Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 24, 2018 10:14 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: May 15, 2016 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
Terrestrial Energy in Yellowknife....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/go- ... -1.3581509

Quote:
'Go home!' N.W.T. residents tell Ontario nuclear power advocate
Presentation met with hostile responses Thursday night in Yellowknife
By Mitch Wiles, CBC News Posted: May 13, 2016 1:02 PM CT Last Updated: May 13, 2016 3:12 PM CT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 18, 2016 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
Very interesting, jaro.

Robin Rickman of Terrestrial Energy wrote:
Rickam told the crowd Terrestrial has no interest in making Yellowknife its first testing ground. That location will probably be an existing nuclear power plant in Ontario.

Rickman said the company plans to build its first Molten Salt Reactor sometime in the 2020s.


The 2020s?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 19, 2016 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
Ya... interesting...
"That location will probably be an existing nuclear power plant in Ontario" might have been a bit more specific, because none of the OPG sites are candidates (OPG has enough on its hands running its own plants, or leasing its existing plants to operator Bruce Power).
So that leaves Chalk River's CNL (Canadian Nuclear Laboratories).
I hope TE have deep pockets, because CNL won't let them build on their site for free.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 19, 2016 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
jaro, What incentive is there to overcome the inertia on an advanced nuclear reactor design that out-performs existing machines?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 19, 2016 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
Tim Meyer wrote:
jaro, What incentive is there to overcome the inertia on an advanced nuclear reactor design that out-performs existing machines?

My understanding was that the incentive for TE was business in remote places like Yellowknife.
Presumably, that's why they went there to give a presentation.
Not aware of other significant incentives, as far as business interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2016 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
Jaro, what is your position?

Jeff Merrifield has been mentioned very few times on this forum. Merrifield was on BOTH panels for the s.2795 and H.R.4979 hearings last April. At the very end of the Senate hearing, he managed to squeeze in a mentioned of "molten salts." (I held my breath they'd avoid mention of specific fuel cycle and they did.)

Re: Terrestrial Energy engages with CNSC
jaro, Feb 25, 2016 10:23 am wrote:
Terrestrial Energy Announces its Engagement with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Quote:
The Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield, former Commissioner at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said:

"Attentive industry observers will appreciate the significance of Terrestrial Energy's announcement - this is the first Molten Salt Reactor system to begin regulatory engagement with a western nuclear regulatory authority."

Former NRC Commissioner (1998-2007), Jeff Merrifield, Chairman, Nuclear Infrastructure Council—Advanced Reactor Task Force, in this letter:
April 29, 2016 wrote:
Dear Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush:

The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council is writing to commend the Committee’s bipartisan support for advanced nuclear energy reactor innovation and development as manifested by H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016.

As the leading American business consortium advocate for new nuclear energy and the promotion of the U.S. supply chain globally, we believe that trailblazing the advance of nuclear energy technology including Gen 3+, Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light Water Reactors, Advanced Reactors and Fusion Reactors is one of the key imperatives for U.S. market competitiveness and is vital to maintaining the U.S. lead in technology innovation, safety enhancements, energy security and carbon reduction.

To this end, we welcome the focus of H.R. 4979 on supporting the continued use of the current fleet of nuclear reactors and enabling the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies by enhancing accountability in the NRC’s budget and fee programs as well as ensuring that the Commission develops a modern, technology neutral framework that allows for the phased and expedited licensing of advanced reactor technologies. This legislation follows a number of the key recommendations that were included in the Advanced Reactor White Paper that NIC issued on February 22, 2016.

We applaud the Committee for quickly moving forward on this legislation and we stand ready to provide our assistance in support of its timely passage.

Please note that while these views represent the consensus of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, they do not necessarily represent the views of individual member companies.

Flibe Energy is a member of NIC. Signing The Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016 into law would help Flibe Energy develop and commercially deploy its design specifically aimed at the pure thorium fuel cycle, as well as MSR designs for capabilities not possible with solid-fueled designs, as far as I can tell.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2016 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
Tim, the CNSC has stated clearly that, if the technical case is good, they will award you a license, but they also cautioned that they "don't do the social license" for any sort of nuclear activities sited at a particular location.

In other words, TE might find themselves in a situation where they have a license from the CNSC, but no place to build their plants.

This wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened:
Bruce Power got a CNSC license for shipping old steam generators to a recycling specialist in Sweden, but communities along the shipping route opposed it (thanks to antinuke scaremongering), and the project was killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2016 7:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 354
jaro wrote:
Tim, the CNSC has stated clearly that, if the technical case is good, they will award you a license, but they also cautioned that they "don't do the social license" for any sort of nuclear activities sited at a particular location.

In other words, TE might find themselves in a situation where they have a license from the CNSC, but no place to build their plants.

This wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened:
Bruce Power got a CNSC license for shipping old steam generators to a recycling specialist in Sweden, but communities along the shipping route opposed it (thanks to antinuke scaremongering), and the project was killed.


Yes, that would leave CNL's Chalk River location as the most suitable location for a smallish prototype of Terrestrial Energy's IMSR, which you mentioned before, as it already has nuclear facilities and also skilled staff. A greenfield location would probably invite a lot of extra anti-nuke opposition and introduce siting problems. It is to be hoped that Terrestrial Energy can raise the money for building a prototype.

Or is there any chance that the Canadian government (federal or provincial) would chip in ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2016 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
camiel, jaro:

If Chalk River is suitable, then TE ought build there, yes? I'll search this forum for the "anti-nuclear scaremongering" topic. Or maybe you could point me to the link.

I guess your topic here, Jaro, is that subject? And not having the experience, perhaps you and others can explain how it is that the steam generator equipment is a legitimate radioactivity concern. If the answer is "it is not," then there's a lot of work to do.

Also, please help me with my naivete. Molten salt designs cannot have a "meltdown" that is the very threat of most of the operating nuclear reactors everywhere. That one fact makes the MSR superior to the installed LWR industry. My brother, Bill, told me my educational efforts are going to be steep because the only time people care about the energy issue is when the power goes out.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group