Which nuclear power technology for the near future?
Discussion
I was surprised to hear Farage mentioning SMR reactors in an interview and it may be one thing I agree with him on, but if it is a viable technology, why aren't GE or Rolls Royce producing them? Are there other zero-carbon technologies that can support the grid?
Thorium reactors - lots of optimistic youtube videos about them but none built as far as I know
Natrium - Bill Gates has invested with TerraPower
Fusion - I said "near future"
SMR - where are they all?
Thorium reactors - lots of optimistic youtube videos about them but none built as far as I know
Natrium - Bill Gates has invested with TerraPower
Fusion - I said "near future"
SMR - where are they all?
RR are still plodding on with their SMR programme, although the S is a bit of a misnomer given the size of the bloody things. SMR is a pretty generic term and doesn't really have a fixed meaning, although no one other than RR seem to think it should be applied to anything larger than ~250-300MW. liquid fuelled reactors could be quite a step forward if they can be perfected, although the development costs are daunting; a lot of different developments are going on in China, India, the czechs, Canada and the US, although the chinese easily have the most money. Fusion is a science project rather than a practical power generation scheme.
hidetheelephants said:
RR are still plodding on with their SMR programme, although the S is a bit of a misnomer given the size of the bloody things. SMR is a pretty generic term and doesn't really have a fixed meaning, although no one other than RR seem to think it should be applied to anything larger than ~250-300MW. liquid fuelled reactors could be quite a step forward if they can be perfected, although the development costs are daunting; a lot of different developments are going on in China, India, the czechs, Canada and the US, although the chinese easily have the most money. Fusion is a science project rather than a practical power generation scheme.
I don’t know about fusion. If the investment level was similar to the Manhattan project or the Apollo program, would we get results (in a timeframe useful for climate change)? Skeptisk said:
hidetheelephants said:
RR are still plodding on with their SMR programme, although the S is a bit of a misnomer given the size of the bloody things. SMR is a pretty generic term and doesn't really have a fixed meaning, although no one other than RR seem to think it should be applied to anything larger than ~250-300MW. liquid fuelled reactors could be quite a step forward if they can be perfected, although the development costs are daunting; a lot of different developments are going on in China, India, the czechs, Canada and the US, although the chinese easily have the most money. Fusion is a science project rather than a practical power generation scheme.
I don’t know about fusion. If the investment level was similar to the Manhattan project or the Apollo program, would we get results (in a timeframe useful for climate change)? NASA want a nuke for the moon, which may unlock US development money for more innovative design, either liquid cooled or liquid fuelled. The pentagon want portable nukes to supply power for expeditionary forces. Whoever arrives at a first of class it's likely to stimulate interest more generally.
Thorium will be beaten by Fusion. It's a practical tech, but you need a working Uranium reactor to use it. Also contrary to many YT proponents, it does pose a proliferation risk, due to the need to breed the fuel. U233 which is what the Thorium is bred into is a much better fuel for weapons than U235 + Plutonium.
If Uranium prices skyrocketed, then reprocessing would likely take priority.
I'd personally like to see more research into molten core fast reactors. These could run on the "spent" fuel from the existing PWRs and help reduce the long lived Nuclear waste.
Microreactors are interesting, I'd also like to see true compact reactors that fit in a shipping container, with heat output, then they can be used for power generation or industrial heat. Potentially converting existing coal infrastructure to Nuclear.
I'd also love to see Fusion work, the issue is the investment model, with ITER hoovering up the majority of the cash.
It will come, I'm just not convinced Tokamak is the best model.
If Uranium prices skyrocketed, then reprocessing would likely take priority.
I'd personally like to see more research into molten core fast reactors. These could run on the "spent" fuel from the existing PWRs and help reduce the long lived Nuclear waste.
Microreactors are interesting, I'd also like to see true compact reactors that fit in a shipping container, with heat output, then they can be used for power generation or industrial heat. Potentially converting existing coal infrastructure to Nuclear.
I'd also love to see Fusion work, the issue is the investment model, with ITER hoovering up the majority of the cash.
It will come, I'm just not convinced Tokamak is the best model.
Collectingbrass said:
SMRs are coming in the UK, sites have been identified and there is a development race at the moment between RR & others to get ONR sign off on the product. The challenge against the climate change timeline will be Planning Permissions as always...
UK gov just approved a grant for a HALEU facility in the UK too - providing a fuel source for SMR’s. It’s going to happen. So far only Russia are producing this grade of commercial fuel and the US are a bit itchy about it - expect to see more of this coming over the next decade.annodomini2 said:
Thorium will be beaten by Fusion. It's a practical tech, but you need a working Uranium reactor to use it. Also contrary to many YT proponents, it does pose a proliferation risk, due to the need to breed the fuel. U233 which is what the Thorium is bred into is a much better fuel for weapons than U235 + Plutonium.
Doubtful, it's questionable if fusion will ever be perfected and if it does I don't expect it to reach commercial generation in my lifetime. With a couple of £billion and a country with nuclear regulation that accommodates rather than deters innovation, a lab scale thorium fuelled reactor could be running inside 10 years. China are well on their way to do that.Thorium is a rubbish proliferation risk, U233 is far too radioactive to handle unless Mr Despot doesn't mind his fabricators dropping dead very quickly, so needs multiple large hot cells for most fabrication and assembly and the sole weapons test carried out was a fizzle, although the americans remain silent on whether the cause was a design flaw or an intrinsic feature of U233. Why would the budding 3rd world despot bugger about trying to invent a new process for making nuclear weapons when literally every nuclear armed state achieved it via the well-trodden path of enriching uranium and/or making plutonium in a reactor? If it really was better the Manhattan Project would have used it, because they tried every method conceived; they very quickly abandoned thorium and U233. Enrichment and plutonium manufacture is sufficiently straightforward that North Korea can do it despite producing terrible engineering products and having very little money.
hidetheelephants said:
annodomini2 said:
Thorium will be beaten by Fusion. It's a practical tech, but you need a working Uranium reactor to use it. Also contrary to many YT proponents, it does pose a proliferation risk, due to the need to breed the fuel. U233 which is what the Thorium is bred into is a much better fuel for weapons than U235 + Plutonium.
Doubtful, it's questionable if fusion will ever be perfected and if it does I don't expect it to reach commercial generation in my lifetime. With a couple of £billion and a country with nuclear regulation that accommodates rather than deters innovation, a lab scale thorium fuelled reactor could be running inside 10 years. China are well on their way to do that.Thorium is a rubbish proliferation risk, U233 is far too radioactive to handle unless Mr Despot doesn't mind his fabricators dropping dead very quickly, so needs multiple large hot cells for most fabrication and assembly and the sole weapons test carried out was a fizzle, although the americans remain silent on whether the cause was a design flaw or an intrinsic feature of U233. Why would the budding 3rd world despot bugger about trying to invent a new process for making nuclear weapons when literally every nuclear armed state achieved it via the well-trodden path of enriching uranium and/or making plutonium in a reactor? If it really was better the Manhattan Project would have used it, because they tried every method conceived; they very quickly abandoned thorium and U233. Enrichment and plutonium manufacture is sufficiently straightforward that North Korea can do it despite producing terrible engineering products and having very little money.
The main issue for weapons is purification, you need to remove most, if not all of the U234. Some claim this is impossible, many in the Nuclear industry disagree.
Yes the Chinese have built a research reactor, given they have their own sources of Uranium, unsure why they've taken this path. At the same time their government tends to think more long term than the Western world.
But while U235 is available and affordable, it will make more sense as there are obviously more steps to a Thorium reactor and as a result they're more expensive.
With current reactors operating the same way we've about 90yrs of supply (worldwide). Possibly a little more if the price increases making other sources more financially viable to extract. With reprocessing that will increase, but it depends on the efficiency of the process.
With fast reactors using spent fuel, the UK has hundreds to thousands of yrs of fuel, at current usage levels. Depending of the level of renewables in the mix.
Thorium is obviously a lot more, but you need the tech first to make it practical.
Fusion is complex subject, but most of the issues, appear to be from my perspective, an engineering problem. Most of the science is understood, the challenge now is making something practical.
The question is obviously when, it could be 5yrs, it could be 50yrs. I'm more optimistic that it will be closer to the 5yrs than the 50, but I may be wrong.
Isotopic separation is possible but remains insanely expensive and if you master it, why not just enrich uranium 235?
A functioning thorium fuelled reactor and perhaps more importantly an economic fuel cycle is a marketable product and countries will buy it, fuel costs are negligible. But then uranium availability isn't an issue really, miners don't bother looking very hard once they have enough reserves for 3-4 decades and there's loads of it in the sea.
Fast reactors remain an expensive curate's egg, only the russians have persevered with them while everyone else has abandoned the tech as an expensive cul de sac. Fast spectrum liquid fuelled reactors present a tantalising possibility of consuming used fuel from solid fuel reactors at low cost, but it's an idea and a series of paper reactors waiting for a sugar daddy with a few billion to spend developing it.
A functioning thorium fuelled reactor and perhaps more importantly an economic fuel cycle is a marketable product and countries will buy it, fuel costs are negligible. But then uranium availability isn't an issue really, miners don't bother looking very hard once they have enough reserves for 3-4 decades and there's loads of it in the sea.
Fast reactors remain an expensive curate's egg, only the russians have persevered with them while everyone else has abandoned the tech as an expensive cul de sac. Fast spectrum liquid fuelled reactors present a tantalising possibility of consuming used fuel from solid fuel reactors at low cost, but it's an idea and a series of paper reactors waiting for a sugar daddy with a few billion to spend developing it.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff