4 ms·

? The BN-600 and BN-800 are operating commercially today and they are looking to expand the design to the BN-1200. Also, there's little need for breeders toda

by evilos 3y ago

? The BN-600 and BN-800 are operating commercially today and they are looking to expand the design to the BN-1200. Also, there's little need for breeders today because the overall percentage of energy we get from nuclear energy is low. In the future, if this expands is when we would need to deploy breeders. The casks that the waste is put in are rated for 100+ years and its trivial to swap containers.

natmaka 3y ago
The BN-600 had many problems (leaks) and is an obsolete version. The most successful was its successor, the BN-800, but "problems ((...)) indicated a redesign was needed", and construction of it's successor (the BN-1200) was postponed many times (now 2035). Problems related to cost and process/security seem quite difficult to solve... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor Instead of deploying BNs Russians pause them and are back to the drawing board. The sole officially actively pursued (since 2021) pertinent design, BREST-OD-300 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) ), is a very different architecture (lead, not sodium, is the coolant) and will only (when completed, if ever) be a demonstrator (low power: 300MWe). Hence: the is no satisfying industrial breeder reactor. > there's little need for breeders today The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum and this is sound from a strategic viewpoint (dependency towards uranium exporters). However after huge R&D efforts in many nations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an... )... there is no adequate reactor.
- evilos 3y ago
  > The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum Breeders were being researched back then because it was thought that Uranium was much more scarce than it actually is. Because that is not the case, there was little reason to pursue the more complicated and expensive breeder tech. We will eventually move in that direction yes but it's certainly not strictly necessary today. PWR/BWR is plenty good enough for the next 60 years. Plus commercially running PHWR reactors like CANDU can make use of natural Uranium and even Thorium.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    No, because known accessible reserves are sufficient for at most 2 hundred years with the current fleet of reactors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium ) , which produces approx 4.3% of the (worldwide) primary energy, and therefore at most 2% of the final energy. In other words replacing fossil fuels with nuclear implies at the very least 10x the existing fleet, and known uranium reserves will then provide for 200/10 years, that is to say approx 20 years: investors will not be thrilled by this perspective! Betting on new (now unknown) reserves isn't sound because an uranium bubble which peaked in 2007 triggered massive surveying... producing meager (15%) results. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007 AFAIK CANDU never industrially burnt thorium, please source (yes, it is in theory possible). CANDU is a dead-end, there is absolutely no project nor R&D towards it. Even Canada, which established and adopted it, now only tries to build non-CANDU reactors. Where is the company or even startup pushing CANDU, I don't know of any? 5 nations are CANDU users, not a single one builds more of it. It is not bad at all, but there are many criteria and it simply, right now, doesn't check the right cases.
    - evilos 3y ago
      I must say, your sole sourcing via wikipedia is not confidence inspiring. At least link the sources directly from the footnotes. We're not going to 100% nuclear energy, at least not in the foreseeable future so the concerns of Uranium supplies is not material. We haven't looked very hard for it because you don't need much. Plus there's literally an inexhaustible supply in the Ocean. Yes, it would be an order of magnitude more expensive than current in-situ mining. But that's still fine because fuel costs are a tiny portion of O&M costs of NPPs. Your sources on the the "meager 15% increase" is a gross mischaracterization of the source which says: "The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration." I doubt we looked very hard due to the other facts linked in your sources saying that most plants already had long terms contracts and therefore did not need to go looking for new fuel sources. > AFAIK CANDU never industrially burnt thorium, please source (yes, it is in theory possible). This is true, the fuel characterization is happening right now at Idaho National Labs. I'm waiting for updates on this front. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-for-testing-of-innovative-fuel https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-... > CANDU is a dead-end, there is absolutely no project nor R&D towards it. This is not true. India is building 3 or 4 as we speak. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=IN https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... Canada has refurb projects going right now and the associated supply chains that would make new orders for CANDU very logical. There is very recent talks of this right now thanks in part to C4NE's release of the "The Case for CANDU" report which has caused a stir.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Are the BNs even licensable in the west? Fast reactors have much larger concentrations of fissionable material in their cores (due to the lower fission cross section of fast neutrons vs. thermal neutrons.) Because they are critical on fast neutrons, presence of a moderator is not necessary for criticality. For these reasons, rearrangement of materials in a serious accident always has the possibility of reaching a prompt fast supercritical arrangement -- that is, a true nuclear bomb. I have serious doubts that any of the BN reactors can make a safety case that would allow licensing in the west. One can conceive of fast reactors that would be licensable (for example, molten chloride salt reactors, where the fuel is distributed uniformly in the salt) but these are just conceptual at this point.

