Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Nov 22, 2017 5:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: May 05, 2008 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 02, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Cleveland, OH
The information I posted is based on open source documents. I have no knowledge of any "classified site" at the INL for prototyping reactors. It is true that the INL has numerous computer codes for testing various aspects of reactor operations. See INL's web pages on instrumentation, intelligent systems and controls link here.

_________________
Dan Yurman
Neutrron Bytes
http://neutronbytes.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DOE seeks NGNP input
PostPosted: May 12, 2008 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 5:31 pm
Posts: 57
Quote:
DoE Funding Opportunity - 2008 Advanced Fuel Cycle Research and Development


Estimated Total Funding Available: $15,000,000
Expected Number of Awards: 30
Anticipated Award Size: 2000000
Award Ceiling: $2,000,000


Is there an extra zero in there somewhere? 30 awards at $2M each is $60M??? I may be missing something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DOE seeks NGNP input
PostPosted: May 12, 2008 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 5:31 pm
Posts: 57
jaro wrote:
Glad you see it the same way, honziku.

Realistically, the only people who could compete for a DoE grant would be those who can do reasonably good work with neutron transport & fuel depletion/conversion computer codes.
I think there are fewer than a handful on this forum, and only one or two who might possibly want to actually do something about it.

So its quite a long shot -- even when there's money available....

I suggest someone go for this and I particularly like the Advanced Transmutation Systems subject area. You get away from directly competing with DoE's favorite programs. Also, going for a smaller funding target (say $300,000) often gets you a better chance at being selected. The top tier amount is going to be scrutinized much harder and you can expect 'prejudice' against anything that comes out of this forum's technology base. Is anyone thinking of submitting to this under any area or any level of funding? I agree code work is what they like and expect but perhaps some other chemistry research might be attractive as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DOE seeks NGNP input
PostPosted: Jul 01, 2008 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2248
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
johan wrote:
VHTR could be great for developing nations, passivly safe, very proliferation resistant and mature enough to be built very soon. Way better than LWR's.


Agreed, but nigh unto impossible to reprocess. LFTRs have all the same advantages AND they are very fuel efficient and easy to reprocess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 17, 2008 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1957
Location: Montreal
Proposal For Next Generation Nuclear Plant Sent To US Congress
16 Aug 2008 (NucNet)
Quote:
Analytical tools, research and development activities, and the estimated resources necessary to complete an NRC licensing review by 2017, and for the DOE to build and begin operating the demonstration plant by 2021, are also explained in the report.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 18, 2008 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 11, 2008 4:08 pm
Posts: 13
Interesting

So the NRC is looking to complete a pilot plant in the next 13 years???

It would seem that they are not concerned with global warming and having the next generation of nuclear reactors be the answer to our power needs.

_________________
I took the Landmark Forum in July 2005 and it was the turning point in my life.

http://www.landmarkeducation.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 18, 2008 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1957
Location: Montreal
georgefc3 wrote:
It would seem that they are not concerned with global warming and having the next generation of nuclear reactors be the answer to our power needs.

....so what's faster -- glacial retreat or NRC's licensing review ? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 18, 2008 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2007 3:41 pm
Posts: 77
Seems like the hope for (fast) advancement in nuclear tech is in asia. Everything is just so damn slow in the west! Precautionary principle gone way way way way way to far. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 18, 2008 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jun 24, 2007 10:43 am
Posts: 253
Location: Dallas, TX
georgefc3, johan, we are living at the end of a "business as usual" era. That attitude will not be with us for much longer. Fear wakes people up, and helps them focus on the task at hand. The task at hand is saving out own skin!

Evidence that we and our leaders are still sleep walking can be found in "The sacrifice-free election strategy", By Walter Shapiro, in today's Salon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
The prototypes are or used to be at the NRF campus of the INL. A submarine, aircraft carrier, and the nautilus prototype. These were kept going for years to train nuclear navy personnel. Now that training is done on simulators and sea trials. They are in different stages of D&D. You also have EBR I which has on display the APN aircraft engines.

The great accomplishments, in reactor building at The Idaho National Laboratory, were done with less DOE not more. Splittng DOE will only cause it to grow. I was talking with a retired shift supervisor the other night. ETR was built in 1 year. EBR I was built by Arco potato farmers(noticed I said built not designed). As long as you got your key people in place it can be done with the people there. During the last contract the construction people were put with the Idaho Completion project not the lab side of the INL. This was because they are trying to tear down facilities. These same people could also build reactors. However, giving that the steam reformer at INTEC is 180 million over budget you may have a point that the de-constructors should not be building facilities.

