Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 24, 2018 11:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 09, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
The initiators of Candu are themselves considering MSR for reasons of economy. Terrestrial are ahead of the MSR pack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 09, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
jagdish wrote:
The initiators of Candu are themselves considering MSR for reasons of economy. Terrestrial are ahead of the MSR pack.


However it will be ten years before Terrestrial are in any position to start any serious work on a commercial unit design.
The CANMOX proposal means an order for the first four units could proceed (relatively) rapidly - and repeat units could be ordered whilst a better multiple-unit Super-Darlington design was put together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3785
Location: Alabama
China's long game to dominate nuclear power relies on the UK

Quote:
The UK, where as many as six new nuclear power stations could be built over the next two decades, is an obvious export target for Chinese nuclear. If state-owned China General Nuclear Power (GNP) – the main player in China’s nuclear industry – buys a 49% stake in the UK’s existing nuclear plants, as it was recently reported to be considering, that would mark a significant expansion of China’s role in the UK nuclear sector. But the depth of CGN’s existing involvement in UK nuclear may surprise some. The most high-profile project is the £20bn Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset, which is being built by EDF Energy with a French reactor design but was only made possible by CGN UK’s 33.5% stake to underwrite its daunting finances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 07, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
I personally do not mind if there are new reactors being built by the British, French or Chinese in the UK. Large companies today are effectively stateless and a brand new reactor of any design is going to be more powerful and entire generations safer than anything running in the UK today.

We have a huge plutonium stockpile sat waiting as well, get on and burn that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 07, 2018 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
modifiedgenes wrote:
I personally do not mind if there are new reactors being built by the British, French or Chinese in the UK. Large companies today are effectively stateless

Thats funny.
Chinese Reactors, now with extra sleeper agents.
modifiedgenes wrote:
and a brand new reactor of any design is going to be more powerful and entire generations safer than anything running in the UK today.

That is extremely difficult, given that most estimates show that AGRs and the like have a much greater degree of inherent safety.

One of the reasons the EPR is such a debacle is because its got a tonne of additional safety systems in a desperate attempt to match the AGR.
modifiedgenes wrote:
We have a huge plutonium stockpile sat waiting as well, get on and burn that.


The plutonium stockpile costs virtually nothing to store, and there is no shortage of uranium at the present time - there is no real reason to burn it yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 08, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
I do not see what the point of having hundreds of tonnes of plutonium sat around are; it is a security risk, and is costing me, the tax payer, money to keep secure. Burn it.

I do not see what the problem is with having foreign companies building or operating anything in the UK. Sleeper agents? Come on, this is not a Tom Clancy novel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 08, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3785
Location: Alabama
modifiedgenes wrote:
Come on, this is not a Tom Clancy novel.


I read all the Tom Clancy novels when I was younger.

Truth has turned out to be far stranger than fiction, even Tom Clancy fiction.

I'm not sure I'd disbelieve any possibility anymore...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 08, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
modifiedgenes wrote:
I do not see what the point of having hundreds of tonnes of plutonium sat around are; it is a security risk, and is costing me, the tax payer, money to keep secure. Burn it.

Burning the plutonium stockpile would be burning it on a pyre of banknotes.
The costs associated with doing anything to it at all are absolutely enormous.

Its cheaper to keep it where it is indefinitely.

modifiedgenes wrote:
I do not see what the problem is with having foreign companies building or operating anything in the UK. Sleeper agents? Come on, this is not a Tom Clancy novel.

All it takes is a small handful of people who are arranged to be the only people in the control room in the night shift and they can damage the plant rather thoroughly when instructed to by their contacts back home.

Or simply help collapse the grid on purpose in a deniable manner by tripping the plant at the worst possible moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 09, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
E Ireland wrote:
modifiedgenes wrote:
I do not see what the point of having hundreds of tonnes of plutonium sat around are; it is a security risk, and is costing me, the tax payer, money to keep secure. Burn it.

Burning the plutonium stockpile would be burning it on a pyre of banknotes.
The costs associated with doing anything to it at all are absolutely enormous.

Its cheaper to keep it where it is indefinitely.


Not using an asset is always a waste.
RG plutonium used as fissile feed with thorium runs for longer and produces more energy and fissile U233. Molten salt reactors could be better in the long run but solid fuel, light or heavy water moderated reactors could also use such fuel. Used fuel is a better source of fissile fuel than most ores.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 16, 2018 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
I refuse to believe that keeping a barn-load of reactor grade plutonium in storage indefinitely, is really a cheaper option than making MOX fuel out of it and using it in our own reactor fleet or offering it to France.

Knowing how the UK loves regulating virtually everything, the cost of keeping so much as a ream of reactor-grade paper in storage indefinitely is only going to escalate over time.

The UK taxpayer already has a 100 year duration millstone to carry around in the form of Sellafield, every effort must be made to get a long term and pragmatic system in place for the nuclear industry here and now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 17, 2018 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
modifiedgenes wrote:
I refuse to believe that keeping a barn-load of reactor grade plutonium in storage indefinitely, is really a cheaper option than making MOX fuel out of it and using it in our own reactor fleet or offering it to France.


The French don't want it - their reprocessing plant is only running at partial load to ensure that no plutonium builds up, they would have to shutter the plant entirely if they were to take our plutonium as well.
They would demand some enormous amount of money to do it.

The estimated cost of securing the stockpile is approximately £73m/yr over the next century or so.

The cost of CANDU Mox plant is estimated at £900m and the cost of a MELOX-style PWR capable MOX plant will be much greater than that (on order of £3-4bn if the US example is instructive).
And the plutonium store will have to be secured during the operational life of the plant as well - so it would be decades or centuries before we see any saving at all. Especially considering that the cost of running the plant will be enough to render the fuel uneconomic compared to UOx and will need further subsidies.

We will also forgo any income from 241Am production in the future (spaceflight and other similar requirements)
And we will have burned away our stock of fissiles at a time that fissiles are cheap.

modifiedgenes wrote:
Knowing how the UK loves regulating virtually everything, the cost of keeping so much as a ream of reactor-grade paper in storage indefinitely is only going to escalate over time.

And the ONR is going to let a plutonium fabrication system go through without it being the most overdesigned plant in the history of man?
The ONR's effective policy is to strangle the industry.
modifiedgenes wrote:
The UK taxpayer already has a 100 year duration millstone to carry around in the form of Sellafield, every effort must be made to get a long term and pragmatic system in place for the nuclear industry here and now.

Accept that the taxpayer will be on the hook and arrange the system so the taxpayer gets the benefits?
(ie. nationalise the damn thing and be done with it)
The existing setup has succeeded in getting an enormous 60 year millstone placed around the neck of the taxpayer for Hinkley Point, and that is about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 17, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
There would be genuine buyers of nuclear fuel for RG plutonium stocks. China or India for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group