieve the desired results standards. What concerns me the most is that in typical government fashion they will establish standards on process rather than standards on results (kind of like airport security). Who knows, maybe the He gas cooled fast reactor will be the most economical – but that may drive the price of trimix up so divers wouldn’t like it.

As to overcoming public anxiety, I think the industry and many have learned their lesson from “China Syndrome” back in 1979. Very few understood how much effect a work of fiction could have on people’s perception of reality – and how they would believe almost anything on the big screen. Add in the unique timing of Three Mile Island occurring 12 days after the movie’s release and it was a perfect storm of anti-nuclear propaganda, and too many underestimated the effect it would have on people. Today, any impossible scenario claims by the anti-nuke community would be quickly exposed by a huge campaign if needed, and many of the radical anti-nuke people of the 70s from Stewart Brand to the co-founder of Greenpeace have admitted the errors of their understanding at the time and now come out in support of nukes.

 

[ReefHound]

The cause was in the same post you quoted - I suppose the concept of line displacement via gravity with the heavier fluid displacing the lighter fluid wasn't worth copying? The section of ruptured line between isolation valves was full of crude oil (light sweet crude in fact) before the rupture - what do you expect to occur between these two fluids of unequal density and low miscibility?

Don't get testy because you made a false statement and got called on it. You had previously said "The largest quantity estimate, 400 gallons, is less than 10 barrels (42 US gallons to the US barrel). I think it's commendable the leak was so small" .

I was just pointing out the spill was not a mere 400 gallons as you suggested. I had earlier provided the link to that article for anyone who cared to read it in detail. I guess you didn't or else missed the part about 21,000 gallons.

 

[steeliejim]

I don’t really see sodium coolant as that big an environmental or scientific problem, though it may be an economic problem in large-scale commercial reprocessing breeder reactors. Personally I believe that the light water breeder reactor that we ran back in the 70s and 80s has more potential even if it was killed for political reasons. The market should be allowed to make a large part of the decision (assuming sufficient safeguard standards are implemented) where the market determines the most appropriate plants and how to achieve the desired results standards. What concerns me the most is that in typical government fashion they will establish standards on process rather than standards on results (kind of like airport security). Who knows, maybe the He gas cooled fast reactor will be the most economical – but that may drive the price of trimix up so divers wouldn’t like it.

As to overcoming public anxiety, I think the industry and many have learned their lesson from “China Syndrome” back in 1979. Very few understood how much effect a work of fiction could have on people’s perception of reality – and how they would believe almost anything on the big screen. Add in the unique timing of Three Mile Island occurring 12 days after the movie’s release and it was a perfect storm of anti-nuclear propaganda, and too many underestimated the effect it would have on people. Today, any impossible scenario claims by the anti-nuke community would be quickly exposed by a huge campaign if needed, and many of the radical anti-nuke people of the 70s from Stewart Brand to the co-founder of Greenpeace have admitted the errors of their understanding at the time and now come out in support of nukes.

Again, thanks for your response. But, politics and bureacracy aside for a moment, I do wonder how, technically, the integrity of liquid sodium coolant lines is better assurred now than in the past, because line leaks are bad enough in any event, but the rupture of a line carrying liquide sodium is potentially worse because of its violent reaction with moisture. Also, since, as I understand it (and I could be wrong--in this case) , FBR's reactions are tempered with sodium flow and not with the insertion of rods, what does one do to slow/stop a reaction if there is a serious coolant breech?