New small form nuclear reactors for power generation

Nathan

Nathan

SF VIP
Location
High Desert- Calif.
"On Friday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it would be issuing a certification to a new nuclear reactor design, making it just the seventh that has been approved for use in the US. But in some ways, it's a first: The design, from a company called NuScale, is a small modular reactor that can be constructed at a central facility and then moved to the site where it will be operated.


The move was expected after the design received an OK during its final safety evaluation in 2020.


Small modular reactors have been promoted as avoiding many of the problems that have made large nuclear plants exceedingly expensive to build. They're small enough that they can be assembled on a factory floor and then shipped to the site where they will operate, eliminating many of the challenges of custom on-site construction. In addition, they're structured in a way to allow passive safety, where no operator actions are necessary to shut the reactor down if problems occur.


Many of the small modular designs involve different technology from traditional reactors, such as the use of molten uranium salts as the reactor fuel. NuScale has a much more traditional design, with fuel and control rods and energy transported through boiling water. Its operator-free safety features include setting the entire reactor in a large pool of water, control rods that are inserted into the reactor by gravity in the case of a power cut, and convection-driven cooling from an external water source.

Advertisement


NuScale started the certification process in 2016. According to the NRC, that process required the company to submit technical information that allows the Commission to evaluate it as follows:


Applications must closely analyze the design's appropriate response to accidents or natural events. Applications must also lay out the inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria that will verify the construction of key design features. In addition, the NRC also requires design certification applicants to assess how the designs protect the reactor and spent fuel pool from the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.
Click to expand...

Once complete, the certification is published in the Federal Register, allowing the design to be used in the US. Friday's announcement says that the NRC is all set to take the publication step.


The NRC will still have to weigh in on the sites where any of these reactors are deployed. Currently, one such site is in the works: a project called the Carbon Free Power Project, which will be situated at Idaho National Lab. That's expected to be operational in 2030 but has been facing some financial uncertainty. Utilities that might use the power produced there have grown hesitant to commit money to the project."




arstechnica.com
 

Great information, Nathan, thanks.

Rolls-Royce got a contract earlier this year, from our
Government to come up with a small version for the
generation of domestic electricity.

I have always wondered why this wasn't done years
ago, both of our countries have had Nuclear Subs,
for as long as I remember, when they get a big service,
the nuclear units are swapped, so there are several in
stock somewhere, unfortunately, because of the crazies
that are around, power stations will have to be armour
plated and protected by special forces, to protect them.

Mike.
 
Some form of nuclear power generation would certainly be a good thing for many areas. Nuclear creates energy with far fewer pollutants than fossil fuels, and is far more reliable than wind or solar...in many areas. It's been decades since any nuclear plants have been built, and there are probably newer and safer technologies that could be applied today.
 

There's the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste. NIMBY!!!

Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste
Small modular reactors, long touted as the future of nuclear energy, will actually generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants, according to research from Stanford and the University of British Columbia.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/
 
Well well well................................ I guess WOPR, HAL9000 and SkyNet are not so imaginary after all. Nothing like self controlled autonomous projects becoming self aware.
 
FastTrax said:
Well well well................................ I guess WOPR, HAL9000 and SkyNet are not so imaginary after all. Nothing like self controlled autonomous projects becoming self aware.
Click to expand...
I remember WOPR back in the 80's when a kid that was a computer geek took on playing a war game against the government's computer. They called it the Whopper. There is a place in Carlisle, PA that plays or did play war games with members from other country governments. It's called a War College. Nothing secret or covert about what that place is.
 
Been There said:
I remember WOPR back in the 80's when a kid that was a computer geek took on playing a war game against the government's computer. They called it the Whopper. There is a place in Carlisle, PA that plays or did play war games with members from other country governments. It's called a War College. Nothing secret or covert about what that place is.
Click to expand...

Nothing like getting a PhD for hostile intent.
 
Been There said:
I remember WOPR back in the 80's when a kid that was a computer geek took on playing a war game against the government's computer. They called it the Whopper. There is a place in Carlisle, PA that plays or did play war games with members from other country governments. It's called a War College. Nothing secret or covert about what that place is.
Click to expand...
This war college is not far from my home. When you go past the road to the college there is a small sign showing a directional arrow and reads “War College.” Like you said, nothing covert about its location or what their initiative is. I know very little of what goes on back there and have often been tempted to go down that road just to see if I get stopped by security or what may happen.

I like the idea of moving more to nuclear power. The only thing besides the nuclear waste that comes out of the plant at 3-mile Island is steam.
 
Last edited:
The war for energy is on! Many think we have exceeded our oil supply and coal is horrible for the air/heat. The waste from nuclear energy is a REAL problem. I think we are all going to have to learn to live a much more simple life. That is probably a good thing.
 
Getting rid of nuclear waste is the number one concern with nuclear power plants. There are scientists working on long term solutions, but from what I read, that may not occur for years. The U.S. is presently storing it well sealed in steel drums and then buried in the ground until a refinery has the room to store additional uranium and plutonium that is recovered from the waste. Some of what is recovered goes into the manufacturing of nuclear weapons.
 
Paco Dennis said:
The war for energy is on! Many think we have exceeded our oil supply and coal is horrible for the air/heat. The waste from nuclear energy is a REAL problem. I think we are all going to have to learn to live a much more simple life. That is probably a good thing.
Click to expand...
I'm all for clean nuke generated electricity, but there's still that "nuclear waste" thing. The small pre-assembled reactors do have a place in the market. Solar energy is abundant and flows continously from the sun, more than can ever be used.
 
About nuclear waste, there has always been a historical rumour,
that there is a radioactive mountain in India, somewhere in the
Himalayas, this has always fascinated me, as I have also read of
a nuclear war in antiquity in India, I always thought that it was a
place to store nuclear waste.

I did a search just now and there are hints of my idea, there are
also stories about wars in the past with mountains shattering,
(Nuclear Wars????)

So maybe it isn't waste after all.

Mike
 
oldman said:
Getting rid of nuclear waste is the number one concern with nuclear power plants
Click to expand...
It is, more political than technical. We have solutions, but not the political will to implement them, not in the US anyway. For high level waste the solution is burial, long term storage. We have such a place Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository it is as safe a place to dispose of the waste as exists, however for a variety of political and legal reasons we are not using it. Instead we are storing wastes in much less safe places.

I think the problem is discomfort with the idea of just putting the waste into long term storage, but that is what we have. I am not uncomfortable with the idea, I believe it carries a lot less risk than many other things we do.
oldman said:
There are scientists working on long term solution
Click to expand...
And have been for years, billions of dollars have been spent already. Over time we may learn how to reuse more of the spent fuel, reducing what has to go into the ground, but I believe we cannot eliminate the need to bury some of it. We have reasonable solutions now, I believe we should implement them, and continue research to perhaps get better, but we have spent too much time and money researching and arguing about this already.

If we can't get on with it I believe we need to give up on nuclear energy. Doing what we are doing now is not a responsible approach... I think we'd be better off going with more nuclear, but not unless we can agree to implement the waste disposal processes we have.
 
Alligatorob said:
It is, more political than technical. We have solutions, but not the political will to implement them, not in the US anyway. For high level waste the solution is burial, long term storage. We have such a place Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository it is as safe a place to dispose of the waste as exists, however for a variety of political and legal reasons we are not using it. Instead we are storing wastes in much less safe places.

I think the problem is discomfort with the idea of just putting the waste into long term storage, but that is what we have. I am not uncomfortable with the idea, I believe it carries a lot less risk than many other things we do.

And have been for years, billions of dollars have been spent already. Over time we may learn how to reuse more of the spent fuel, reducing what has to go into the ground, but I believe we cannot eliminate the need to bury some of it. We have reasonable solutions now, I believe we should implement them, and continue research to perhaps get better, but we have spent too much time and money researching and arguing about this already.

If we can't get on with it I believe we need to give up on nuclear energy. Doing what we are doing now is not a responsible approach... I think we'd be better off going with more nuclear, but not unless we can agree to implement the waste disposal processes we have.
Click to expand...
Cleanup remains the number 1 issue with using nuclear power plants, but what’s most interesting is that the top scientists in the country agree that nuke power is best for all concerned to replace coal plants and not wind turbines. There is a building across the street from 3-Mile Island that houses a menagerie of information regarding nuclear power and how scientists are working on getting rid of the waste. I found it to be very interesting. The information changes often as scientists continue to come up with trials of different methods for cleaning nuke waste. As you will read in the attachment, they are not sitting idly by.
https://www.britannica.com/video/216532/Microbots-clean-up-radioactive-waste
 
Nuclear waste could be shot into space if rockets ever become 100% reliable. Perhaps it could be contained in an explosion proof container. The sun would be a good target to dispose of it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top