Green Car Congress: Alter NRG Proposing Canadas First Coal-to-Liquids Project

« Jamison Report Calls for Fast-Tracking Development of Electric Vehicles in Australia | Main | eTec and V2Green to Evaluate PHEV Fast-Charging and Smart Grid Interactions; V2Green and Coulomb Also Partner »

Alter NRG Proposing Canada’s First Coal-to-Liquids Project

23 July 2008

Cross-section of the WPC Plasma Gasification Reactor. Click to enlarge.

Alter NRG Corp. is proposing a Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) project that will use the company’s coal reserves in the Fox Creek Area of Alberta, Canada as a feedstock to produce synthetic diesel fuel and naphtha. The project, with a targeted production capacity of 40,000 barrels per day (bbls/d), will require an investment of approximately C$4.5 billion.

Alter NRG will gasify the solid coal feedstock (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation is a subsidiary of Alter NRG) to produce a syngas that will be processed by a Fischer-Tropsch reactor into liquids with a primary emphasis on low sulfur, high-cetane diesel (33,000 bbls/d), but also naphtha (7,000 bbls/d), which is used as a bitumen diluent by the nearby oil sands industry.

The gasification process also has the ability to capture a relatively pure stream of CO₂ suitable for sequestration or enhanced oil recovery (EOR) opportunities in the local area. Alter NRG plans to capture more than 85% of the produced CO₂ for sale in EOR. In the event that not all CO₂ can be disposed of in this way, the project plans to sequester remaining CO₂ in deep saline aquifers or in depleted oil or gas pools.

The gasification and Fischer-Tropsch components of the proposed Alter NRG CTL project. Click to enlarge.

The electrical power produced from the project is expected to meet the power requirements needed to run the coal mine and CTL operations. Surplus power, if any generated, will be marketed in Alberta through the existing electrical grid system.

Alter NRG intends to develop the project in at least two stages, with the first stage potentially producing upwards of 20,000 bbls/d.

Engineering and environmental studies are planned to be carried out for the remainder of 2008 and all of 2009. These studies will form the basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project. Submission of the project regulatory application is targeted for the end of 2009.

Alter NRG is anticipating an 18-month regulatory review period. Construction will begin soon after receipt of all necessary approvals. Alter NRG plans to start up mining operations by the fall of 2013, to pre-build coal supply for startup of the CTL plant in early 2014. The CTL plant will require a longer engineering design and construction period than the mine.

The Company initiated a strategic partner selection process in early 2008 and expects to provide further details on the development pathway and financing plans at the conclusion of the process in the later part of 2008.

Resources

Alter NRG Fox Creek CTL Public Disclosure Document

July 23, 2008 in Canada, Coal-to-Liquids (CTL), Gasification | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/31546586

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alter NRG Proposing Canada’s First Coal-to-Liquids Project:

Comments

And desperation leads to this. Does anyone actually think that the product of this is going to be for canadians or it just going to be shipped to the US.

Environmental impact studies of resource exploitation, especially in Alberta are notoriously pro-industry, with people from the industry sitting on the boards themselves. At least that is what happens with the tar sands impact studies.

Posted by: aym | Jul 23, 2008 10:57:12 AM

The Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid (CTL) process has three reactions to yield hydrocarbon fuels. These reactions require a great deal of heat, heat derived from coal combustion. This process is referred to as Indirect Liquefaction. A major disadvantage of the technique is that the amount of coal used for heat in the coal-to-liquid process is greater than the amount converted to fuel. As a result, this process produces large amounts slag, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, not to mention a waste of coal.

The Direct Liquefaction process developed by Nobel Laureate Friedrich Bergius in 1921 requires only one step where hydrogen is combined directly with pulverized coal under high pressure and temperature to produce various hydrocarbons depending on process variables. The H2 in current coal-to-liquid plants (and in WWII Germany) is produced by the same chemical reactions used in the initial step of the Fischer-Tropsch process, i.e., it is obtained from heating coal with high-pressure steam producing hydrogen and carbon monoxide (C + H2O —> H2 + CO).

In the NRG Coal-to-Liquids Project, there is a large amount of wasted CO2 because of a lack of H2. This CO2 is not GW friendly and costly to mitigate.

But the creation of this pollutant can be avoided by adding the hydrogen with heat from a new generation of super-safe nuclear reactors. This will utilize ever carbon atom in the coal feedstock thereby minimizing the environmental impact of the entire project.

“Pebble Bed Modular Reactor” (PBMR) uses several hundred thousand baseball-sized fuel spheres, each of which contains 15,000 coated, grain-of-sand-sized fuel kernels. The pyrolytic graphite and silicon carbide layers coating the fuel kernels have melting temperatures far above that of the maximum equilibrium temperature of the reactor, making a meltdown impossible.

In traditional nuclear power plants (which are already extremely safe), water is used as a “moderator” to slow down neutrons so the nuclear reaction can occur, and also as a coolant and heat-transfer medium. In a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, cooling is accomplished by piping helium through the pebble bed, with the spaces between fuel spheres serving as “pipes.” The pyrolytic graphite coating of the fuel kernels serves as the moderator. Since the helium is not made radioactive by the neutron flux in the reactor, it can be sent directly though a turbine generator to produce electricity or, in this case, used to provide ample heat for the Bergius process.

The process works like this. The feedstock is fed into the coal-to-liquid processor where the crushed coal is liquefied by heat derived from a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Additional reactor heat is used to generate hydrogen from water. The hydrogen and coal react to produce a variety of hydrocarbon fuels based on the process temperatures and pressures, with diesel fuel being the most desirable. Diesel fuel, which has the highest specific energy of the hydrocarbon fuels, provides “gas mileage” twice that of ethanol and 40 percent higher than gasoline.

Canada is not paralyzed by the fear of nuclear power or deviation from the ill advised continuance of light water reactor technology.

The very small, fail safe, and inexpensive PBMR is under consideration in Canada for use in the tar sands industry. If economics is a determining factor, it will be used there.

NRG should consider this potential breakthrough in CTL production and reconsider their design.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 11:40:02 AM

Nice post Axil. Your description of the processes is very clear. Thanks. I agree that nuclear fission processes will likely be a bridge to the fusion future energy paradigm. I've lived in Alberta a couple of times and I feel sorry to see people change to worrying about the Co2 emissions and blaming Alta.

Posted by: | Jul 23, 2008 12:58:03 PM

Very nice, Axil. Combining nuclear with fossil fuels processing such as CTL, oil sands, and shale oil, offers solutions to most of the problems of those technologies. Only die-hard lefty envirofossils continue to stand in the way of a more energetic future. Shame on them.

Pebble bed pebbles may need some work to make sure they do not jam at the outlet, interfere with control rods, or become susceptible to graphite fires, but all that can be done and solved.

Posted by: ayn | Jul 23, 2008 1:20:56 PM

Axil:

Correct me if I'm wrong but no PBMR has ever been built. The first prototype could start been built in SA in 2010 with earliest potential commissioning in 2013+. The first commercial site could start being built by 2016+ and would not be operational before 2020+.

This concept has a long way to go yet before we see many commercial units in operation.

However, other existing up-to-date reactors could do the job. A Westinghouse unit could be built in about 5 to 6 years.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jul 23, 2008 1:35:40 PM

So should we be proposing the waste of one form of energy in this case Axil, nuclear whatever to 'save wasting another I E coal.
There is no excuse for waste in ANY energy technology when we consider that the non renewables are just that.
The fossil era is best left well behind. No thinking person would argue that.
Some though persist in arguing the irrational side off thier fantasies (not that I have a problem with fantasy. )

Apparently we in Australia are being sold (or told) the "Clean Coal" development for the 'sake of the planet' mantra.
No choice, just this or nothing. The justification being that we are a major exporter with an economy almost entirely based on extractive industries in particular coal and secondly minerals like iron ore , aluminium et al, which is now mostly exported either unprocessed or primary processed state.

My take on the selling of this clean carbon market and the way it is sold is that if we don't sell and develop our (best practice) resource, that others will sell their dirty slave trade product into the insatiable international market.
Some sprukers are not shy to point out that the withholding of our resources places us at increased risk of military invasion (extortion with menaces.)
Now I know we alliance of modern western democracies have a neat little line when it suits that goes
"We don't not deal with terrorists"
I guess it depends if those 'Terrorists' are your mates!

My view of 'clean coal' is not 'flattering'
The technical challenges are mind numbingly painful and the stuff is (mostly) not hurting anyone where nature put it - no doubt for good reason.

We are dealing here with with these two very difficult nuts 1; human greed - the stealing of our children's birthright and returning to them the legacy of our garbage. 2; Being asked to embark on a course of investing our wealth and expertise into a very dark horse of carbon sequestration.

For me the second point above is a long odd of russian roulette, the first is a suicide note that should be compulsory reading.

But Axil and others please don't try and sell me the line that clean nuclear can be used to make clean coal while having anything to do with the Internationally well understood objective of zero CO2 emissions.
Some of the more objective readers here recognise the need for carbon negative technology. They are obviously well read on International scientific consensus on climate change.
Nuclear - clean or otherwise is not one of the desirable new 'sustainable' renewable ways of producing energy for the masses in harmony with nature.

Personally I am happy to be pragmatic as far as supporting those technologies that are supporting this objective on in the short - medium term of say 200 years while leaving some natural resources for our children's children.
It is up to us , no spacemen are going to do this for us and we aren't going to evolve into any better being anytime soon. We are the most fortunate generation and are the most educated, capable generation and arerapidly gaining the ability to turn around our destructive nature.
If you've been paying attention, then take a 10 minute break.

Posted by: arnold | Jul 23, 2008 1:43:18 PM

Errr, didn't anyone actually read the article or is this just the usual CTL = evil coal company rhetoric.

The article clearly states that the CO2 produced in the production of liquid fuel will be sequestered either as a value added Enhanced Oil Recovery sale to an oil field operator or in saline aquifers.

Thus no CO2 produced in the production of the fuel, in this respect this is better than a normal oil refinery.

Andy

Posted by: Andy | Jul 23, 2008 1:43:55 PM

Dear Axil,

would be possible to feed natural gas (i.e. CH4) instead of hydrogen into the reactor?

Posted by: Mad Max | Jul 23, 2008 1:47:04 PM

@ HarveyD

In China, the prototype HTR-10 has been up for some time. Here is a video that shows it, the walk away loss of coolant test, the waste storage behind a wooden door; the pebble fuel, how it looks and how it is made, and the building itself.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/broadband/catalyst/asx/chinaNuclear_hi.asx

In China , the project production site received environmental clearance in March 2008 for construction start in 2009 and commissioning by 2013.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 1:50:53 PM

@ Mad Max

Anything made of carbon can be used including only CO2.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 1:54:00 PM

@Andy

It takes a lot of additional capital, coal, energy from coal. In coal electric power plants it doubles the power costs. This not and environmental augment, it is an economic and resource utilization augment.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 2:03:23 PM

Axil:

Yes, Tsinghua University in Beijing, China apparently designed, built and operated a small university prototype PBMR for some times.

A German small prototype unit operated for 21 years before it was decommissionned.

The first commercial unit apparently went online in Germany in 1983 but was decommissionned shorthly therafter due to design and/or construction flaws.

Various design papers are being presented for approval in USA.

Given the past history of PBMR, it may still be a long way from being a mature technology. I doubt that the tar sands industry would use it for another 15 to 20 years.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jul 23, 2008 2:20:44 PM

@HarveyD

A German small prototype unit operated for 21 years before it was decommissionned.
The first commercial unit apparently went online in Germany in 1983 but was decommissionned shorthly therafter due to design and/or construction flaws.

The German research reactor vented an undetermined amount of radiation, because an operator broke a pebble when he tried to dislodge it from a jam. The accident happened right after Chernobyl and political pressure caused the discontinuation of all German nuclear energy.

The pebble handling in current pebble bed designs is completely automated to eliminate human risk and error.

Various design papers are being presented for approval in USA.

The N.R.C. is criminally understaffed and the few nuclear engineers that are there only know Light Water Reactor design. It might take many years for the US to get around to certifying new types of reactor designs.

Given the past history of PBMR, it may still be a long way from being a mature technology.

The Chinese have certified the design and are commercialize it now.

I doubt that the tar sands industry would use it for another 15 to 20 years.

Canada can buy from the Chinese. I am sure they will sell to Canada.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 3:06:33 PM

They need to do a financial study

40,000 barrels per day (bbls/d), will require an investment of approximately C$4.5 billion.

How much wind power generating capacity will C$4.5 billion purchase?.

How many factories producing solar panels could be built for C$4.5 billion.

More fossil fuel is not the greatest investment from a sustainable world perspective.

Posted by: | Jul 23, 2008 3:23:23 PM

Since this tread has a coal subject, please forgive me for a stretch in topic.

I am greatly concerned over coal and the view that coal is cheap as dirt and can be wasted. You might not want to use coal but others do.

Reference:

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/07/21/how-coal-shortages-in-china-will-spark-more-foreign-takeovers-of-u.s.-assets/
Excerpt:

How Coal Shortages in China Will Spark More Foreign Takeovers of U.S. Assets

The top eight U.S. coal producers, which are worth more than $50 billion, are possible takeover targets for a country desperate for resources. And compared with China, American coal companies are bargains.

American, Canadian, and Australian coal may be acquired by China. If you don’t want nuclear forced on you; protect your coal reserves.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 3:38:21 PM

Protect for a long time, long enough so that by the time we need consider the use of it that we will no longer need it?

In the meantime it seems everyone has so many tons of CO2 they would pay you to take away and That is an appropriate source of carbon for synthesis to Hydrocarbon fuels.

I wouldn't suggest using nuclear grid to perform the conversion but with all the 'fluctuating' (above 20%) renewable that we are warned "will make the grid (so)'uncontrollable" there is another raw (input) material that can be sourced very cheaply.

I would have thought there could be many industries that could operate in a grid dumping or fluctuating mode those that come to mind include cement kilns and mills aluminium furnace , refrigeration reserve storage, - your turn.

Just about anything that can be currently supplied by off peak grid let alone the ones that can with some work and imagination be seen as not time critical.

It may be a while before the price signals mandate this approach, but as the demand for electrical power increases against the limits to supply, it stand reason that this level of efficiency will come to be a new growth ndustry.

In this brief history of transportable nuclear systems, it is ineresting to read the comments that describe how Russa will not supply thier plant (technology) to anyone , only the product.
But arent they (Russia) assisting Iran with thier Nuclear program, America, England and France are supplying to China, Australia (was) planning to supply India? I guess the Isaeli's invented thier ideas in a vaccum?
It would seem the only one telling the truth was Saddam. Unless I'm badly mistaken.

http://www.nuclear.com/n-plants/index-Floating_N-plants.html

Posted by: arnold | Jul 23, 2008 5:47:22 PM

Axil,
Maybe THEN we will outlaw mountain top removal coal.

_While CTL is not renewable and has a large environmental footprint, it is a good transition technology IF:

1) the transition is short (20 yrs or less).

2) all CTL plants are converted to BTL.

_Strategically, CTL plants are a good deal. They allow energy independence in the long term by creating a bridge to BTL and IGCC. Coal provides a reliable feedstock until biomass/waste supply schemes are solidified. While it is preferable to go straight to renewable raw materials, investors will prefer to have the security that coal will afford.
_Long term, coal will recede in importance, though if enough is left in the ground, it will serve an important role as a strategic energy reserve. An ace up ones sleeves, if you will, for contingencies.

____Heres a thought: Sequester CO2 from biomass fired IGCC electric power plants in basalt formations to form solid carbonates.

Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jul 23, 2008 6:01:03 PM

Good comments Allen_
By then (strategic worse case scenario), we will have a better understanding of our influences on this planetary system or it really wont matter for us anyway.

Last grist for the mill,
some rhetorical questions at the risk of being a bore.
How much subsidy and grants have nuclear industry received from the public coffers? To what end?.

The fossil fuel industries? To what end?

Solar... Wind.... other alts?

Are we all all asleep to the bigger game?

Posted by: arnold | Jul 23, 2008 6:48:01 PM

I believe the Westinghouse-Toshiba nuclear plant builders, purchased the assets of the PBR research done by the South Africans. If I am not mistaken this technology is the closest to any actual build-able design, but like the other reported PBRs, are GEN IV designs that won't really be ready until circa 2020.

The NRC has its hands full certifying the standard designs of Westinghouse, GE, Areva (France) and perhaps the Korean derivative designs. These are all of the GEN III+ generation, and represent most of the reactors being ordered and built worldwide, except for the Russian VVERS.

For the next several years, the NRC will be doing that; and then monitoring the construction of the 30 odd reactors that will start pouring concrete starting in 2010-2011 time frame.

Only when this Nuclear Renaissance is well advanced, and well in hand, will both the builders and the regulators really turn to GEN IV in detail. That's why it is unlikely that PBRs are much more than a dream before post 2020.

But the GEN III+ designs are walk away plants now, just like the PBRs, and just as meltdown proof.

They 'perfected' the LWR design with massive expansion of the cooling and re-cooling capacity, and implemented natural recirculation sufficient to cool down the reactor without any human intervention or pumps working. When the GEN III+ scrams, there is nothing that has to be done. Totally unlike the present operating LWRs. The designs incorporated modified core designs to easily burn MOX, and will thus ber able to permanently consume some 15,000 cold war nuclear warheads. The designs can perform even the French LWR "Actinide Burning" of transuranics. That means, they start to eliminate the long-lived high level waste too, making the Yucca Death Valley despository safe in only a few hundred years instead of thousands of years.

Why do you think Patrick Moore, and I among other former critics, now endorse this nuclear technology?

Posted by: stas peterson | Jul 23, 2008 7:50:46 PM

For the next several years, the NRC will be doing that; and then monitoring the construction of the 30 odd reactors that will start pouring concrete starting in 2010-2011 time frame.

But the GEN III+ designs are walk away plants now, just like the PBRs, and just as meltdown proof.

Why do you think Patrick Moore, and I among other former critics, now endorse this nuclear technology?

Posted by: stas peterson | Jul 23, 2008 7:52:19 PM

@arnold

So should we be proposing the waste of one form of energy in this case Axil, nuclear whatever to 'save wasting another I E coal.

I don’t think that we are wasting nuclear fuel.

Reference:

http://www.spartonres.ca/pressreleases/PR2007Apr4.htm

Except:

The test work is being done under the direction of Lyntek Inc. of Denver, Colorado USA, and represents early stage testing of fly ash and bottom ash samples from Xiaolongtang that contain approximately 0.46 pounds of U308 per tonne of ash (160-180 parts per million uranium).

You can extract a ½ lb of nuclear fuel from every ton of bottom of the pile coal fly ash you have.

the stealing of our children's birthright and returning to them the legacy of our garbage.

I think that the Chinese will use most of your Australian coal in 20 years, if they don’t buy up the US coal supply.

CO2 sequestration of coal gas uses twice the energy for the same Kilowatt produced.
You have to burn twice as much clean coal to get the same electric output as you generate now.

I think that Australia should get their electricity from Geothermal not coal. The 10k geo map shows the north and center of the country look good for Geothermal. Your mates will need to do a lot of drilling, but their tough lot.

medium term of say 200 years while leaving some natural resources for our children's children.

The Chinese will drain Australia dry of every natural resource and soon. Start a political movement to stop it!

….capable generation and are rapidly gaining the ability to turn around our destructive nature.

It is not your destructive nature, turn around those Chinese!

Posted by: Axil | Jul 23, 2008 10:47:03 PM

The USA knows all about sucking up their own resources then slurping up the rest of worlds.

Here they go again, not enogh oil for their freakishly large workmans trucks. Have a go at their own coal and gas now. When that's done, invade some poor country with the remainder of the coal and gas. Nobody gives a damn about sustainability.

Call this green car congress? I don't get it. It should be called I'm all right in the USA and stuff the rest of the world.

Give me and the Chinese a break.

Posted by: | Jul 24, 2008 1:34:58 AM

Ooops ... Canada's a state right?

the rest is about right :)

Posted by: | Jul 24, 2008 1:41:13 AM

Axil,
I can see how you can suggest that your proposal is from the perspective you argue is not a waste.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf30.html

I do wonder how you can claim to argue using one dirty technology over another when you are in effect you appear to be advocating using both to achieve a third dirty (polluting) outcome as if this would somehow make it better.

An ongoing concern that I share with many is that we will use every available drop and bucket of anything that burns or blows up on cue.
There is no real attempt to clean up the dirty old emitters, they seem to be given imprimatur from both state and client to continue unchallenged.
The new plants we are discussing are additive. No old pant is going offline when this proposal is commissioned.

In the manner of 'if it moves, shoot it - if it doesn't cut it down' approach.
I allude to the human condition as being somewhat blind to this tendency in relation to energy consumption - not so much whether we should be inclined or mesmerised by the power or utility of energy as such (a classic catch 22) but the apparent willingness to trade not just our own well being , but the future world we leave behind.
This doesn't even start to get real to the prospect that we dont actually own the planet we are obliged to share with other species.
The real damage that we do to their future we do to ourselves.
Given that there needs be restraint and some degree of sacrifice of our desires to have any chance of satisfactory outcomes I can't really understand the business as usual (only call it green (er) and we'll be right attitude.
Science is great but it doesn't make the world we live in. Responsibility in technology demands a whole world view if it is not to become so myopic and self centered as to leave us all in an unsustainable paradigm.
Many would say that we are there already.
Many choose to get on with the job in front with open eyes knowing there is in the words of Kristofferson and Foster - freedoms just another word for - nothing left to lose.

Posted by: arnold | Jul 24, 2008 3:14:28 AM

Oh, and the UK is another state, right? The rest is about right :)

Posted by: | Jul 24, 2008 5:22:08 AM

Yeah, it's a bit unfair to single out the US.

Just those damn trucks. Jeez....A Vietnamese contractor can get a full load + 2 workers in a motorcycle sidecar :)

Posted by: | Jul 24, 2008 5:46:04 AM

Axil:

Take-overs are facts of free market life.

Whenever a country runs $800+ billion yearly trade deficits and others run equivalent trade surpluses, the table is set for major multiple take-overs.

NYC (and others) real estates are being sold on a daily basis to foreign multi-billions oil funds. The Big three +++ may be next, while the price is very low, etc etc.

Two of the best ways to stop the drain is to stop importing oil at the rate of almost 15 million barrels/day or $2 billion/day and stop spending $1 billion/day on oil wars.

Both objectives could be met with accellerated use of PHEVs, BEVs and smaller more efficient vehicles.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jul 24, 2008 8:16:40 AM

@ HarveyD

My concern is not an economic one but an environmental one. The Chinese don’t have enough coal reserves to push the world to the GW tipping point, but the US does. The Gore plan is made ineffectual if the Chinese burn US coal without restraint.

Both objectives could be met with accelerated use of PHEVs, BEVs and smaller more efficient vehicles.

Unless coal burning is stopped, CO2 concentration in the air will rise without limit. Both PHEVs and BEVs will put CO2 into the air if coal burning is not stopped.

A ban on US export of coal must be part of the Gore plan. The Chinese must figure out another way to generate their electricity, not coal.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 24, 2008 10:00:05 AM

Have to disagree with Stan's Gen III+ promises.

MOX fuel is already being used. The program started out in 1987. 500 tonnes of russian HEU will result in 15000 tonnes of LEU which will last around 20 years. As of October 2004, 226 tonnes of high-enriched uranium had become 6,648 tonnes of low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel already. It has already been tested and used in regular LWRs and PHWRs. It is being carefully used as to not upset the Uranium market

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Uranium_supply

It doesn't and never has required a new reactor type to use this MOX fuel. All reactors have a breeding ratio. By the time the fuel rods leave a reactor core they are mostly "burning" plutonium already. There is nothing special about MOX fuel. The commercial reprocessing done previously in Germany and England, and the continuing reprossing done in France, Russia and Japan have always used the extracted plutonium as part of the their newer fuel rods.

Burning actinides is possible now. CANDU reactors can more efficiently burn certain actinides but they, like any thermal design will not touch others (Pu240)and that includes the GEN III+ designs Stan is touting. To really get rid of these, you will need to build fast reactors.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/CANDU_fuel_cycles_Boczar_et_al_2002.pdf

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling

The PBMR has Westinghouse as a minor investor doing the pre-certification procedures with the US gov't. Helium does become radioactive but it is extremely short lived and only moderately radioactive (mostly beta radiation). It basically returns to helium.

List of new reactor types and their stages.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

Looking at the process, I can see why energy companies would want to do this. Other by products of this process is gas. Natural gas limitations are a stumbling block to further tar sands exploitation. Natural gas production in Alberta peaked 5-6 years ago.

Looking at this, I have to agree with arnold. A sustainable future has to look to the hows and why we are willing to jump through all these hoops. We are trading one technological trap for another with the hope that when the time comes, we will eventually get it "right". I'm not saying that's undesirable, we do want progress, but in the case of nuclear, may be a direction we will find expensive, undesirable, and maybe unnecessary.

Posted by: aym | Jul 24, 2008 12:19:52 PM

@aym

There is a right way to do something and a wrong way. In nuclear energy the wrong way is water moderation of the reaction.

Aym, you might appreciate this new development in nuclear fuels.

The pellet bed fuel has past a burn-up test of 9%. The light water reactor only accomplishes 4% - 5%. Any higher, and the fuel rods disintegrate. Fuel rods are something that needs to be eliminated in reactor design.

The next pellet test will try certification of 15%. The higher it goes, the less PU(239) remains: (less waste….. for pellets, ½ the waste now, ¼ the waste soon).

Posted by: Axil | Jul 24, 2008 12:52:00 PM

@Axil,

I think what you're trying to demonstrate is the breeding ratio. As the initial percentage of U235 & pu239 goes up, the greater the burnup rate, the less refueling it needs.

The original design of the PBMR, included a theoretical use as a breeder. With the design of the silica/carbide shells though, I believe that, that aspect of the technology is being overlooked for now, since any type of reproccessing is made much more difficult. The pebbles are suppose to act as final containers of waste as well.

I'm not too sure about it creating lower Pu239 though. As the breeder ratio increases, what you get is the slow replacement of U235 with Pu239 as the active material. If breeding ratios are below 1, you finally get a total U235 & Pu239 amount that below the threshold to sustain a reaction at which point the fuel element would need to be replaced but it would contain higher ratios of Pu239 unless of course you started with a MOX fuel element that contained high levels of Pu239.

To better understand what I mean look at the typical spent stream of a LWR. It is 0.9 wt% U235 and 0.6% fissile plutonium. It starts off typically at 3-5 wt% U235. The Pu239 comes from the slight amount of captured neutrons on U238 - the breeding ratio. Total weight of fissile material down but Pu is up. As enrichment goes up, breeding ratios increase. The spent stream will contain higher ratios of Pu239 to U235, and off course the less it needs to refuel.

I do believe though that the neutrons are of a higher energy level than water plants, whether they are high enough to break Pu240 is another question. Other plants that start off with highly enriched loads are the IRIS, GT-MHR and the Toshiba 4s as well as some russian designs.

The 4s and the GT-MHR use enrichments in the 19% range.

If you're interested in HTGR like the pebble bed, try a look at the GT-MHR.

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

Posted by: aym | Jul 24, 2008 10:15:13 PM

@aym

Thanks for the time you devoted to my last post. Could you take a little more time to interpret the content of this article? Please.

http://inl.gov/featurestories/2008-03-13.shtml

Posted by: Axil | Jul 25, 2008 12:02:24 AM

@aym

I took a closed look at the referenced article and also thought about what you said in your post. I think that the testers are increasing the U(235) enrichment in stages to see how much burn-up they can get before the silicon carbide packaging of the pebbles fail. The testing is tedious but the testers are excited that the pebbles are holding up so well at this stage in the testing.

Nuclear fuel packaging in its many forms seems to be the key to waste minimization and associated energy efficiency; the higher the enrichment that can be supported, the higher the efficiency that can be achieved.

The US is hugely afraid of reprocessing because of the perceived proliferation tread it is also expensive, so in a one-through fuel cycle the fuel packaging is most important.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 25, 2008 12:11:12 PM

@Axil,

I just read the article. Interesting that it only talks about burnup. Burn-up is usually described in terms of MWd/t, which is defined as the thermal energy output for one tonne of nuclear fuel during the service time in the reactor.

Light water reactors have a typical burnup of 45,000 to 50,000 MWd/t of uranium, which means that about 45 to 50 kg of fissionable material per tonne of nuclear fuel used have been fissioned and about 360 to 400 million kWh of electricity have been generated at a nuclear power plant efficiency of 34%. That would translate to a 4.5%-5% burnup I believe. An increased burnup rate would allow the fuel elements to be kept in place for longer periods. Higher burnup rates also usually translate to higher proportions of Pu240 & Pu242 in the waste stream. In an open system (our use-once system), higher burn-up rates translate to greater utilization of the uranium produced.

The Candu has a lower burnup rate than the PLWR but it requires no enrichment of fuel and can be fuelled while still working. It's burn up rates can be increased with enriched fuel elements as well.

Burn-up is very similar to the breeding ratio and is most easily controlled by the enrichment levels as well. Counting on how neutron efficient the core is, the moderation levels and the neutron spectrum, the neutrons can either start a chain reaction or be absorbed to create isotopes. The Pu239 isotope would contribute to the main nuclear reaction and would further extend the fuel supply.

Current reactors have achieved breeding ratios of roughly 0.55, and next-generation designs like the AP1000 and EPR should have breeding ratios of 0.7 to 0.8, meaning that they produce 70 to 80 percent as much fuel as they consume, improving their fuel economy by roughly 15 percent compared to current high-burnup reactors.

In Spain, nuclear electricity costs were reduced by 29% over the 1995-2001 period. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up would give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

The TRISO fuel elements are being tested for high burn-up but obviously the neutron spectrum and moderation doesn't mean that the breeder ratio is similiarly increased. These elements were originally designed for potential breeder reactors (Thorium-U233 cycle) but obviously the rate isn't the same with Pu. The INL article is an important test in just one of the steps needed to use these fuel elements. If the breeding ratio is in the high 0.9 range, it would be interesting to know what the expected lifetime would be of the fuel elements since it would be producing about the same amount of Pu as it would be consuming. Also would like to know the amounts of Pu being tossed out as well as the isotropic ratios. Throwing it out because of potential structural problems or because of buildup of undesirable isotopes are just some of the questions that come to mind. Unless of course you decide to reduce the levels by other means, you could be tossing out Pu isotopes. Whatever the case may be, I'm not the one who'll make the decisions though it is interesting and I expect someone to be doing experiments to quantify this position.

Hope this helped a little.

Posted by: aym | Jul 25, 2008 11:48:40 PM

@aym

Thanks for your reply.

I have done some research.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is specified for a burn-up of 90,000 MWd/t of uranium. I think that is at 9% burn-up as tested as per the INL article.

The key burn-up parameter is the hardness of the neutron spectrum (fast average speed of the neutron flux) that the fuel/reactor can operate at.

Nuclides with an even number of neutrons have very small fission cross section for neutron energies below 1 MeV. Hence, in the (epi) thermal spectrum of a light water reactor(LWR), these nuclides will tend to accumulate.

In both the LWR and the BPMR, nuclides with an odd number of neutrons are burnt easily.

As a hard spectrum reactor, BPMR will burn PU(238),PU(240), PU(242). CM(244), well. The probability of this burn for the light water reactor is near zero, but for BPMR, it is about .5.

What adjusts the neutron spectrum is the thickness and density of the Pyrolytic Carbon( IPyC) and the Silicon Carbite (SiC) Barrier Coatings. For the prototype fuel, the SiC layer is 35um thick. For the optimized production fuel, the SiC layer will be 25um thick. This will make the neutron spectrum even harder for the optimized production fuel. I think the test was run with the prototype fuel.

If the end of the year test is successful at INL, a PBMR burn-up of 14% means 140,000 MWd/t. But that still leaves room for improvement in burn-up using the production fuel. This will leave very little plutonium products left at burn-up. This is very good because the waste is far less dangerous in terms of storage and proliferation.

Breeding ratio (k) is temperature dependent but at operating temperature (K=523) it is (k = 1.12). This seems high in terms of what the NRC wants to see.

I think, the design of TRISO fuel is very conservative in relation to what can be done. It is designing on the side of safety and political correctness.

Any reaction to this info is greatly appreciated.

Major reference:

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/Presentation/GasReactor.pdf

Posted by: Axil | Jul 26, 2008 11:50:42 AM

@Axil,

I have said it is doubtful I would ever accept a Gen IV design as the margins are way too low, IMHO. If you have trouble convincing me, and I am open to convincing; you will never get the acquiescence of the genuine fat heads. They simply won't be built.

Nor did I ever say that that any LWR cannot burn MOX. But the fuel profile of MOX is different from mild enriched U235. Core design can be optimised for MOX, and it has been done in Areva reactors. The same design optimization considerations were incorporated into the GEN III+ LWRs core designs.

As regards Actinide Burning in LWRs, I never said that it would solve all the problem, but it would make a substantial start, at little major investment.

The real issue with high level waste is twofold. Yucca Mountain is
A) Volume; and
B) Long lived transuranics.

Transuranics that won't be safe for ten thousand years.

Re-processing as Mr. Bush has prepared the way for, chops 90% of the waste stream out. From 38,000 tons of waste today, it drops to about 3800 tons in the entire history of the US atomic age. Yucca is sized for once-thru, no reprocessing at a capacity of 70,000 tons.

Likely it is as big as we would ever need before supplanting fission for fusion, just as we will abandon fossil for fission, pretty soon.

Starting later in the century, but probably taking most of the 21th century to transition fully.

Actinide Burning reduces the long-lived transuranics. You can politic all you want for a perfect Actinide Burner but if it cost mega-billions who will build it?

Use what you are likely to have; LWR fleets and Fusion fleets when they appear. Beside Fusion Actinide Burning is probably more complete than any fast flux Gen IV reactor anyway. I agree that CANDUs are more attractive than LWRS for Actinide Burning but the CANDU is suffering from investment deficit, even now.

The absolute volume of trans-uranics is not all that great once you remove Pu 239 anyway. Americium represent some volume and counts, but that can be transmuted. After those two what's left?

As a matter of fact I have said that the best Actinide Burner will probably be a Fusion Tokomak. The Neutron flux is higher and it will crack all the trans-uranics.

If you asked the typical No Nuke chanter, he doesn't even know that the ONLY incinerators in the world that can destroy a nuclear warhead forever, is a nuclear fission or fusion reactor.

And you can't teach him. He doesn't want to know. He knows his chant, he's good, your the devil, and that's it.

Since we don't have any GEN IV fast flux breeders or Fusion reactors at present, that is why I suggest using what exists, the LWR fleet to start doing the job. Pu 239 in MOX and other transuranics as specially reprocessed and special fuel rods designated for Actinide Burning.

Eventually we will finish it with Fusion Reactors before storing the remnant in the Yucca deep mine at the Edge of Death Valley.

Posted by: stas peterson | Jul 26, 2008 5:33:43 PM

Canada and Australia and the US are already shipping much coal. Perhaps the carbon tax should be put on the countries that sell the carbon.

To keep the economy going there must be a source of cheap energy and also cheap liquid fuels. The speculation on crude oil prices is only possible because the US and Canada and other countries failed to put antispeculation laws in place in what is known as a govenment limited oil supply. Even the US government is limiting the production of fuels in the US with its refusal to allow off shore drilling, oil shale leases and prolonging environmental review processes among other things.

The failure to have gas-to-liquid and coal to liquid plants ready to operate also allows prices to rise, but the mere mention of allowing drilling and leases and proposing antispeculative laws will cause the price to drop sufficienly to save enough money to build such plants. The US government should tax all imported oil at a high rate in order to get funds to build CTL plants and nuclear plants. The extra money spent on imported crude this year alone would build enough nuclear plants to supply all of the US with electricity. And natural gas could be diverted from power plants to power cars and trucks. It would be very easy to have both cars and trucks be equipped to burn compressed natural gas for some or even much of their fuel. There is a lot of space under most semi-trailers for compressed natural gas tanks.

Both Japan and France already burn MOX, mixed oxide fuels of uranium and plutonium. The three reactors in Arizona were also designed to burn MOX, but never have.

CANDU reactors can be built in less than three years and do not require big high pressure reactor tanks that are now in short supply. They can and have been rebuilt for life extension up to fifty years or more. Heavy water has an infinite life if kept clean. CANDU reactors can burn unmodified but repackaged used US fuel rods that are therefore clearly not waste. They can get as much energy out of them or more than the standard CANDU fuel. Reprocessing the fuel first to just remove fission products allows even more energy to be obtained.

The US govenment should convert all of its stored weapons plutonium to MOX fuels to burn in Arizona. Weapons plutonium is not anywhere near as radioactive as plutonium from used fuel rods. Perhaps some used plutonium should be mixed with the weapons material to render it very dangerous to steal and unusable for weapons, and then it is made into MOX, but for ease of handling the weapons MOX should just have a few more guards. It will be useless for weapons after a month in the reactor. A pound of weapons plutonium has about the same energy as $100,000-$500,000 worth of coal.

For the past few years a company has been adding weapons uranium from Russia to ordinary uranium to make the standard enriched uranium fuel used by US reactors and others. This is not a MOX fuel which always contains plutonium.

The Energy Amplifier, Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven reactor, can burn uranium and thorium and all other elements heavier than thorium. It may even be possible to get net energy out of lead sooner than net energy will be got out of a fusion reactor.

In fact the process of making tritium from lithium, by capturing the neutrons from the fusion, yields only a maximum of 15 million electron volts of energy when the tritium is subsequently fused, but if the neutron could be diverted to a fission reactor, it would yield at least 100 million electron volts of energy. If the fusion reactor every becomes operational is will be a far more productive and cheaper source of neutrons for producing plutonium weapons than a fission reactor.

The high temperature available from a molten lead ADS reactor will make heat available for many thermochemical processes. Ethanol refining and low temperature oil refining processes are already possible with current reactors; even oil shale processing might be possible. Nuclear energy is the cheapest energy as the sun demonstrates, but fission reactors can be the cheapest source of electricity and even heating and have proven to be far safer than the highway system or even pedestrians on city streets.

Life can never be totally safe. But there are ways of storing radioactive materials, that will not cause a hundred human deaths in a million years, that many people would object to because of false beliefs. The major false belief is that any radio-activity is unsafe and can be avoided. People do not know that all life forms, including humans, have always had built in radioactivity as do most rocks and soils. All lawn fertilizers, including natural ones, must be radio-active to work, but some even contain uranium.

The present standard of living and wealth that the US enjoys is entirely dependent on the cheap energy and minerals that are got from the earth. Any cut back on that cheap energy will cause the loss of jobs and has already resulted in hunger in the US.. ..HG..

Posted by: Henry Gibson | Jul 26, 2008 8:37:57 PM

@Axil,

Haven't read the pdf. It will have to wait till later.

Initial read of your post raises some question.

I believe that you are not entirely grasping the concept of burn-up. It goes hand in hand with breeding. As time goes on the ratio of Pu goes up, the the amount of the burn-up numbers that are from Pu also go up. I think that you interpreting that the Pu gets eventually destroyed but that is not entirely true.

The total amount of U235+Pu is determined from the breeding ratio and the time spent in the core. In a regular LWR, this is Pu239 but in this case I'm not sure that it doesn't include Pu240 & Pu242. In a regular LWR, the breeding ratio is <1. That means that eventually the U235+Pu239 levels drop below usable levels. In this case though, you are saying that the ratio k=1.12. This means that it is creating more fuel than it uses. In approximately 8 years, if k=1.12, then it will have created enough Pu to fuel another reactor. This would require some sort of fuel reprocessing, which is an expensive adjunct.

The only advantage in terms of proliferation maybe that the neutron spectrum will have a tendency to create high levels of Pu240 & 242. This material is not suitable for bombs and would be difficult to seperate although you could create a fuel element of Th232 and irradiate it, then seperate the U233 out. But then you have to look at the enrichment levels for the fuel elements. It wouldn't take much to go from the enrichment needed for the PBMR to weapons grade.

This would also present a disadvantage because only a fast neutron reactor would be able to break the Pu240 & 242 and Cm244 created. You wouldn't be able to easily use a neutron efficient reactor like the CANDU to then extract extra energy, while lowering overall actinide levels.

I think ideally there would be two different core configurations if possible. One where the k is preferably around 1 and one where the k is below 1 so that the Pu can destroyed.

It should be noted though, these are technical aspects of the technology. They don't represent the costs, both financial and social should any of these avenues be persued or the opportunity costs of them.

Hoped that this expounded something of what you tried to write axil.

Posted by: aym | Jul 26, 2008 10:12:41 PM

@Stan , aym

I have done more research.

There is absolutely no doubt; the Bush nuclear plan will use TRISO fuel. Whether it is Pebbles or Prismatic is not yet determined.

The following results are disappointing in that plutonium isotopes are not complexly consumed in the spent TRISO fuel.

In order to meet IAEA criteria for discard of fuel, Pu-238 must be 80% of the PU content.

For AYM , Pu-240 is 33.2 MG at burnup.

TRISO Spent Fuel Discharge Isotopes

……………...Load mg

U-235……….(863.9)
U-238……….(8134)

………………Burnup mg

U-235………..(195.6)
U-238………..(7639)
Pu-238………( 2.6)
Pu-239………( 65.6)
Pu-240………( 33.2)
Pu-241………( 31.1)
Pu-242.……..( 21.9)
Total Pu.……(154.4)

Spent fuel summary at burnup at 10%

The fissile contents of TRISO fuel spent fuel are comparable to those of fresh light water reactor fuel. For the case without control rods, the fissile isotopes content is about 4.38 wt-percent if one considers all plutonium isotopes (since they are all fissile) or about 3.27 wt-percent if only Pu-239 and U-235 are considered. Since these contents include Pu-239 in addition to the residual U-235, they correspond to nominally higher enrichment levels. Furthermore, the fissile isotopes content of the TRISO fuel spent fuel is comparable to the fissile content of fresh light water reactor fuel.

It follows that the TRISO fuel spent fuel could be used as the fresh fuel of another Light Water Reactor provided some intermediate processing is carried out. That processing would involve the removal of the fission products and could involve the removal of the minor actinides if a future use in a thermal spectrum is considered.

Waste

In all cases, the reprocessing of TRISO-based spent fuel is a difficult and expensive undertaking. Notwithstanding the expense, the fissile content of TRISO-based spent fuel cannot be viewed as irrevocably irretrievable from the point of view of safeguard via waste storage.

The TRISO fuel design goal is full burnup in 664days at 18%

Reference

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3372140.pdf

Posted by: Axil | Jul 26, 2008 10:32:58 PM

@aym

In this case though, you are saying that the ratio k=1.12. This means that it is creating more fuel than it uses. In approximately 8 years, if k=1.12, then it will have created enough Pu to fuel another reactor. This would require some sort of fuel reprocessing, which is an expensive adjunct.

In the case without control rods, k effective multiplication factor of 1.035. Although this is significantly higher than unity, the value is plausible because the average discharged burnup reached corresponds to six passes for the pebbles through the core. The number of passes and the average discharge burnup are not adjusted to give an exactly critical core. This TRISO-based fuel study conforms to the six passes through the reactor core for each of the pebbles. In a design calculation or for an operating reactor, the actual discharge burnup and the number of recycling times of the pebbles through the core are iteratively adjusted to give a multiplication factor of exactly one.

Posted by: Axil | Jul 26, 2008 10:52:40 PM

@Stan,

you wrote,
"The (GenIII+)designs incorporated modified core designs to easily burn MOX, and will thus be able to permanently consume some 15,000 cold war nuclear warheads."

That is totally misleading. It tacitly saying that only Gen III+ designs can burn MOX which is not true. The reaction profile between Pu239 and U235 is very similar. They absorb neutrons of approximately the same energy and they release similar amounts of energy.

MOX was first used in 1963. It was commercially available in the 80's. Most of today's reactors can take a MOX load of a third. Some up to 50%. They can do this without changing their operating characteristics. The last time you said this, I stated that the fuel configuration may need to be modified. The most advantageous use of MOX is ease of enrichment. The only thing that can be said of the AP1000 & EPR is that they can take 100% MOX loads and probably higher enrichment levels. That doesn't make them more efficient at using them. Similar levels of U235 enrichment would give you similar if not exactly the same energy output and burn-up and breeding ratios than MOX ones.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Mixed_oxide_fuel_(MOX)

As for fuel reprocessing. It's a joke. The two US military reprocessing facilities in Washington State and SC will costs over 100 billion to clean up. The recently closed British reprocessing facilities will cost 95 billion to clean up.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling

Stan you are not going to see 30 reactors. We've had this arguement before. I doubt that the time table of ITER will be met. Let alone the follow up commercial fusion reactors. Keep dreaming these technically sweet solutions of yours but they only exist in one place. Your head. It's no different from the guy dreaming what he'd do if he won a million bucks and just as likely. You don't even see the negatives. It's tunnel vision to the extreme. You've got an attitude. One based on you and your vision being right. Lose it. Stop trying to sell it and stop trying to BS people.

Oh yeah, I seen and heard interviews with Patrick Moore. He's been a corporate shill far longer than he was at Greenpeace. Very tilted. It's also strange since he's wants nuclear for climate change and you don't even believe in it.

Posted by: aym | Jul 26, 2008 11:42:49 PM

@axil,

I thought it might be very close to 1. It would cause way too much difficulty if it was higher. Not to mention the fact that it would make it an ideal breeder (and make all that other work on other types no so usefull).

It also demonstrates that I was right about Pu production even with higher burn-up numbers. The Pu240 and Pu242 numbers make it not suitable for bombs but it would be interesting to note how it would effect it's use in a regular thermal reactor.

Ah well. Wonder what would happen with high initial loads of Pu in the fuel elements. Probably one of the later stage tests, if they're contemplating reprocessing.

Anyway, good work on finding this stuff. It must have taken a lot of work. Way more work than you should've spent on it, so pat yourself on the back Axil. Chaio.

Posted by: aym | Jul 27, 2008 12:03:55 AM

@aym,

Thank you for your clarification on the use of MOX, I never said anything different, did I? I said the AP-1000 and other GENIII+, would handle MOX easily. If you read something into the way I phrased it, I am sorry for any misunderstanding.

Your statement that the new LWRS can take 100% MOX loads, whereas the present operating fleet can't, serves to confirm what I said, and originally meant. That is the environment that they will be spending most of their operating life in, burning MOX as well as enriched U235.

We certainly need to get rid of the most common transuranic Pu239, and the LWR fleet is up to the job, creating electricity as they do it.

Did I not say that French LWR "Actinide Burning" is a quote "a start" or/and "a substantial start" In Actinide Burning? In both cases I never meant to leave the impression that LWRs could complete removing all the transuranics. NO Fission based Reactor can. It will take an Actinide Burning Accelerator or a Fusion Power Plant to do so.

I object to the mis-characterization of Patrick Moore. Because he doesn't fit into a convenient, one dimensional "green" container, and actually uses his brain, he is somehow a "shill" for Exxon? Its sour grapes from the know-nothing green chanters.

The 'ad hominem' attack is the refuge of someone who has no valid argument to make. I would expect that from a know-nothing televangelist money grubber, or his multi-millionaire sock-puppet creation, Hansen, but not from you.

Lord Keynes said it best "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What about you, sir?" pretty much summarizes Patrick Moore. He objected to nuclear power as it was practiced in the 70s. Sloppy construction standards, no oversight, incomplete designs, hand-waving instead of testing, no test to destruction to ascertain whether a LOCA was possible, and to establish a true calibration of expected time to failure.

Facts change, the AEC cheer leading is long gone; the NRC exists only to monitor and to enforce. Wash-100 measured the probabilities of failure. And the Test to Destruction took place to calibrate LOCA.

We all saw the Three Mile Island test to destruction. And it passed. Despite an improbable test scenario that would never have been approved as realistic. No one could be that dumb. But they were.

TMI pointed out a need to re-organize Control Rooms. It showed we needed walk-away designs post-scram. The GEN III+ is the answer to those requirements. Safer by three measurable orders of magnitude. Walk-away ability. Meltdown proof. Standardized and pre-certified designs. Human-factor engineered Control Rooms. The Facts changed. And so did Patrick Moore and my opinions.

You keep saying that the 34 odd GENIII+ in the pipeline, won't be built. I differ, IMHO. Here's why.

Long before the NRC logs an official license app, it is notified and lots of other expensive, tasks are completed. Lots of money indicating commitment has been spent.

Do you think any Utility management can just approach its Board, and say I want to build a Nuke, with the history of Utility bankruptcies?

You would be Daft. They have to PROVE to their Board, that they need it, its cheaper than others, they can raise financing to pay for it, and there is somewhere to put it. That costs money, perhaps not billions yet, but easily tens of millions of expenditures at least.

Then they have to convince the Utility Commission that it's a good idea, all over again, and obtain those state and local approvals.

All the proposed 34 GENIII+ have gotten beyond that. Only two are still seeking site approvals, and EISs, all the others apparently have gotten those, too. Then they approach the NRC for assistance in preparing a license application. And the NRC is formally aware they are coming. Later they formally submit a completed and corrected license application. This all take time, and more millions.

Fourteen of the 34 have now submitted corrected, and valid, acceptable license applications for Combined Construction and Operating licenses. What makes you think that many will abandon the process with so much money spent, now?

Might some do it? Sure. Will others appear to replace them? Yes.

The 34 appeared in only 18-24 months, after the reform of the construction laws were finally pushed through by Mr. Bush in the '05 Energy Act. There is a latent need, ever since many electric plants were abandoned in the 80s debacle. With nothing to replace them, but phony hand waving of green goofballs, over-aged plants were forced to continue operations. Green promises that someday there might be windmills and solar cells, but little that could be actually ordered by a Utility seeking real generating capacity, solved no problems. The symbolic solar/windmills have been bought; they don't work, and don't produce much, except flak protection for the Utility.

Sorry, the majority of these Plants will be built, and join the grid from 2016-2018. They will provide clean power for the hoards of electrified autos soon to emerge from the auto maker's factories. As will many others nuclear plants around the world.

You have already several times questioned the reality of Fusion. That was a possibility in 1985 but not today. When the the First ITER was proposed as an East-West Cold War treaty, the ITER existed to push Fusion Research forward. The first ITER collapsed when the Soviet Union did. The Second ITER attempt collapsed under congressional mismanagement of the Clinton administration, betrayed by its own tree-huggers, seeking earmarks.

This ITER, reincarnated by Mr.Bush is going forward. Even domestic US opposition won't stop it, this time. Bush deftly expanded the Nations funding it, so no one's withdrawal, even the US at 9% contribution level, can stop it.

But in the intervening years, the scientific reason to build ITER has largely disappeared. All the problems that it was supposed to solve, have been solved. Each, in a little thermonuclear experiment somewhere in the world. ITER is now more of a "bring all of the advances and solutions together in one place" demonstration and "scale it up" to the size of a first rough Prototype of a Commercial Fusion reactor.

It's not quite "Shippingport in 1957", but it's close. The generation of time to be spent "selecting materials" is almost pure eyewash and make work, now.

When Fusion development road maps were laid out in 1980, there WERE questions of what would be the perfect materials to build it out of, so there was no acquired radioactivity left when the Plant was turned off.

But the reality even then, was that materials used to construct Fission plants would suffice. Lots of progress in materials has been made since then, Composites, sintered Silicon Carbide, and Vanadium and Titanium alloys ordered from a catalogue, will do three orders of magnitude better jobs than the fission contemporaries. Even the super-conductor materials have gotten better and easier to fabricate, producing higher Tesla fields. Materials issues are largely a non-issue, now.

Fusion already works. Momentarily it has generated lots of power. 18 Megawatts of net Power. So its not a question of 'if' its only a question of 'when'. Together with lots of hard engineering design, and optimization.

I'd bet that a full bore commercial detailed fusion design will be completed, before a completed GEN IV fission design is completed, sometimes in the 2020s. Safety issues in a Fusion plant are tiny and inconsequential. Tritium is certainly radioactive, but it doesn't compare to the quantity of Curies inside a Fission plant. Much easier to design, needing much less care.

Posted by: stas peterson | Jul 27, 2008 2:11:48 PM

We certainly need to get rid of the most common transuranic Pu239, and the LWR fleet is up to the job, creating electricity as they do it.

Why do we 'need' to get rid of it? It's cheaper to just leave it in the unreprocessed spent fuel rods, where it is also more resistant to diversion.

Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jul 27, 2008 10:06:49 PM

I have been doing some research. I could be wrong; let me know of any errors.

General Atomics has already tested TROSO fuel to 80% burnup. The PU(239) was reduced by 98%. Light Water Reactor(LWR) waste is the best for power production. An astounding 750,000 MwW/t was quoted. In comparison, a LWR gets 40,000 MwW/t. That is 18.5 times greater power output.

It is part of this project as follows:
General atomic Modular Helium Reactor (MHR) Development Program Underway in Support of Weapons Plutonium Disposal in Russia Beyond 34 MT Excess

All three TRISO types use 35um ceramic. The burnup must all depend on something other then the thickness of silicone carbide. More research needed here.

Another question is as follows: can the pebble be used to do deep burn? Maybe not because of all the additional ceramic involved; that is bad for reprocessing.

There are three types of TRISO fuel: commercial, LWR based, and, weapons material based. They have a one pass burning process and a two pass burning process that reprocesses TRIOS one pass fuel.

MHR neutronics allow mixing of any and all types of TRISO fuel in any ratio to avoid burnout, so very high levels of “Deep Burn” can be achieved

LWR waste processing extracts actinides and the Uranium is recycled into new LWR fuel.

The general atomic reactor is a prismatic design.

PU(239) and U(235) evaporate in TRISO waste between 1000 and 10,000 years. After 10,000 years there is not many daughter fission produces left in the waste.

This beep-burn technology fits within the operational envelope of commercial MHR operation, including long refueling intervals and the highly efficient production of energy (approximately 50%). To the plant operator, a Deep-Burn Transmuter will be identical to its commercial reactor counterpart.

The DOE as bought in to the tune of $7.3 million.

The US DOE Awards has awarded $7.3 million for “Deep-Burn” Nuclear Technology Research & Development to internal government research agencies; $1 million led by Argonne National Laboratory; and Transuranic Management Capabilities of the Deep-Burn VHTR at a cost of $6.3 million led by Idaho National Laboratory.

I am very encouraged. An answer has been developed to remove nuclear waste and weapons material from this earth.

Reference:

http://www.aie.org.au/syd/downloads/DB-MHR%20Presentation.ppt

Posted by: Axil | Jul 28, 2008 11:18:22 PM

lets also not forget that insitu coal gassification can and will unlock 1.6 TRILLON tons of coal that is too deep to mine just in the USA alone, while world wide there is 10 TRILLON tons accessable to UGC methods. thats centuries or more of hydrocarbon supply just in coal liquids.

https://eed.llnl.gov/co2/pdf/UCG_CongTest.pdf

Posted by: | Jul 29, 2008 11:06:11 PM

@ Stas,

Palo Verde, a system 80 reactor can take 100% MOX loads. Since it's operational start, it has taken exactly none. Duke energy as of Aug 2008, stopped a MOX test using Areva rods that cost millions of dollars.

My characterization of Patrick Moore as a big baby who lashes out of the organization that he was a part of and was thrown out of is old and well known. After GP, he tried salmon farming. A process so destructive of natural fish, that it has been banned in Alaska. Next, the so called organization he created gets paid to lobby for clear cutting old growth forest. His speech on nuclear is stunted and misleading especially in terms of nuclear recycling.

Does some of what he says makes sense? Only if you're willing to forget the fast and easy stuff he puts out to justify his position, which if you know enough is full of it.

Your use of him is totally inappropriate anyway. His support is contingent on nuclear displacing carbon emissions in a GW scenario, which you seem to think is not even a problem. The costs that he is willing to bear to alleviate carbon production, are in other words, go directly to the consumer according to you with no benefit.

I certainly did not bring up Moore or his beliefs. My attack on him is entirely based on his positions and his arguements and not on as you say "ad hominem", although your Hanson attacks can entirely be construed to your own predujices.

TMI wasn't a test. It was an accident and a potential disaster and not even the worst case accident that could've arose. And it definatly shows the weakness of nuclear. It's disaster potential. Your sophistry in trying to change it's wording to make it only a "test" is laughable. According to current statistical use, a major reactor core breach occurs approximately once every 200 years. This doesn't include containment breach. If you think reactors are now so safe, why don't you push to have the Price-Anderson liability act removed from the newer reactors and see what happens to the market.

The plants that you seem so eager to lobby for won't be built. Those are potential applications for licenses. The documents/websites say that. They also say that the number cannot be taken as reactors built. So why do you insist constantly that it does?

Posted by: aym | Aug 22, 2008 5:44:34 PM

Licenses that are being paid for by the DOE. How much of that information being "developed" is new I won't say, but I'm sure that the accounts are trying to submit as much old stuff as they can. Over 50% of the application is being paid for by the DOE. With the energy act of 2005, over 7.5 billion dollars goes to the utilities for the first 6 reactors and only those 6 reactors. There is even overcost building insurance being put in but only for the first 6 reactors. There is no long term support of the nuclear industry by the government. Without it no nuclear program is viable anywhere and certainly not on the scale that you are talking about.

The Congressional reports of 2007 and 2008 on the status of nuclear power don't paint the picture that you are. They state that licenses don't equate to actual builds. Nuclear power without carbon costs are not viable, according to them as well. The MIT Future of Nuclear power even paints that same picture. The present estimates of the Texas plants puts the installed cost of nuclear power 2-3 times the installed cost of the MIT study. This presents an even bleaker picture for costs.

Posted by: aym | Aug 22, 2008 5:48:24 PM

The US had a housing meltdown that had ripple effects. Not only did it tighten up the money supply but it negatively affected growth and industrial projections. No sane organization would lay down the capital expenditures at this stage but then you could do it like Texas which is looking for a waiver to charge customers for the nuclear electricity before the plants actually even get built. This contravenes by the way, consumer protection regulations on utilites that date back to Insull.

My views on fusion are contrary to yours because I don't believe in your technological utopianism. ITER itself is projecting electricity production costs above that of nuclear according to it's site. It certainly won't meet the projected dates of it's coming on line. International megaprojects usually don't. The Nuclear 2010 program was supposed to get actual blueprinted reactors built. Not a shovel. I certainly don't attribute the present ITER project to anything Bush has done and no historian would. The need to make ITER a US success is nationalism gone wild. You give way too much credit to Bush because he's republican just like you try to lay the blame on Clinton when it was the GOP congress that killed US participation in 97.

What the heck does Hanson or anybody have in this? You seem a need to affix people and ideas. I don't. I certainly don't see a reason to link Hanson to Patrick Moore, other than an unreasoning pathology, I certainly don't know of any comments made by Hanson on Moore. I'm certainly attributing this to your constant need to spout depreciations of Hanson.

Your one sided views are yours alone. I sure some people sop it up but then they haven't checked anything.

Posted by: aym | Aug 22, 2008 5:54:59 PM