Back in the EG&G days they had a cost plus contract. EG&G never built reactors but directed MK to build them. But the result was that the contractor was always looking for work. In my opinion you did not need as much over-site.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 02, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Cleveland, OH
These are excellent comments. However, I don't see a comparison between IWTU (steam reformer) construction and getting the NGNP organization split out from the current DOE-Idaho management structure.

One of the problems that plagued Bechtel during its contract (1999-2004) was that 80% of the fee was associated with cleanup and 20% of the fee was for R&D. As a result R&D withered at the INL with virtually no attention paid to it by the senior leadership team. Bechtel did exactly what the DOE contract incentives told them to do.

A similar problem exists now with DOE-Idaho. It has a $2.9 billion fixed price contract on the cleanup side and a five year M&O contract on the lab side. With all due respect to the DOE folks, they can't really do justice to a third major contract, e.g. $2 billion for NGNP, with the current setup. That's why I proposed the split.

Another issue is that the South Africans would very much like to develop some of the PBMR technologies, or even build a prototype, at Idaho. I don't have a sense of whether the INL is interested although the PBMR folks seem to think they have a shot at it.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/pbmr ... idaho.html

_________________
Dan Yurman
Neutrron Bytes
http://neutronbytes.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
13 years?


I was talking with an old shift supervisor the other night. He talked about ETR and MTR at he Idaho National Lab. Engineer test reactor was built in 1 year. This is a huge concrete building with two level underground.

They had an old containment building at the North end of the INL. It had a rail road door in it. it was designed to bring in a test reactor assembly, perform tests then drag it out and bring in another one. They have since torn this down along with the hot shop that you could have used to examine things. The concept is still sound. build a containment facility now. put in what ever prototype you come up with later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 02, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Cleveland, OH
The timeframe of 13 years is not correct. The NGNP project is expected to begin construction in 2016 and to be operational by 2021 according to current estimates.

That said INL's long range vision for NGNP is coming up short of cash.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/04/idah ... -ngnp.html

The NRC licensing strategy for NGNP was mandated by the Energy Act of 2005, but small reactors generally have the regulatory agency's attention. The document itself isn't so much of a strategy as it is a data dump or list, without much priority, of things the agency thinks it has to do, e.g., get smart on reacgtor technologies besides LWR, and some options for a regulatory approach to the plant.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/08/ngnp ... ategy.html

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/07/smal ... ntion.html

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/07/smal ... share.html

The Idaho lab recently rolled out a new web page on NGNP which is worth checking out.
http://www.nextgenerationnuclearplant.com/

Disclaimer - I have no contractual nor employment relationship with the INL nor its prime contractor Battelle Energy Alliance. The blog 'Idaho Samizdat' is an independent voice on nuclear energy.

_________________
Dan Yurman
Neutrron Bytes
http://neutronbytes.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1957
Location: Montreal
djysrv wrote:
The timeframe of 13 years is not correct. The NGNP project is expected to begin construction in 2016 and to be operational by 2021 according to current estimates.

2008 + 13 = 2021

....what's the problem ?

Prior to the 2016 start of construction, and to 2017, NRC is to complete a licensing review.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2008 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 02, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Cleveland, OH
Well I think the problem is that the implication is that construction wouldn't start for 13 years. From a competitive point of view, the U.S. should have planned on having the plant operational by 2016, not just breaking ground.

By the time the U.S. gets its act together, the South Africans and the Chinese will be selling 'pebble bed' technology-based reactors for export and the NGNP will become nothing more than an expensive R&D sandbox in Idaho. It will be great for Ph.D candidates and the occasional graduate student, but it won't help U.S. manufacturers with market share in the nuclear industry.

It appears the U.S. has taken the position, de facto, of letting others do innovative technology development. It is a classic retreat from technological leadership in the make v. buy equation.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/12/pbmr ... n-new.html

Of course, light water reactors have a long shelf life because the technology is mature and well-understood by utilities in terms of operating them.

Even if the pebble bed reactor time frame was sped up, there still would be delays in technology adoption because of the need to prove the viability and reliability plants in revenue service. Can you say Ft. St. Vrain three times fast?

_________________
Dan Yurman
Neutrron Bytes
http://neutronbytes.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

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