Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Uranium Supply Thread pt 4 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 16:51:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he nuclear industry believes it can get the first new plant on-stream by 2017.
implying that 10 years is the minimum to get the UK its first new plant. Do you really think a significantly sized country could go to 50%-70% in that time frame?


That would be replacing the current 10 reactor fleet in the UK which averages 300 Mwe each with new much more efficient units producing an average 1550 Mwe each. If the current fleet is 15% then the new fleet would be 77.5%
I don't know how you got those figures out af the article. Nowhere did it talk about replacing its current reactors in 10 years, only of getting the first new one by then. The French company vying to be the first, also hoped to have the first of its three (or possibly all three; no definitive quote there) in that time. And, I assume that 10 years is an optimistic estimate as companies always try to put out an optimistic message to gain the work. Also, in 10 years time, the demand would be greater.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Postby Dezakin » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 17:10:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Dezakin think, it is not possible due to reactor geometry.
I think, that with some engineering efforts it may be possible to get there.


I think you three should either agree on something :):):)or agree on something:):)

because otherwise if I cite numbers from you or Tanada I get an "its impossible" from Dezakin:) and vice versa.
That way the discussion is a stalemate.

Well, I know the numbers for graphite moderated fluoride reactors for thorium breeding are 1.02 or so, and there you have helium sparging pulling out all of your neutron poisons online. In order for a solid fuel reactor with accumulated neutron poisons and a worse moderator to do close to that good, you have to be more than a little creative.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/oct95/LWBR_oct95.html

Mea culpa, but it doesnt sound like converting a PWR is fast, cheap, or easy. I'm not very familiar with how they constructed their core so I'm not sure its even possible in most PWRs.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Postby Dezakin » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 17:15:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', 'S')uperphoenics was a spectacular failure.
Japanese installation is haunted with problems related to leaks of molten sodium, causing fires and it was not demonstrated to breed either.
Russian project does not breed, but otherwise is probably the best.

To be fair, all of these boondogles are liquid metal fast breeder reactors. A molten chloride fluid fuel power reactor offers some significant advantages over all of these (and even light water reactors)

No fuel fabrication for a start. Breeding ratio of 1.5 or more. No offline reprocessing plant. No corrosion issues from lead-bismuth, no bismuth neutron activation, no sodium fires, no massive pressure vessels.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Twilight » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 17:21:44

A good article from Oil Drum Europe, and right on the money.

As I have said before, I think when the time comes, LCPD could be dead in the water. A study of how much capacity we may lose through implementation would be interesting.

But even if the effects are minimal, the natural gas picture points to much more than four 1600 MWe plants being required. Inevitably we will need to be looking at replacing much of our coal and gas fired capacity too.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 18:08:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'A') reasonable average world level might be 50-70 % nuclear (the current level is 15 %). A developed country can go from 0 % nuclear to 50-70 % in 10-15 years.
Would that be including economic growth, or would that be, at current GDP levels, with the percentage going down over time?

That would be including economic growth and a big growth in total power consumption. A good example here is France.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf

As you can see above, not only did nuclear replace fossil fuels but also served a strongly increased demand (doubled in 10 years, tripled in 20 years and quadroupled in 35 years).



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, this story from the BBC includes the sentence: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he nuclear industry believes it can get the first new plant on-stream by 2017.
implying that 10 years is the minimum to get the UK its first new plant. Do you really think a significantly sized country could go to 50%-70% in that time frame?

This is because first there will be political problems for 3 years, then you will have planning delays for 2 years, and first then you will start construction and complete the first reactor 5 years later for a total of 10 years.

Or you can do like the French did in 1973. Sit down, take a good look at the facts, say "oh fuck" (or rather, "merde!) and start building your first new reactor within the year, railroading all and any opposition.

I have a good quote describing what happened.

http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol13_2/npfr_.htm
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]In the early seventies, the French nuclear program was clearly on its launching pad but, had it not been for the 1973 oil crisis, it would have developed at a steady - although unassuming pace - based mostly on PWRs at a rate of one per year, and a few fast breeders which were viewed, at that time, as important to counter the expected scarcity of uranium in a world that was irreversibly turning toward nuclear power.

With the oil crisis, the whole landscape changed drastically. At this point we need to recall a second trait of the French character: their high sensitivity to matters related to national independence. When the French realised in 1973 that the OPEC, a foreign hand, had the power to turn off the oil tap that was so crucial to their well-being, that oil together with other primary energy imports, made up 76% of their energy needs and that there were no other cheap and abundant domestic energy resources to turn to, there was a quick consensus that something had to be done. The already long positive experience in nuclear power, which made up only 2% of France's energy mix at that time, provided the obvious answer.

Translating this bright idea into reality was not an easy task, and, this time, after the scientific founding fathers, credit must be given to some great industrialists, with names like Georges Besse, Andre Giraud, Jean Claude Leny, Marcel Boiteux and many others in government, the electrical utility company and industry, who shared a clear vision of the financial and industrial effort necessary for nuclear power to be successful on a large scale.

To be successful it had to be economical and safe. With its long experience of standardization in conventional plants and the first series of six PWRs, EDF Was able to convince all decision- makers that large series orders had to be placed. This would allow significant cost reduction and encourage industries to invest in the new technology, with its specific quality requirements. This is exactly what was done. In March 1974, a first multiyear con- tract for sixteen 900 MWe units was signed by EDF and Framatome. In 1976, it was followed by a second contract for ten more units, then a third contract for eight four-loop 1300 MWe class PWRs, which was extended by a contract for twelve more 1300 MWe units. The last series, the N4, comprises the four 1450 MWe units of Chooz and Civaux currently in the commissioning stage.

Contrary to GCRs, PWRs needed specific industrial infrastructures, most notably in two key areas: fuel and heavy boiler work. PWRs use slightly enriched uranium as fuel and the coolant operates at high pressure requiring thick, high quality, steel vessels.

In 1972 the French, who already had some experience with a gas diffusion enrichment process for military applications, joined forces with Belgium, Spain and Italy, under the Eurodif consortium, to build the Tricastin enrichment facility. At the same time the Germans, British and Dutch were forming the Urenco partnership to develop enrichment on the basis of ul-tracentrifugation. Needless to say, these projects were given a dramatic boost with the oil crisis. The gas diffusion process, a more mature technology at that time, allowed Eurodif to start production of the 10 millions SWUs Tricastin plant in record time in 1978. The facility, now part of the Cogema group, uses the power of three of the four 900 MWe PWR also located at Tricastin. It is worthwhile noting that mastering uranium enrichment was the key to energy independence for a country that chose LWRs in the seventies. Today, in a buyer's market, with ample capacities and diversified suppliers, it is no longer the case.

Regarding the manufacture of heavy pressure vessels, the shops set up by Framatome's mother company at Le Creusot to handle the first orders of EDF for Fessenheim and Bugey were deemed insufficient for the multi-layer contracts.A decision was made to locate in Burgundy, at Chalon-sur- Saone, a town with easy river access by barge to the Mediterranean sea, the largest-of-its-kind nuclear boiler work factory. Construction started in 1974, and the shop was operational by the fall of 1975.

In parallel with these two major achievements, Cogema stepped up its uranium ore prospecting and mining effort, initially in France, then worldwide, most notably in Africa and North America.

At the end of the seventies, France's industrial infrastructure was ready for series construction of PWRs at a very high production rate. All key constituents of the fuel cycle, except for final disposal of high level wastes, were also in place, i.e. mining and enrichment under Cogema, fuel design by Framatome, manufacture of fuel carried out by a joint venture of Framatome and Cogema, reprocessing of spent fuel by Cogema at the La Hague facility. Later on, MOX fuel fabrication, allowing the recycling of plutonium extracted from reprocessed fuel in the form of mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, was added to the Iccp. MOX fuel is now fed into twenty PWRs in France and also some units abroad, and contributes to the solution of the plutonium storage problem, while producing additional power.

At its peak in the early eighties, the French nuclear industry was adding to the grid six 900 MW units per year (a maximum of eight in 1981), without running into any production bottlenecks. At this rate, it took only a few years to build 34 three-loop 900 MW units, then the twenty four-loop 1300 MW units, while saving along the way some capacity for export to Belgium (three units), South Africa (two units), Korea (two units) and, more recently China (four units). Now, the last series of four four-loop 1450 MW units undergoing commissioning is closing this chapter of the initial nuclear investment in France.
Notice the viper swift and python massive action. Crisis hits in 1973. After one year sixteen reactors are ordered and a massive reactor factory is constucted. It is ready two years after the crisis. After three years, ten more reactors, and then another eight, and another twelve are ordered. Five years after the crisis the enrichment facility is completed. Ten years after the crisis, the nuclear sector is producing 150 TWh a year, equal to the entire French power consumption when the crisis arrived (due to the 5 year time lag, new reactor construction gradually starts ramping down). After 15 years the annual nuclear production is 300 TWh. Today the annual nuclear generation is about 400 TWh.

It could have been even faster if they had felt it would have been worth it, that is, not starting to ramp production down after the peak in 1981. By the way, as the United States is five times the size of France, a US program would with the same effort steadily produce 30 reactors per year, with 40 reactors the peak year.

Another example here is Sweden, which went as nuclear as we wanted (45 %) in 16 years (we didn't need more as we could cover the rest with hydro power. This was in spite of massive political resistance, a referndum which banned nuclear power and several reactors not being started for years without them being completed. In spite of that it took only 16 years (1969-1985). We could have done it faster without the political resistance. But ironically, wihout the crisis feeling induced by political resistance, there wouldn't have been panic in industry and we would actually have built the reactors at a slower pace.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/SEELEC.pdf
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 18:22:03

Thanks, Starvid. It looks like it's possible (assuming the availability of nuclear fuel). So whether it is likely is down to politicians and populace acquiescence.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 18:24:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hat would be replacing the current 10 reactor fleet in the UK which averages 300 Mwe each with new much more efficient units producing an average 1550 Mwe each. If the current fleet is 15% then the new fleet would be 77.5%
The reactors are actually dual, and have a total output of 10-11 GW. In five years that will be 9 GW, in ten years it will be less than 4 GW. The UK will lose an output equal to four massive reactors until the day the first new one is supposed to be online. In fifteen years the loss will equal the output of six massive new reactors. If they complete ten new massive reactors in the next fifteen years, which seems to approximate to their schedule and is not unrealistic, the total nuclear output will be around 17 GW instead of 10,5 GW.

If demand stays the same, which it might well do, nuclear share of total electricity generation will grow from 1/5 to 1/3 of all power generated.

So seriously. Why make do with 10 new massive reactors? Build 20! Push nuclear to a 60 % share!
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 18:27:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')hanks, Starvid. It looks like it's possible (assuming the availability of nuclear fuel). So whether it is likely is down to politicians and populace acquiescence.
Just watch people's reactions as the lights start going out... :P

Anti-nukes will be tarred and feathered. Especially as Britain is one of the few countries which might actually suffer blackouts. Thank the free market for that. Oops! :oops:
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby lorenzo » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 19:30:25

So how efficient is this new generation of reactors? Are the French going to build it?
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Twilight » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 19:56:37

Shame it takes a rare catalyzing energy event to shape public thinking.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Postby sch_peakoiler » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 19:58:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', 'S')uperphoenics was a spectacular failure.
Japanese installation is haunted with problems related to leaks of molten sodium, causing fires and it was not demonstrated to breed either.
Russian project does not breed, but otherwise is probably the best.

To be fair, all of these boondogles are liquid metal fast breeder reactors. A molten chloride fluid fuel power reactor offers some significant advantages over all of these (and even light water reactors)

No fuel fabrication for a start. Breeding ratio of 1.5 or more. No offline reprocessing plant. No corrosion issues from lead-bismuth, no bismuth neutron activation, no sodium fires, no massive pressure vessels.



maybe you can provide more specs on it?
like what is the fuel mix,
how does the bred fuel come out (should one stop it for unload?)
should one let the spent fuel cool for several years before reprocessing
whats the "doubling time"?
time to build one reactor?
whats its assessed technology state (working prototype or theoretical prototype or pure fantasy) ?
There is no knowledge that is not power.
User avatar
sch_peakoiler
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Tanada » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 20:00:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o how efficient is this new generation of reactors? Are the French going to build it?


Depends on whom you ask but the figures I have seen are from 10% to 25% reduction in fuel used per unit of electricity produced.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Andy » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 20:31:06

Let's see how many they actually get built in the stated timeframe especially with the impending resource issues. I will bet any money that they may get a few in but other alternatives, especially efficiency are going to prove faster and easier.
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
User avatar
Andy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 21:00:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o how efficient is this new generation of reactors? Are the French going to build it?
They are building one in Finland and one in France already.

Thermal efficiency is 35 % I think. The Mitsubishi Monster Reactors (to be built in Texas) have a thermal efficiency of 37 %.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 21:04:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'L')et's see how many they actually get built in the stated timeframe especially with the impending resource issues. I will bet any money that they may get a few in but other alternatives, especially efficiency are going to prove faster and easier.
I don't think anyone is questioning that the cheapest energy is energy saved, up to a point, which we most certainly haven't reached yet.

But even with a focues on efficiency, the best you are going to do is keeping up with demand growth. And then you still have to deal with the fossil fuels.

The number of reactors built depends on only one thing: will.

As the French example showed. Remember they launched ina time when consumers spent twice as much of their income on oil products as they do today, the equal of $200 a barrel.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Postby Dezakin » Sat 12 Jan 2008, 17:32:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
') maybe you can provide more specs on it?
like what is the fuel mix,
how does the bred fuel come out (should one stop it for unload?)
should one let the spent fuel cool for several years before reprocessing
whats the "doubling time"?
time to build one reactor?
whats its assessed technology state (working prototype or theoretical prototype or pure fantasy) ?

I sort of hate the phrase 'doubling time' because its a lot faster to build more mines or more enrichment plants than to build breeder reactors just to create fuel. Really when people are interested in this its about weapons production...

Liquid chloride reactors would be about fissile production and actinide incineration, which are aesthetic objectives at best. I like them but for power production, liquid fluoride reactors are superior because they operate in thermal regimes (safer) and have fewer development issues (most development and prototyping was allready done in the MSBR project decades ago)

The fuel for a liquid fluoride mix is a liquid core of molten berylleum and lithium fluorides with uranium tetrafluoride disolved in. The fluorides act as a moderator or you can reduce the core size and fissile load by having external moderation (graphite or heavy water) but now it seems that because of moderator swelling and capital costs, just dealing with higher fissile load and a slightly larger core is more economical.

Wrapped around the core is a liquid salt medium with thorium tetrafluorides as a blanket. Fluoride volitility pulls out bred U233, and then thats fed into the core. Helium sparging pulls out gasseous fission products online, a sacrificial annode pulls out noble metals, and vacuum distillation gets the rest of the fission products, so there aren't accumulated neutron poisons in the core. The radioactive waste stream is 1/1000th that of a light water reactor, and average half life is 30 years instead of some 25000. After the initial fuel load (which can be just enriched uranium) it requires 1 ton of thorium per GW/year. After the reactor is decommissioned, the fuel load can be moved to another reactor.

Time to build the reactor is comparable to time to build a light water reactor, from 2 to 10 years depending on licensing costs, supply bottlenecks, political opposition or whatever.

The assessed technology state for the liquid fluoride reactor isn't yet commercial yet, but there was a working prototype that ran for five years at ORNL. For molten salt fast reactors using chlorides its theoretical.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Twilight » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 19:45:16

BBC: Britain 'facing energy shortfall'

In summary:

Combination of Magnox decommissioning and LCPD may cause a generation gap mid-decade.

Nuclear plants unlikely to be operational in next ten years.

Massive expansion of gas-fired generation necessary to bridge the gap.

As I have been saying, that is where the money is going these days.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 20:10:38

I don't get why the Brits are so fucking tardy. 10 years, are you kidding me?

I mean, they'll get an energy gap in 5-7 years. If they get cracking now, they could get new nukes online til then.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Starvid » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 20:20:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ack in the days when atoms were clean, white coats were trusted and socialists were socialists, building nuclear reactors was, politically, a comparatively easy task.

A national need was identified, a national programme was ordered into action, and a national reactor design (or two) eventually emerged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7180641.stm

Those were the days.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Postby Twilight » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 20:21:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'I') don't get why the Brits are so fucking tardy. 10 years, are you kidding me?

I would be saying too much if I explained why. Let's just say there are sacred cows, allowances have to be made for special interest groups and one routinely has to accept delays which enter the realm of the surreal. Only a crisis will empower us to confront this dysfunctionality.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron