I lent my copy to my uncle, a possibly influential guy in Alberta. I ought to send a few emails to politicians here in Saskatchewan. We might be a good place for a protopark, too small of a grid for large reactors, not likely to be happy paying full price for SMRs. Buying prototype reactor electricity could be the ticket
Your book is great, Jack. It hits the right tone and has a wealth of information people need. However, as you know, the problem is not in logic, thinking and reasoning, it is in the inane world of politicians owned by polls and lobbyists. We must get to the people. I think the $30 was one of my best buys. Hopefully, people will not think that just because it is free, it should be ignored. Please, everyone, get it, read it, and use it as a reference. But spend your time getting to the people, not wasting it on politicians.
Probably not. As Bob says it only affects tiny reactors built to DOE order. The DOD was already exempt from NRC regualtion. The DOE also had that exemption for research reactors until 1974, but the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act which created the NRC ended that exemption . My reading of the ERA is that what DOE is attempting violates the ERA and if challenged will get over-turned.
A Trump dominated NRC may well say it's ending ALARA, but the basic regualtor incentives will not change. ALARA is a symptom not a cause. Nuclear cost skyrocketed between 1967 and 1974 before ALARA was officially adopted.
Moreover even the nominal "ending" of ALARA could well be over-turned by a new administration.
we must address the root cause, an autocratic regualtor who knows he will be judged on his ability to prevent a release whatever the preamble of the AEA and pious statements in NEIMA and ADVANCE acts say.
My best hope is with TerraPower's Natrium project. A really good design for long term success, and Bill Gates has enough money to get through the regulatory morass, and at least get one working power plant in Wyoming. Then when our nation has that awakening, hopefully before China dominates the market, they can step up production quickly. My second hope is on ThorCon, although it is hard to tell from their new marketing fluff website, if they are actually making progress.
You do realize that Natrium supports a 500 MWe turbine with a 345 MWe reactor. That means the turbine and all its pumps and feedheater and forced draft towers and all the transformers and switchgear have a maximum capacity factor of 0.69. And to do that derating Natrim pays for two very large molten salt tanks and array of salt to steam heat exchangers that is roughly the same size as the turbine hall. The stated reason is to complement wind/solar. In their world, nuclear's job is to compensate for wind/solar intermittency. Talk about bassackwards thinking.
Even if Natrium were a smart design, the goal is not just any nuclear, it's near should-cost nuclear. We will never see that under the current regualtory system regardless of how inherently cheap a technology is for all the reasons we gone over and over and over again.
Good point. I've always thought the salt tanks were just a clever PR move to mollify the greenies, and when the customer actually came to write the check, they would drop the cost of those tanks.
As for the capacity factor of 0.69, that is inherent in the demand, not a problem with reactor design. The salt tanks should smooth out this fluctuation and improve the CF of the reactor, but I agee, it would be better to just make the reactor a little larger.
Adding some gas turbines to cover the peaks would optimize the CF for the reactor and steam turbine, but the generators and everything downstream would remain at 0.69. I know you have done the math on this, so I trust you are right about the optimum mix. Maybe we should factor in the cost of the CO2 from gas turbines covering the top 155 MW of the load. The salt tanks may still have an advantage over gas turbines. Heating the salt directly from gas might be more efficient than gas turbines.
Very unlikely. The GKG LP does not currently have a salt storage option but since it already has both a battery storage and H2 storage capability adding one would not be that hard froma programming point of view. But salt storage is both expensive and limited in duration due to the losses. ThorCon did look into this and came away very unimpressed.
How about we avoid the tanks, and just put a gas fired heater in the already existing line carrying molten salt to the steam generators? Surely that will be more efficient than all the hot gas from a jet engine. I would leave some stubs on the lines and space for big tanks, in case the customer still wants that option.
The good about Natrium: 4th gen power plant actually build in US. Continuation of EBR2/PRISM, which sounded like a bag of decent ideas. Nuclear plant part meant to work in high CF, high temps. Chance of being build "cheaply"/on time (private capital, experimental nature?)
The silly- the very idea of "Reliable adjusting to unreliable". No processing of fuel for now(but can be added, incremental success is better than nothing). Potentially glass half full for me. Fingers crossed.
I like the APR-1400. I like the ESBWR. The BWRX-300 is basically a scaled down ESBWR. I think its actually one of the less bad SMR's. Natural circulation makes a lot more sense in a BWR than a PWR, but why scale down? I kinda liked the Prism before TerraPower screwed it up. I can't say more because of the conflict of interest.
I must be missing something, but don't Molten Salt Reactors have fundamental advantages over PWRs - low pressure, high temperature, no meltdown. Avoid the expensive containment building and the massive pressure vessel. Improve efficiency from 30% to 50% with the higher temperature.
Just finished the book. Well written, enjoyable read, makes good case for changes. If LWRs, could be made at "should be costs" again then advantages of Molten Salts are not as pressing. Still should be made IMHO, every credible design should be tried, tested and improved, but real affordable decarbonisation could start now and is not dependent on MSRs succeeding. And that seems to me being a good thing.
ORNL invented the MSR in the 1960's. In the late 60's, they did a detailed costing and thought they could come in at 70% of the LWR should-cost. This has never been proven. But let's say it's true. NRC style regulation has increased the LWR's cost by a factor of at least 5. The 30% difference is insignificant. And we will never see that 30% even if it is true. It just gives the regulator more room to push the cost up.
Once again MacQuigg has taken us down an off-topic rabbit hole. You can't solve a misdirected regulatory system by changing technology.
I lent my copy to my uncle, a possibly influential guy in Alberta. I ought to send a few emails to politicians here in Saskatchewan. We might be a good place for a protopark, too small of a grid for large reactors, not likely to be happy paying full price for SMRs. Buying prototype reactor electricity could be the ticket
Get aligned with Alex - hes had a lot of success and a direct line to Wray
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexepstein/p/how-congress-can-still-enact-meaningful?r=bi6gf&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Your book is great, Jack. It hits the right tone and has a wealth of information people need. However, as you know, the problem is not in logic, thinking and reasoning, it is in the inane world of politicians owned by polls and lobbyists. We must get to the people. I think the $30 was one of my best buys. Hopefully, people will not think that just because it is free, it should be ignored. Please, everyone, get it, read it, and use it as a reference. But spend your time getting to the people, not wasting it on politicians.
Guys/gals!
Did everybody else miss this?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/the-department-of-energy-ends-alara
That's DOE's ruling, not NRC's nor EPA's. It will affect the minireactor projects at INL, and the order to install SMRs at military bases.
Got it. …but still, pretty big deal, no?
Chris,
Probably not. As Bob says it only affects tiny reactors built to DOE order. The DOD was already exempt from NRC regualtion. The DOE also had that exemption for research reactors until 1974, but the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act which created the NRC ended that exemption . My reading of the ERA is that what DOE is attempting violates the ERA and if challenged will get over-turned.
A Trump dominated NRC may well say it's ending ALARA, but the basic regualtor incentives will not change. ALARA is a symptom not a cause. Nuclear cost skyrocketed between 1967 and 1974 before ALARA was officially adopted.
Moreover even the nominal "ending" of ALARA could well be over-turned by a new administration.
we must address the root cause, an autocratic regualtor who knows he will be judged on his ability to prevent a release whatever the preamble of the AEA and pious statements in NEIMA and ADVANCE acts say.
My best hope is with TerraPower's Natrium project. A really good design for long term success, and Bill Gates has enough money to get through the regulatory morass, and at least get one working power plant in Wyoming. Then when our nation has that awakening, hopefully before China dominates the market, they can step up production quickly. My second hope is on ThorCon, although it is hard to tell from their new marketing fluff website, if they are actually making progress.
David,
You do realize that Natrium supports a 500 MWe turbine with a 345 MWe reactor. That means the turbine and all its pumps and feedheater and forced draft towers and all the transformers and switchgear have a maximum capacity factor of 0.69. And to do that derating Natrim pays for two very large molten salt tanks and array of salt to steam heat exchangers that is roughly the same size as the turbine hall. The stated reason is to complement wind/solar. In their world, nuclear's job is to compensate for wind/solar intermittency. Talk about bassackwards thinking.