by evilos 3y ago

natmaka 3y ago

The BN-600 had many problems (leaks) and is an obsolete version. The most successful was its successor, the BN-800, but "problems ((...)) indicated a redesign was needed", and construction of it's successor (the BN-1200) was postponed many times (now 2035). Problems related to cost and process/security seem quite difficult to solve... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor Instead of deploying BNs Russians pause them and are back to the drawing board. The sole officially actively pursued (since 2021) pertinent design, BREST-OD-300 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) ), is a very different architecture (lead, not sodium, is the coolant) and will only (when completed, if ever) be a demonstrator (low power: 300MWe). Hence: the is no satisfying industrial breeder reactor. > there's little need for breeders today The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum and this is sound from a strategic viewpoint (dependency towards uranium exporters). However after huge R&D efforts in many nations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an... )... there is no adequate reactor.

evilos 3y ago
> The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum Breeders were being researched back then because it was thought that Uranium was much more scarce than it actually is. Because that is not the case, there was little reason to pursue the more complicated and expensive breeder tech. We will eventually move in that direction yes but it's certainly not strictly necessary today. PWR/BWR is plenty good enough for the next 60 years. Plus commercially running PHWR reactors like CANDU can make use of natural Uranium and even Thorium.
- natmaka 3y ago
  No, because known accessible reserves are sufficient for at most 2 hundred years with the current fleet of reactors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium ) , which produces approx 4.3% of the (worldwide) primary energy, and therefore at most 2% of the final energy. In other words replacing fossil fuels with nuclear implies at the very least 10x the existing fleet, and known uranium reserves will then provide for 200/10 years, that is to say approx 20 years: investors will not be thrilled by this perspective! Betting on new (now unknown) reserves isn't sound because an uranium bubble which peaked in 2007 triggered massive surveying... producing meager (15%) results. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007 AFAIK CANDU never industrially burnt thorium, please source (yes, it is in theory possible). CANDU is a dead-end, there is absolutely no project nor R&D towards it. Even Canada, which established and adopted it, now only tries to build non-CANDU reactors. Where is the company or even startup pushing CANDU, I don't know of any? 5 nations are CANDU users, not a single one builds more of it. It is not bad at all, but there are many criteria and it simply, right now, doesn't check the right cases.
  - evilos 3y ago
    I must say, your sole sourcing via wikipedia is not confidence inspiring. At least link the sources directly from the footnotes. We're not going to 100% nuclear energy, at least not in the foreseeable future so the concerns of Uranium supplies is not material. We haven't looked very hard for it because you don't need much. Plus there's literally an inexhaustible supply in the Ocean. Yes, it would be an order of magnitude more expensive than current in-situ mining. But that's still fine because fuel costs are a tiny portion of O&M costs of NPPs. Your sources on the the "meager 15% increase" is a gross mischaracterization of the source which says: "The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration." I doubt we looked very hard due to the other facts linked in your sources saying that most plants already had long terms contracts and therefore did not need to go looking for new fuel sources. > AFAIK CANDU never industrially burnt thorium, please source (yes, it is in theory possible). This is true, the fuel characterization is happening right now at Idaho National Labs. I'm waiting for updates on this front. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-for-testing-of-innovative-fuel https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-... > CANDU is a dead-end, there is absolutely no project nor R&D towards it. This is not true. India is building 3 or 4 as we speak. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=IN https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... Canada has refurb projects going right now and the associated supply chains that would make new orders for CANDU very logical. There is very recent talks of this right now thanks in part to C4NE's release of the "The Case for CANDU" report which has caused a stir.
pfdietz 3y ago
Are the BNs even licensable in the west? Fast reactors have much larger concentrations of fissionable material in their cores (due to the lower fission cross section of fast neutrons vs. thermal neutrons.) Because they are critical on fast neutrons, presence of a moderator is not necessary for criticality. For these reasons, rearrangement of materials in a serious accident always has the possibility of reaching a prompt fast supercritical arrangement -- that is, a true nuclear bomb. I have serious doubts that any of the BN reactors can make a safety case that would allow licensing in the west. One can conceive of fast reactors that would be licensable (for example, molten chloride salt reactors, where the fuel is distributed uniformly in the salt) but these are just conceptual at this point.