Household nuclear reactor in 2009.

[ZenOps]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

"Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009."

"Its pronounced nuke-lear" - Homer Simpson.

[JAC]

Ah. Build your own dirty bomb. Nice.

And Homer pronounces it nucular.

[Shojin]

hot!

but what's that low buzzing sensation i'm feeling... and why's my skin falling off?

[GangStarr]

http://www.monkeyrivertown.com/images/up/flux%20capacitor.jpg

[brunes]

I am sure people will be lining up around the block to live in an apt. or condo that has "built on top of a live nuclear reactor!" as one of it's features....

I am a nuclear fan personally (it is way better than oil or coal and I firmly believe we will have a cost and energy effective way to blast radiactive waste out of orbit within 50 years or less), but IMO this plan is ***** .

The idea might fly in Japan where space is at such a premium and people don't scare as easily, but in North American (or even Europe) I can not imagine anyone wanting to live or work in such a place. True people in the Navy do it every day, but that's a whole different ball game.

[eelfliw]

This is either a joke or completely ***** .

Where do you go buy fuel if the supply is exhausted prematurely?
How do you dispose of spent fuel? Someone is bound to try to flush it down the toilet.
And please don't tell me this unit can operate maintenance-free for 40 years?
How do you prevent someone from opening up this unit and try to hack/mod it only to spill the fuel by accident and contaminate an entire city block?

[ZenOps]

I'm pretty sure its what is known as a "final decay stage" reaction.

Normally, multi decay stage uranium will break apart many different times, in many different ways, releasing energy in all sorts of chaotic ways (and sometimes not releasing its energy at all, which makes it dangerous as its now radioactively decaying at random.) I think uranium will break apart an average of six times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

There are "clean" fissile fuels (IE: Not Uranium, probably a Polonium-lead isotope of some sort) that only break down once, and only under certain conditions and creating only one type of radiation. Which also makes it a terrible choice for a bomb, because of its relatively low energy compared to a simple chemical reaction like a C4 brick.

Its not anywhere near as powerful as uranium (nuclearily speaking) but its also a heck of a lot safer. Its also not as efficient (Uranium can create electrcity at less that 2 cents per kwh, the safer elements are closer to 5 cents per kwh)

From what I understand, the fuel is completely encased in the unit and cannot ever be opened. It will last for 40 years of 200 kilowatt power after which you must replace the entire fuel assembly, or basically the whole reactor. It cannot be - nor should it ever need refueling in its 40 year lifespan.

I believe it *is* the same fuel that they use in nuclear subs. 200 kilowatts (probably the minimum critical mass for that element) should be enough to power up one sub. There is no way that they need or would want to use uranium there (no need to have the power of half a city flowing through a sub)

In Japanese residential communities they are using reactors, but based on the old "rod" type to control the power. This new tech will use a much more reliable and inexpensive liquid to control the power.

[pitz]

Lithium-6 breaks down into Tritium (Hydrogen with 2 neutrons) and Helium-3, a noble gas that isn't even radioactive.

Tritium itself isn't a problem it only suffers Beta decay, which is almost completely harmless unless you drink the stuff.

There may be proliferation issues, however with Li-6. For example, wikipedia says:


Lithium-6 is valued as a source material for tritium production and as a neutron absorber in nuclear fusion. Large amounts of lithium have been isotopically fractionated for use in nuclear weapons.

From an engineering standpoint I would ask -- can they really make it maintenance free? Most boilers, at some point in their lives, require internal maintenance to repair defects. The nuclear fuel source itself is rarely the problem in reactors -- its all the mechanical gear that surrounds it that tends to be problematic. The Ontario nuclear power stations are big white elephants mostly due to bad pressure tube and turbine design, *not* due to any deficiencies in the CANDU nuclear reactor end of things.

[ZenOps]

Well, to be honest I'm not totally sure they can make it "maintenance free" either.

But the designs are many orders of simplicity over a big uranium reactor design. The materials that they need to withstand the temperatures, sheer water flow, and the "radioactive soup" that comes from a gigawatt reaction simply don't apply to something that puts out a maximum of 200KW.

Metal fatigue is basically non existant at these power levels. Wear and tear is also almost non existant. Radioactive waste is also not really an issue as its a completely enclosed system, and anything that is not decayed will not decay that easily (meaning its almost inert)

But hats off to the Japanese who are the guinea pigs in this power endeavor.

[pitz]

Well, to be honest I'm not totally sure they can make it "maintenance free" either.


The article is perhaps a bit confusing, is it 200kW in terms of thermal output, or is it 200kW in terms of electrical output? At a thermal efficiency probably of around 20%, the thermal output would have to be 1MW.



sheer water flow, and the "radioactive soup" that comes from a gigawatt reaction simply don't apply to something that puts out a maximum of 200KW.


Not only that, but neutron bombardment would not be an issue. Over time, neutrons irradition of reactor materials becomes a huge issue in terms of maintaining the metallurgical integrity of reactor equipment and pressure vessels.

And what, the big reactors are 4GW usually, or in that range? Thats at least 4000X larger than this unit.




But hats off to the Japanese who are the guinea pigs in this power endeavor.

Its certainly not the first time smaller nuclear reactors have been investigated for district heating applications; Canada had a project called "SLOWPOKE" that was basically the same idea, albeit not with the fancy Li-6 reaction, but rather, fuelled with highly enriched uranium.

[Topher]

And Homer pronounces it nucular.

So does George W. Bush. I wonder if there's a connection? :D

[ShopSmart]

This is so stupid and so human. Why don't people just conserve and develop products that don't expend so much energy? We need power to be expensive so that people don't waste it.

[corrupt123]

Interesting.

Has anyone heard or does anyone know anything about the following? A friend of mine was telling me (~1 year ago) about what I believe was a Canadian reactor that produced waste with a half life of something like 1 year. I think it wasn't built or produced, but at least designed when he told me. I really cant remember much.

[Evil Techie]

why not just use hydrogen fuel cells?
granted sourcing hydrogen is still a problem now but it is a very efficient and safe (well a lot safer than the consequences of a nuclear fall out) way of producing electricity

[blainehamilton]

Because you have to expend more energy to generate the hydrogen to use in a hydrogen fuel cell in the first place...

Combine hydrogen and oxygen, you get energy and water.

To create the hydrogen in the first place, you have to use energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

[RedFlagRobot]

Will I have one in my flying car in the year 2009 too?

[legendofxix]

I'd rather wait for Fusion.

[Deimos]

I'd rather wait for Fusion.

get in line behind the people who started waiting in the 70's and 80's...

I'm very thrilled and optimistic at these compact reactors being developed by Toshiba, Hyperion and others.

Especially the break aways from convention. Dont have to use the common steam cycle. Dont have to use light water moderated Uranium reaction. Dont have to make it super huge.

I haven't read specifics of this particular design, but to clear up confusion, icebreakers, aircraft carriers and subs have been using nuclear reactors that dont need refueling for decades... and they require little maintanance... but not sure about "none".

More interesting technologies in near future are Generation 4 reactors, specifically those designed with closed fuel cycle and can burn transuranic waste. This is possible by >=1 breeding ratio. An intriguing example is liquid thorium reactor, which is very simple and compact. No pressure vessel or containment required. Its just giant pot with 600C-900C liquid uranium and/or thorium fuel.

[corrupt123]

I haven't read specifics of this particular design, but to clear up confusion, icebreakers, aircraft carriers and subs have been using nuclear reactors that dont need refueling for decades... and they require little maintanance... but not sure about "none".


Ughh... Hate fueling an old thread.

But anyways, are you sure about that one? I read that the Brit's opted to diesel power their aircraft carriers simply because nuclear was too large, cumbersom, expensive, etc to justify going that route (though their aircraft carriers are smaller than the U.S. counterparts too)

[Deimos]

Ughh... Hate fueling an old thread.

But anyways, are you sure about that one? I read that the Brit's opted to diesel power their aircraft carriers simply because nuclear was too large, cumbersom, expensive, etc to justify going that route (though their aircraft carriers are smaller than the U.S. counterparts too)

Dunno whats your point?
Soviets and USA have each built hundreds of nuclear powered subs... anything less is unthinkable. Not having to surface for air every hour, refuel every few days, no smoke to give away position...

If they can fit in sub, they can definetly fit in aircraft carrier. USA has like 10 Nimitz class (last I checked) nuclear powered air craft carriers. So certainly not cumbersome.

COST
Britain is replacing 3 Invincible class carriers with 2 new Queen Elizabeth, both using gas turbines, so no switch there. The technology is expensive to develop (R&D), so countries which dont have it inplace would need lots of resources on setting up industry and training etc.. and dedicated staff for operating. Having built hundreds of nuclear powered vessels, this is easy for USA and Soviets.

But even then, it can still be more expensive to operate. A few cargo ships were converted to nuclear and experience was not better (I cant find any articles on why precisley it was more expensive). Although, some groups indicated might try again.

[Heynow999]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/03/in-soviet-union/

russian mobile nuclear power plant

[Deimos]

There are 20+ small (<200MW) reactors in research, development or construction around the world.

Some famous ones, like Toshiba "4S", operate underground unattended for 30 years - then dug up and shipped back to factory for disposal. Galena Alaska was supposed to try it out.

China, South Africa and few other countries are developing pebble bed reactors. Instead of fuel sealed in zirconium alloy pellets, its a tiny seed inside ball of carbon - helium gas flows between these billard balls and transfers the heat. Germany had one some 20 years ago.

Russia has had floating reactors since like 70's. And has big plants on expansion. Mainly, using icebreaker reactors mounted on barges, for electricity and district heating in remote communities.

[Piro21]

I am sure people will be lining up around the block to live in an apt. or condo that has "built on top of a live nuclear reactor!" as one of it's features....

I am a nuclear fan personally (it is way better than oil or coal and I firmly believe we will have a cost and energy effective way to blast radiactive waste out of orbit within 50 years or less), but IMO this plan is ***** .

The idea might fly in Japan where space is at such a premium and people don't scare as easily, but in North American (or even Europe) I can not imagine anyone wanting to live or work in such a place. True people in the Navy do it every day, but that's a whole different ball game.

There's a live nuclear reactor in the middle of Hamilton. Mac students living on res and the people around them don't seem to be all that squeamish.

[Frankie3s]

http://www.monkeyrivertown.com/images/up/flux%20capacitor.jpg

"Back to the Future."

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f369/jcsully24/flux-capacitor-schematic.jpg

[RussiaRulez]

give me some plutonium rods, heavy water, a month's supply of hot pockets, and I will get my dad to build one. :D

[Brandon]

But anyways, are you sure about that one? I read that the Brit's opted to diesel power their aircraft carriers simply because nuclear was too large, cumbersom, expensive, etc to justify going that route (though their aircraft carriers are smaller than the U.S. counterparts too)

I'm not sure about their aircraft carriers, but the Brits are dumping their "old" diesel subs (all 4 to the Canadian Navy as the Victoria class) and going to a fully nuclear sub fleet.

[Deimos]

I'm not sure about their aircraft carriers, but the Brits are dumping their "old" diesel subs (all 4 to the Canadian Navy as the Victoria class) and going to a fully nuclear sub fleet.
yup

IMHO Canada's cheap fleet would have been WAY better off with 2 nuclear powered subs, than 4 old leaky diesels. I think we have the only brave/stupid enough navy to even consider artic patrols using diesels.

Funny tidbit from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Charles_de_Gaulle
Spying incident
In 1993, a group of MI6 officers posing as engineers were discovered inspecting the vessel during its construction. It is believed that they were evaluating the method of shielding the nuclear reactors.[2]


Of the top of my head, active air craft carriers and nuclear subs in the water:
British ACC - 2 small, gas
SSBN 4 Vanguard
SSN 7 Trafalgar, 1 Astute

French ACC - 1, nuclear
SSBN 4 Triomphant
SSN 6 Rubis

Russia ACC - 1, gas
SSGN 6 Oscar
SSBN 3 Typhoon, Borei
SSN 3 Sierra, 9 Akula

USA ACC - 11, Nimits/Ford/Enterprise all nuclear
SSGN/SSBN 14 Ohio
SSN 45 Los Angeles, 3 SeaWolf, 5 Virginia

For a grand total of 122 nuclear vessels, and thus >150 nuclear reactors out on or under the oceans.

Thus, I'm pretty sure "nuclear wessels" arent going extinct anytime soon.

[Brandon]

IMHO Canada's cheap fleet would have been WAY better off with 2 nuclear powered subs, than 4 old leaky diesels. I think we have the only brave/stupid enough navy to even consider artic patrols using diesels.

I thought that modern diesel subs can be quieter and don't have to go up to the surface to snorkel. Besides, the subs we got are pretty modern. IIRC the reason why one of our subs had a fire was becasue it was the oldest and didn't have the same modifications as the other 3.

And about patrolling the arctic, those patrol boats that the government just purchased (is that deal still going on??) can't even go in the arctic when the ice is a certain thickness (I think it's atleast a few months a year).

And about cost, I still think that the 4 diesels that Canada bought are cheaper than 2 nuclear subs. For one, is it even possible to buy a used nuclear sub? Who would sell to us? Old US nuclear subs are mothballed, not sold to other nations.... right? We don't have the money to develop out own (linking back to the French carrier being spied on by MI6, they're not even sharing info). Keep in mind that infrastructure for a nuclear sub would have to be added to the navy bases on each coast, not just one shared facility. And since we never had any nuclear powered ships before, I'm guessing there aren't any Canadian regulations/standards/processes in place... and doing that in the wonderful beaurocratic system we have, it'll cost a ton and take forever. You thought that bringing all the Victoria class subs up to modern standards was expensive and time consuming, you don't even wanna know what it'll take for a new nuclear sub fleet.

Based on the cost of other nations modern nuclear sub programs, we might have been able to buy ONE for a little over the price we're paying for 4 diesels (including the cost overruns).

[Deimos]

China, Argentina, Brazil.. all wanna develop nuclear sub fleets.

Maybe we should jump in an create a consortium. We've already worked with China and Argentina building CANDUs...

who knows, maybe even Australia and Italy and other countries will join in.

Ofcourse, its certainly not going to be a 175m Typhoon or 170m Ohio class SSBN (you have to have nuclear weapons first before you can carry nuclear balistic missles, and Canada can't afford $4b per sub). And very likely not even 107m Sierra/Akula class size.

But, both France and Britain are working on new small SSN. Partnership with France would really be beneficial. We could get old Rubis class or work on new Barracuda - and its only a few hundred million - only as expensive as an A380.

[corrupt123]

I thought that modern diesel subs can be quieter and don't have to go up to the surface to snorkel.

Nah, other way around. Diesel engines need air to burn, so they need to drop the snorkel or surface to run them. Nuclear subs can technically never surface and be fine, since they recycle O2 and stuff too. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they even carry enough food and supplies to stay submerged 6 months at a time. Pretty damn impressive IMO.

One thing diesels do have going for them is the silence - when they're running off the batteries. Nuclear subs make less noise than running diesel engines, but more than battery power.

Anyways, if we want to start fantasizing about Canada's next gen fleet, I'd say we go with the Hydrogen power fuel-cell subs the Germans are working on. Completely silent and no moving parts - even at full power.

[Brandon]

Nah, other way around. Diesel engines need air to burn, so they need to drop the snorkel or surface to run them. Nuclear subs can technically never surface and be fine, since they recycle O2 and stuff too. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they even carry enough food and supplies to stay submerged 6 months at a time. Pretty damn impressive IMO.

One thing diesels do have going for them is the silence - when they're running off the batteries. Nuclear subs make less noise than running diesel engines, but more than battery power.

Anyways, if we want to start fantasizing about Canada's next gen fleet, I'd say we go with the Hydrogen power fuel-cell subs the Germans are working on. Completely silent and no moving parts - even at full power.

My bad I didn't finish my thought, I meant to say that diesel subs don't have to surface for air nearly as much as before (30-60 minutes a day depending on activity).

But diesel subs CAN be quieter than nuclear subs. Diesel subs can operate fully off the batteries without the diesel engine on. IIRC nuclear subs always have coolant pumps running which makes them a little louder than the diesel subs on electric. The Victoria subs have a fairly modern design too (teardrop shape and acoustic tiles).

One thing that has to be kept in mind is the purpose of Canada's navy. We don't need an equivalent ballistic missile class sub as the SSBN, we really only need ships for our part in allied task forces and for defense (seems like it's mostly against ships going TO Canada... like with drugs and illegal immigrants). Our air, marine and land forces don't really stand a chance against most other developed countries and if we were attacked we really would depend mostly on allies to come help us out. We don't do the whole projection of power thing the US does (so hunter-killer subs are just fine for us). Infinite range isn't as important for us because of this role.

I thought China already has nuclear subs, and that they develop (or steal from other nations) all their toys in house. In any case, the navy should put more money on their surface ships. I know the destroyers are going through a refit, but I thought it was just to hold off from replacing them completely for a little longer.


IMHO Canada's cheap fleet would have been WAY better off with 2 nuclear powered subs, than 4 old leaky diesels. I think we have the only brave/stupid enough navy to even consider artic patrols using diesels.


But, both France and Britain are working on new small SSN. Partnership with France would really be beneficial. We could get old Rubis class or work on new Barracuda - and its only a few hundred million - only as expensive as an A380.

The Rubis class is older than Canada's "leaky diesels". If wikipedia is correct, the Victoria class is about 8 years newer than the Rubis, it requires significantly less crew members, and is shaped better for acoustics.

The cost of the Barracuda class is still WAY more than we are paying for the Victoria class:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-future-ssns-the-barracuda-class-02902/

7.9 billion euros for 6 subs???? I think the Victoria/Upholder class cost less than $350mil US each when they were brand new.

[Brandon]

Back to the original thread topic, I like the idea of mini self contained nuclear reactors. OPG uses nuclear reactors for a lot of Ontario's power right? I'm assuming that with instituting mini low/no-maintenance reactors all around, costs would be cheaper than having mega-reactors. Isn't the Pickering plant having cost overrun issues with restarting some of the reactors? From reading some of the other posts, I'll guess that the cost projections will be more accurate with the use of the mini reactors than big plants due to the technical issues that arise from having a big vs small reactor.

The only real issue for me is safety. As long as the risk of reactor contamination/breach/meltdown and physical security of the plant is similar to what already exists, I'd support the move to small reactors. If the self contained units are fully underground then that helps.

[Deimos]

Back to the original thread topic, I like the idea of mini self contained nuclear reactors. OPG uses nuclear reactors for a lot of Ontario's power right? I'm assuming that with instituting mini low/no-maintenance reactors all around, costs would be cheaper than having mega-reactors. Isn't the Pickering plant having cost overrun issues with restarting some of the reactors? From reading some of the other posts, I'll guess that the cost projections will be more accurate with the use of the mini reactors than big plants due to the technical issues that arise from having a big vs small reactor.

The only real issue for me is safety. As long as the risk of reactor contamination/breach/meltdown and physical security of the plant is similar to what already exists, I'd support the move to small reactors. If the self contained units are fully underground then that helps.
- only 2 Pickering A reactors were restarted/refurbished. The other 2 were deemed uneconomical (I guess too much wear).
- mini/low maintanance sounds good in practice, but thats 100x more license fees, and 100x more fear panic paranoia for nuclear haters
- although they may be very very safe, once you start building thousands, probability of incident increases... and becomes inevitable. And it took just 1 disaster to stall industry for 30 years.

The appeal of small reactors is more:
- tiny fraction of capital costs. $100 million is much easier than $10 000 million.
- it gets the ball rolling, and aclimates public to new technology
- new revolutionary designs. Tossing zirconium alloy clad pellets into "so yesterday" bin. Many compact designs are breeders, use pebbles or even liquid fuel (my personal fav).
- powering of remote communities, especially where heating is needed.
- wind can give electricity, but no heat. solar ineffective in north/cold.
- shiping fossil fuel costly and supply can easily be dirupted.


I'm personally big fan of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. Scalable. Cheap. No Pressure Vessel. We got tons of Thorium and all 100% get used not just 0.7% U235. Similar design can be adapter to burn existing waste. 600-900C high efficient Brayton cycle. Can run for 20-30 years. Still produces waste, but 1 Ton instead of 35 Tons.

[SteveRules]

For any Canadians who are pro-nuclear energy or just want to learn more about it, take a minute to visit http://pickcandu.ca/WHOWEARE/tabid/85/Default.aspx and do some reading. There is also an online petition so do your part in ensuring safe and reliable energy in your future!

Have a great weekend!
Steve

[Deimos]

For any Canadians who are pro-nuclear energy or just want to learn more about it, take a minute to visit http://pickcandu.ca/WHOWEARE/tabid/85/Default.aspx and do some reading. There is also an online petition so do your part in ensuring safe and reliable energy in your future!

Have a great weekend!
Steve

nice trick

click to go to "pickcandu" website, and they automatically add you as a supporter... no thanks. And its not just the ongoing MAPLE and NRU fiasco, and the Conservatives selling AECL off (which alone is HUGE WARNING sign)...

Let me sum up the story thus far...
- after WW2, Canada, UK and USA have nuclear tech
- Ontario, short of rivers to dam up in 60's, starts building CANDU's in quadruplets
- in 80's AECL forces its way into Quebec and NB, which each said no thanks after 1 each. AECL is still hungover from 70's India nuclear weapon from CANDU tech fiasco.
- AECL desperate for CANDU sales sells to Argentina, China, South Korea and Romania (where gov used 3x more workers will be 3x faster mentality, in poor lit conditions - to this day only 2 of 5 Romania reactors completed).
- in 80's also several loss of coolant (LOC) at Pickering, leading to billion dollar retube.
- despite often being touted as uniques advantages, CANDUs have not exploited capability to burn used PWR fuel (ie from USA), MOX (ie blended Plutonium from weapons), or Thorium.
- in '97 half of Ontario reactors were 'voluntarily' shutdown after CNSC put foot down on growing culture of complacency and inadequate safety at Ontario Hydro. Worst still to rate payers, Pickering A and Bruce A had horrendous capacity factors of ~50% (constantly out for maintanance).

But most importantly, AECL and all associated companies will be very busy with numerous refurbishments, and perhaps new CANDUs in NB, Alberta, Sask or abroad.
- SK Wolsong 1, NB Leperau, Bruce 1, 2 refurb complete in 2010
- Argentina Embalse and Quebec Gentilly ongoing refurbishments
- decision soon on refurb on Pickering B, and Bruce B (certainly yes)
- refurb of Darlington, remaining SK Wolsong, China Quishan

Remember the delays, overbudget and complexities of refurb of Pickering A and Bruce A? That was just 2 at a time. With fumbling fingers running NRU and MAPLE, and hands tied working on refurb of half-dozen reactors any given year, plus who knows how many new builds (ie Romania wants to finish CANDUs there), do you really expect AECL employees distrated by recent sell off, to build a couple ACR-1000 (despite design being incomplete) on time and on budget WITHOUT support of feds for cost overruns?

2-3 years from now, you can at least look at track record of half-dozen ABWR (new ones in Taiwan almost finished), new AP1000 being built in China, and the EPR in Finland and France, and should it be delayed/overbudget, at least we're not alone to have picked it, and its the foreigners fault.

EDIT: just to clarify, I support nuclear only as replacement for Pickering (ie not to add capacity), and Areva EPR would require 80% Canadian jobs for construction. 1 unit now, and another 5 years later, ~3200MW total, would fit well to replace Pickering ~4120W, aleviating need to refurbish Pickering (as we all know thats certainly not going to improve performance), provide power during critical 10 year transition when many refurbs simultaneously and coal shutdown, and fit in Ontario's goal of reducing nuclear from 14000 to 13000MW total.

[yucksta]

If Canada supported its home grown nuke industry like France does Areva, we'd actually have a viable replacement for the thousands of jobs that are being lost from automotive/manufacturing...

AECL's mess-ups are primarily due to neglect. CANDU may go the way of the AVRO arrow and that's really unfortunate.

But I have a vested interest in what happens to the Nuke industry here, so I'm a bit biased.

Aside: The on-time/on-budget thing when it comes to collosal mega-projects like nuclear builds requires a lot of things to go right, right from the day they start scheduling...and I'm not sure what it means. Some infrastructure projects require govt handling and a "loss", otherwise privately they wouldn't be done, but that doesn't mean they're not valuable or important/necessary to do for an overall macroeconomic and social gain.

[ES_Revenge]

:yawn: Let me know when you can buy one of these guys

http://www.outatime.it/public/40-mr_fusion.jpg


:D

[Deimos]

If Canada supported its home grown nuke industry like France does Areva, we'd actually have a viable replacement for the thousands of jobs that are being lost from automotive/manufacturing...

AECL's mess-ups are primarily due to neglect. CANDU may go the way of the AVRO arrow and that's really unfortunate.

But I have a vested interest in what happens to the Nuke industry here, so I'm a bit biased.

Aside: The on-time/on-budget thing when it comes to collosal mega-projects like nuclear builds requires a lot of things to go right, right from the day they start scheduling...and I'm not sure what it means. Some infrastructure projects require govt handling and a "loss", otherwise privately they wouldn't be done, but that doesn't mean they're not valuable or important/necessary to do for an overall macroeconomic and social gain.

1. If Ontario doesn't buy CANDU, nobody else in world will? What kind of mindset do AECL have? Ontario shouldn't be forced to buy at the end of a barrel of a gun. AREVA didn't build EPR in France first. Finland did. Likewise 4x AP1000 being built first in China.

2. Say we had Avro, so what? Who's going to pay to maintain them? Whats the usefull purpose? Likewise, we shouldn't build new CANDU just to keep AECL and their contractors employeed. Why should taxpayers and ratepayers be burdened with cost overruns, and further research funding?

3. Nuclear in general is very poor way of using money to stimulate economy and/or create jobs (even with maintanence intensive design like CANDU). It certainly does develop technology and skills, but for $billions, you get couple thousand construction jobs for 4-5 years max, and half thousand full time jobs thereafter. Besides, dont cry for AECL - they have 16 more reactors here, and 10 abroad to refurbish.. plenty work if you ask me.

For $5 billion, you can pay 5 000 people $40 000 for 25 years.

Thus, if government is primarily interested in manufacturing/construction jobs, I would suggest nuclear power plant last. Build more regional jets. Airports. Buses. Subways. Highways. Skyscrapers...

[Deimos]

Fun facts
* Polls from 2002 to 2007, support for nuclear in Ontario rose. But, although a vast majority supported refurbishment, few were happy about expanding nuclear fleet.
* Recession is not indicative of "typical" power demand. OPA planning 10-20 years into future. Afterall, whether windmills or reactors, our children's children will be stuck with them for 50+ years.
* auto manufacturing jobs wont ALL spontaneusly return when good times return. In general, economic mix will probably shift away from energy intensive.
* huge gains in conservation? maybe. Lots of eco-light bulbs. Rebate checks for efficient appliances and insulation. Tougher building codes. Far from "perfect", but no place in Canada has ever put more focus on conservation and renewables than Ontario in last 5 years.
* Canada and Ontario have one of "greenest" energy mixes of all developed countries - thanks to abundant hydro (everywhere except Alberta). But, we also have one of world's highest power consumption rate (due to ac and heating).
* Sure Nanticoke is giant 4000MW polluter at full blast, but its rarely used, and with only small fraction of generators for load following.
* Pickering can easily be labeled "most risky" and "maintanace intensive" of all CANDUs in the world:
- Closest to millions in GTA.
- Oldest CANDUs in service, and thus least advanced. Many "first" design design problems.
- Worst capacity factors (frequent breakdowns). Although Pickering B unit 8 has had outstanding service in the past.
- Most accidents, mainly in 80's (loss of heavy water - leaks to Lake Ontario).
- Requires several times more staff to operate than other CANDUs.
- Design has many more components (ie 16 heat pumps vs 4 in all other CANDUs)
- Only CANDUs to have retubing TWICE, once in 80's and again in '02-'03.
- Both BWR, PWR and CANDU "burn" about the same amount of U235, but for PWR during enrichment, U238 seperated out as "depleted-U". Thus CANDU leaves more waste volume. New CANFLEX fuel bundle has 43 elements. Pickering 28 elements. All other CANDU, 37 elements. Guessing this means Pickering creates more waste volume than any reactor.

Comments? Corrections?

[Bazooka Joe]

Fun facts
* Polls from 2002 to 2007, support for nuclear in Ontario rose. But, although a vast majority supported refurbishment, few were happy about expanding nuclear fleet.
* Recession is not indicative of "typical" power demand. OPA planning 10-20 years into future. Afterall, whether windmills or reactors, our children's children will be stuck with them for 50+ years.
* auto manufacturing jobs wont ALL spontaneusly return when good times return. In general, economic mix will probably shift away from energy intensive.
* huge gains in conservation? maybe. Lots of eco-light bulbs. Rebate checks for efficient appliances and insulation. Tougher building codes. Far from "perfect", but no place in Canada has ever put more focus on conservation and renewables than Ontario in last 5 years.
* Canada and Ontario have one of "greenest" energy mixes of all developed countries - thanks to abundant hydro (everywhere except Alberta). But, we also have one of world's highest power consumption rate (due to ac and heating).
* Sure Nanticoke is giant 4000MW polluter at full blast, but its rarely used, and with only small fraction of generators for load following.
* Pickering can easily be labeled "most risky" and "maintanace intensive" of all CANDUs in the world:
- Closest to millions in GTA.
- Oldest CANDUs in service, and thus least advanced. Many "first" design design problems.
- Worst capacity factors (frequent breakdowns). Although Pickering B unit 8 has had outstanding service in the past.
- Most accidents, mainly in 80's (loss of heavy water - leaks to Lake Ontario).
- Requires several times more staff to operate than other CANDUs.
- Design has many more components (ie 16 heat pumps vs 4 in all other CANDUs)
- Only CANDUs to have retubing TWICE, once in 80's and again in '02-'03.
- Both BWR, PWR and CANDU "burn" about the same amount of U235, but for PWR during enrichment, U238 seperated out as "depleted-U". Thus CANDU leaves more waste volume. New CANFLEX fuel bundle has 43 elements. Pickering 28 elements. All other CANDU, 37 elements. Guessing this means Pickering creates more waste volume than any reactor.

Comments? Corrections?

Did you make up all these "facts" yourself or did you have help?

[custy]

One question:

Where do we get the necessary fuel rods or nuclear material to run this reactor?

[Deimos]

Did you make up all these "facts" yourself or did you have help?

CNSC whitepapers. EA for Pickering B refurb. all stuff from THEY provide

SOME MORE:
- Pickering shares safety systems across all 6 operating reactors, including vacuum buildng and emergency coolant feed. AECL (designer) were unwilling to consider common mode failure (ie earthquake) which would cause accident at two or more units (where this shared safety system would be overwhelmed)
- Pickering are only Ontario reactors with "domes".. look at pictures of Bruce and Darlington and they have rectangular containment building.
- Each Pickering reactor uses 12 steam generators about 9000kg each. Full refurb = 48 heavy lifts.
- NPD, Douglas Point, and Pickering steam generators/boilers were based on those used in submarines. Having no experience, AECL followed Westinghouse lead in using drilled hole tube support plates in boilers... which failed disasterously (thereafter Westinghouse stopped building them).
- Babcock and Wilcox built all steam generators/boilers for CANDUs. BruceB and then Darlington corrected the design flaws (tube freting, buckling) which caused derating of early CANDUs.
http://canteach.candu.org/library/20060101.pdf

custy,
You need many tons of fuel to "startup" a reactor. Example, Iran Bushir reactor, received 90 tons of enriched fuel from Russia. Thereafterwards, PWR typically replace half every 18-24 month fueling outage.

For all CANDU, fuel supplied by Cameco fuel production facility in Port Hope on Lake Ontario (infamous for shutting down ~2007 for a year following discovery of radiation leaks - http://www.wise-uranium.org/epcdnph.html). Also supplies fuel to CANDU outside Canada. About 3000 1/2m long 20kg fuel bundles needed for each reactor (more for bigger new design).

For AREVA reactor, I guess AREVA would supply the fuel (long term contract). Likewise with Westinghouse AP1000. We certainly dont have facility to enrich uranium, produce, qualify and package PWR fuel.

Interestingly, ACR-1000 uses lightly enriched U. Where would we get it? To my knowledge we dont have enrichment due to $billion cost of such a facility.

[Bazooka Joe]

Your "facts" clearly show you have an anti-nuclear agenda, or at least a chip on your shoulder with our current nuclear power program. You purposely post in a negative light, yet post no source. Let's take the first snippet as an example, but this could easily be done for any of the "facts" (many of which are in fact "opinins")



- Pickering shares safety systems across all 6 operating reactors, including vacuum buildng and emergency coolant feed. AECL (designer) were unwilling to consider common mode failure (ie earthquake) which would cause accident at two or more units (where this shared safety system would be overwhelmed)


Are you saying here that ALL safety systems are shared across ALL 6 operating reactors? Or are some shared between some and some shared between others? Or are there some safety systems confined to individual reactors?

The buildings and infrastructure are not rated for any earthquakes which are likely to occur in the area? This would mean that they do not meet building codes. What is the distance between the reactors and what other "common mode failure" is likely to occur?

[Deimos]

No opinions. Just facts from their brochures and white papers.

I do have an agenda. Its inescapable that in the 60's nuclear "gold rush" we rushed and built up quadruplets of designs that weren't fully worked out. Normally, maintaining old "prototype" like Douglas Point is not an issue, since there is only 1, and it was used as demonstration and technology development project. Quick example is that Pickering A did not include poison injection (2nd shutoff system).. until after it was retrofited when Pickering B was being built. The series of drastic design changes underscores the immaturaty of early Pickering A design.

Now we are stuck with old Chevies pushing 300km. And OPG wants to extend that even further, perhaps postponing refurb to as far as 2018. (rejected incomplete EA by CNSC might have something to do with this).

I think so far the Ontario government has played things well by waiting. They haven't subcomed to allure of flashy tech. Ontario has to be carefull with desicion because it will have 50+ years of reprecussions. This is especially true of AECL's ACR-1000 which screams "not ready". Its so far behind many safety analysis have not yet been done (and/or wont be done at all).

My biggest concern is refurb (both PickB and BruceB @2016 when coal is to shutdown) schedule and how it might be pressuring Ontairo to "act fast" and/or chose design with shortest construction time.

Ideally, we would wait 2-3 years to see how AP1000 in China and EPR in Europe operate.. and give time for AECL to finish design and maybe even build one in New Brunswick. And perhaps this recession is just that.. extra time. With all the new gas power recently built and emphesis on conservation, we certainly certainly dont need to worry for at least 5 years.


Your "facts" clearly show you have an anti-nuclear agenda, or at least a chip on your shoulder with our current nuclear power program. You purposely post in a negative light, yet post no source. Let's take the first snippet as an example, but this could easily be done for any of the "facts" (many of which are in fact "opinins")



Are you saying here that ALL safety systems are shared across ALL 6 operating reactors? Or are some shared between some and some shared between others? Or are there some safety systems confined to individual reactors?

The buildings and infrastructure are not rated for any earthquakes which are likely to occur in the area? This would mean that they do not meet building codes. What is the distance between the reactors and what other "common mode failure" is likely to occur?

[yucksta]

1. If Ontario doesn't buy CANDU, nobody else in world will? What kind of mindset do AECL have? Ontario shouldn't be forced to buy at the end of a barrel of a gun. AREVA didn't build EPR in France first. Finland did. Likewise 4x AP1000 being built first in China.

I didn't say anything about Ontario buying Candu, but certainly investing in AECL through the 80s/90s and ensuring that it was properly managed may have prevented the Maple/Isotopes debacle and potentially placed AECL in a class with Areva. You can't be a player in an industry like Nuclear if you treat it like a pastime.


2. Say we had Avro, so what? Who's going to pay to maintain them? Whats the usefull purpose? Likewise, we shouldn't build new CANDU just to keep AECL and their contractors employeed. Why should taxpayers and ratepayers be burdened with cost overruns, and further research funding?

There's spin-off benefits from supporting your own technology. The calculations of "taxpayer losses" need to include those benefits to provide a fair assessment of government in R&D of any technology. I just came back from Korea, and saw nothing but Korean made cars and technology there. Why do we thumb our nose at our own stuff?


3. Nuclear in general is very poor way of using money to stimulate economy and/or create jobs (even with maintanence intensive design like CANDU). It certainly does develop technology and skills, but for $billions, you get couple thousand construction jobs for 4-5 years max, and half thousand full time jobs thereafter. Besides, dont cry for AECL - they have 16 more reactors here, and 10 abroad to refurbish.. plenty work if you ask me.

For $5 billion, you can pay 5 000 people $40 000 for 25 years.

Thus, if government is primarily interested in manufacturing/construction jobs, I would suggest nuclear power plant last. Build more regional jets. Airports. Buses. Subways. Highways. Skyscrapers...

Bottom line is build something. Anything. A knowledge based economy is nonsense. Without application, all of this knowledge has just been used to trade pieces of paper around until we find out that the pieces of paper are worthless (i.e. the financial meltdown). We need to invest in building things that add tangible and continual benefit to our society. You can argue against nuclear being a part of that mix, but people need to be doing "real work".

Ontario's economy is being hallowed out. And nobody wants to re-invest in building anything, because every one is so short-term minded and looking at things from the perspective of accountants. If we left it up to accountants, we'd probably never have the trans-canada highways or railways.

[Deimos]

yucksta, you maybe misunderstood.

The government subsidized AECL for decades. And, after liberal cuts in mid 90's raised funding after 2000. Last Canadian reactors were built almost 20 years ago. For decades of funding, what did we get out of this? Delayed overbudged and then canceled MAPLE? After 6 years of Ontario nuclear new build support, ACR1000 design is still not finished, and needs considerable testing (ie leaky NRU cause we dont have other such research reactor)

And then there's the "benefit". If today, we started building twin ACR1000 in Ontario, AECL, Babcock & Wilcock, SNC Lavin, etc... and hundreds of other would have work - for 4 years. What then? Build another pair? AECL has few prospects abroad. No NRC approval in US, and utilities already picked favorites (AP1000, EPR, ABWR). Likewise AECL mysteriously withdrew from UK. In rolling dice analogy, AECL's prospects are close to snake eyes - far far from the competent professional image portrayed in their videos.

Don't get me wrong, we are one of handful of countries in world developing the technology. We should be really proud of our scientists and engineers. But, I'm not least bit surprised by Harper's "fed-up" attitude with AECL... management takes hundreds of million for granted, and demands Ontario buy or else!

just sick.


Just one question thought: when you heard Chrystler and GM were in danger of Bankruptcy, did you rush out and buy a couple of their cars just to save them?

[Deimos]

FYI, incase worried about positive void coefficient ie discrepency in PickeringB refurb EA between design (near zero) and new computer model calculated coefficient values (slightly positive).

Enjoy.

"The company's New Fuel Project should also increase energy efficiency. Bruce Power plans to refuel the Bruce B reactors with low void reactivity fuel, known as "new fuel." The Bruce B reactors are currently operating at 90 percent of maximum capacity based on an operating limit commitment made to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

This limitation was placed on the facility when studies revealed that safety margins for certain low probability accidents were notably reduced. The derating to 90 percent of full power ensures that the adequate safety margin is maintained. Developing new fuel will enhance safety margins and allow Bruce Power to raise power output. The new fuel will eventually allow an increase in reactor power to 100 percent and draw another 50 MW of capacity from each Bruce B unit."

So what will be benefit of refurb and CANFLEX? I honestly dont know.. but can estimate:


BruceA BruceB
design gross 904 915
design net 840 860
now (derated) 750 822 (except 795 for unit 8).

total <1997 shutdown (8 unit): ~6800
total >1997 shutdown (4 unit): ~3180
current capacity 2009 (6 unit): ~4760
after 2010 return Bruce A, CANFLEX @95% uprate (8 unit): ~6480

so after 15 years, well be back full circle..

[yucksta]

AECL has been mismanaged and underfunded for decades. Chalk River has been operating on shoestring budget for years, Maple aside. The historic facilities at CRL are falling apart...a sudden influx of cash will not change things including the culture of AECL over night. AECL wasn't hiring through 80s/90s and that's left the company with the absence of a "middle age" group of experts...

Nuclear is a technology that through proper investment and management in a company like AECL, Canada could have taken a lead in, as we are on the brink of a nuclear renaissance.

Now we're going to be left with nothing, as our manufacturing base disappears, a problem that will only be compounded as our power generation capacity decreases and our province keeps hesitating about nuclear or any other option to make up for the shortfall. Keep believing that private enterprise will save us. The fact is, sometimes you have to invest yourself, and Canada has NOT done a good job of that in decades, especially with respect to technology R&D in any field.....AECL's downward spiral is an example of that. Our infrastructure is crumbling all around us, unemployment is on the rise...and what is being done about it?

This is only the beginning.

I'm not saying buy AECL, buy a car made in ontario, etc. but if the country's leadership continues to be shortsighted when its to investing in R&D, in developing industries, and is waiting for the private sector to magically appear and do the govt's job of providing the infrastructure that is required for the economic engine to run.....keep waiting because they'll just go elsewhere.




yucksta, you maybe misunderstood.

The government subsidized AECL for decades. And, after liberal cuts in mid 90's raised funding after 2000. Last Canadian reactors were built almost 20 years ago. For decades of funding, what did we get out of this? Delayed overbudged and then canceled MAPLE? After 6 years of Ontario nuclear new build support, ACR1000 design is still not finished, and needs considerable testing (ie leaky NRU cause we dont have other such research reactor)

And then there's the "benefit". If today, we started building twin ACR1000 in Ontario, AECL, Babcock & Wilcock, SNC Lavin, etc... and hundreds of other would have work - for 4 years. What then? Build another pair? AECL has few prospects abroad. No NRC approval in US, and utilities already picked favorites (AP1000, EPR, ABWR). Likewise AECL mysteriously withdrew from UK. In rolling dice analogy, AECL's prospects are close to snake eyes - far far from the competent professional image portrayed in their videos.

Don't get me wrong, we are one of handful of countries in world developing the technology. We should be really proud of our scientists and engineers. But, I'm not least bit surprised by Harper's "fed-up" attitude with AECL... management takes hundreds of million for granted, and demands Ontario buy or else!

just sick.


Just one question thought: when you heard Chrystler and GM were in danger of Bankruptcy, did you rush out and buy a couple of their cars just to save them?

[Deimos]

In 1950's Canada was developing the infamous Avro CF-105 (Arrow)... which was cancelled in '59 by Conservatist Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker.

But, Diefenbaker's concern for the common man and the crushed manufacturing sector, led to expedition of nuclear research and development of nuclear power generation.

I do think AECL was adequately funded over the years. How else can you explain that we're source of nearly half of world's isotopes, and built not one but 2 replacements that could produce the world's supply - each. What other Western country built 10+ reactors after Chernobyl (>90s)?

I think you are right that there is mismanagement, and quite frankly privitization and sale to say Areva, could be best thing ever.

But I think yesterday's indefinite hold on new build at Darlington reveals a lot of changes AECL isn't accustomed to.

- CNSC now has teeth. Pickering, constructed in 60's and started in '71-73 had just 1 shutoff system. There were numerous changes from NPD and Douglas Point, from material for calendria and tubes, to tube and fuel size, to refueling system, to guesswork on heat transport system that carried onto Bruce A. Such a "designed on the fly", and "concepts validated post build" project would never reach past proposal stage in today's million times more stringent regulation. CNSC was lax in 80's and 90's: exclude Pickering A from requiring 2nd shutdown mechanism, Bruce steam generator fretting, and Pickering retubing without consequences. It wasn't until '97 shutdown, that years of systematic abuse of safety protocols and margins were condemed.

This is exemplified with CNSC Lynn's refusal to startup NRU, CNSC's refusal to budge on discrepencies in MAPLE, and recent rejection of Pickering B refurbishment EA (which FYI according to new models, also have positive void coefficient).

- In 80's it was Ontario Hydro which took AECL's technology and designs and built power stations. There was no bidding process. No power authority 2025 plan. All Ontario power stations were built based on Ontario Hydro plans and forecasts from early 70's - so even though 80's and 90's recession caused substantial falls in demand, Ontario Hydro kept building. They were typical mega-projects of Trudeau/Mulroney era - disregard for ballooning federal deficit siince growing future generations will pay it off.

Nowadays, federal, provincial and even municipal governments are locked in power struggles. Governments can't even come to consensus on a couple KM of subway, or 200 streetcars.


What's McGuinty left to do?
* abandon the hot potato, at risk of smearing Liberal "take-action" credibility.
* wait for federal Liberal government for some synergy
* wait and see. use AECL fiasco and "dont really need it" to wrestle better terms from Areva/Westinghouse. Go foreign. Blame feds for killing AECL.
* do nothing. term is almost over.. who cares, let the next party try and fix it.

[corrupt123]

(which FYI according to new models, also have positive void coefficient).

What the hell does that even mean?

While I appreciate your in depth and extensive posts in this thread (along with your revival of it) you're practically having a conversation with yourself.

If you want to sway our opinions and/or change our minds, speak in layman's terms that people outside the industry would understand.

ty

[Deimos]

What the hell does that even mean?

While I appreciate your in depth and extensive posts in this thread (along with your revival of it) you're practically having a conversation with yourself.

If you want to sway our opinions and/or change our minds, speak in layman's terms that people outside the industry would understand.

ty

Sorry.. let me try to explain.

Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear engineer (although if anybody reading this is hiring, please give me pm). So correct me if I'm wrong.

first the high school basics:
atoms move = kinetic energy = heat
conservation of momentum: big slow Uranium hit by neutron splits to smaller fission product atoms + 2-3 zipping neutrons.
conservation of mass: sum mass of products is less. small change in mass produced ~200MeV of energy.
chain reaction: if enough neutrons keep hitting Uranium, more neutrons are produced and its self sustaining (chain reaction is formed).

When you mine uranium out of ground, there is no chain reaction. You can hold it in your hand without danger. A moderator is used to slow down neutrons which is required for them to cause fission*. Heavy water is best moderator. Carbon (graphite) is also good moderator. Normal water captures too many neutrons, so fewer are available for chain reaction, so pressure reactors need to use enriched fuel.

Void is when coolant/moderator is lost or has bubbles. If its negative, its like bouncing spring.. it will gradually slow down and stop. If its positive, its like car with oversteer or balancing a vertical stick - a small change causes rapidly increasing output.

In PWR, a giant 200+ ton pressure vessel is used. It used water as both moderator and coolant. If water empties, the fuel doesnt have the moderation required for reaction.

In RBMK (like Chernobyl) uses natural uranium and graphite as moderator. If graphite disappears, its just metal in a bowl (no reaction). But, when coolant is lost, the graphite keeps "moderating" and causing more and more reactions and there is no cooling to stop it, so it overheats and melts.

In CANDU, natural uranium is used with heavy water as moderator. Large loss of coolant in pressure tubes would expose dry fuel bundles at top of calendria, and runaway reaction can start. But even if all normal shutdown mechanisms fail, the moderator would boil, reducing moderation and then be dumped from the pressure. Without moderation, reaction stops, but there is still decay heat (as in all reactors). Without any working systems (everything fail), the calendria tank would provide some 6-9 hours before hot top pressure tubes sag, break and collect ontop of the submerged ones (ie severe core damage - extreme scenario example).

To address this, new CANFLEX fuel was developed about 5 years ago, and is recently being installed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

[dealman09]

This has potential to be either really good, or really really bad. Anything can be hacked, cracked into ect. i hope they have some built in security features.