Even if Natrium were a smart design, the goal is not just any nuclear, it's near should-cost nuclear. We will never see that under the current regualtory system regardless of how inherently cheap a technology is for all the reasons we gone over and over and over again.
Good point. I've always thought the salt tanks were just a clever PR move to mollify the greenies, and when the customer actually came to write the check, they would drop the cost of those tanks.
As for the capacity factor of 0.69, that is inherent in the demand, not a problem with reactor design. The salt tanks should smooth out this fluctuation and improve the CF of the reactor, but I agee, it would be better to just make the reactor a little larger.
"inherent in the demand"??? Rubbish. As a high CAPEX power source, nuclear should operate at a high CF supplemented by low CAPEX sources for peaking.
By trying to turn nuclear into the intermittent backup source, Terrapower is designing to despair.
Adding some gas turbines to cover the peaks would optimize the CF for the reactor and steam turbine, but the generators and everything downstream would remain at 0.69. I know you have done the math on this, so I trust you are right about the optimum mix. Maybe we should factor in the cost of the CO2 from gas turbines covering the top 155 MW of the load. The salt tanks may still have an advantage over gas turbines. Heating the salt directly from gas might be more efficient than gas turbines.
Very unlikely. The GKG LP does not currently have a salt storage option but since it already has both a battery storage and H2 storage capability adding one would not be that hard froma programming point of view. But salt storage is both expensive and limited in duration due to the losses. ThorCon did look into this and came away very unimpressed.
How about we avoid the tanks, and just put a gas fired heater in the already existing line carrying molten salt to the steam generators? Surely that will be more efficient than all the hot gas from a jet engine. I would leave some stubs on the lines and space for big tanks, in case the customer still wants that option.
The good about Natrium: 4th gen power plant actually build in US. Continuation of EBR2/PRISM, which sounded like a bag of decent ideas. Nuclear plant part meant to work in high CF, high temps. Chance of being build "cheaply"/on time (private capital, experimental nature?)
The silly- the very idea of "Reliable adjusting to unreliable". No processing of fuel for now(but can be added, incremental success is better than nothing). Potentially glass half full for me. Fingers crossed.
But it does mean that this design allows the plant to operate as a peaker, which does have value beyond filling in for wind/solar intermittency.
:-( Someday it will be required reading.
I know you do not support Westinghouse AP1000s, the GE BWRX and just about every SMR on the books. Remind me, which nuclear design do you like?
Ken,
I like the APR-1400. I like the ESBWR. The BWRX-300 is basically a scaled down ESBWR. I think its actually one of the less bad SMR's. Natural circulation makes a lot more sense in a BWR than a PWR, but why scale down? I kinda liked the Prism before TerraPower screwed it up. I can't say more because of the conflict of interest.
I must be missing something, but don't Molten Salt Reactors have fundamental advantages over PWRs - low pressure, high temperature, no meltdown. Avoid the expensive containment building and the massive pressure vessel. Improve efficiency from 30% to 50% with the higher temperature.
Just finished the book. Well written, enjoyable read, makes good case for changes. If LWRs, could be made at "should be costs" again then advantages of Molten Salts are not as pressing. Still should be made IMHO, every credible design should be tried, tested and improved, but real affordable decarbonisation could start now and is not dependent on MSRs succeeding. And that seems to me being a good thing.
ORNL invented the MSR in the 1960's. In the late 60's, they did a detailed costing and thought they could come in at 70% of the LWR should-cost. This has never been proven. But let's say it's true. NRC style regulation has increased the LWR's cost by a factor of at least 5. The 30% difference is insignificant. And we will never see that 30% even if it is true. It just gives the regulator more room to push the cost up.
Once again MacQuigg has taken us down an off-topic rabbit hole. You can't solve a misdirected regulatory system by changing technology.