Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 18, 2018 12:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 30, 2016 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
macpacheco wrote:
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=451

BN-800 BELOYARSK-4 achieved Commercial operation on Jan, 13th, 2016, without any fanfare.

What is the definition of Commercial operation, a minimum sustained power production above x % ?

I guess it is producing power for commercial use-via the utilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 30, 2016 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
Used LWR fuel is resulting in resistance to nuclear power at many places. Recycling of used fuel via fast reactors consumes the used fuel and is viable even at a higher upfront cost. Even cost conscious Chinese are taking interest in fast reactors.
Operation of a fast reactor mainly for power is an important step in growth of nuclear power.
The advantage of thorium is that it can possibly be recycled even in thermal reactors. It has not yet been achieved except for the Shipping-port experiment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 01, 2016 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
Looks like it is producing at 35% which is 300MW
https://www.rt.com/news/325593-fast-neu ... r-reactor/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 01, 2016 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
https://www.rt.com/news/325593-fast-neu ... r-reactor/
Quote" Fast neutron reactors use high-energy neutrons to induce fission in fuel rods. This requires the fuel to be enriched to a higher grade than in regular thermal neutron reactors, so the fuel is more expensive." End of quote

Even if this is 20%, the increase of production cost to produce a MW of power is pennies more rather then dollars due to the fact that enriching right now is extremely cheap.
http://www.uxc.com/review/UxCPrices.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 01, 2016 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Wilson wrote:
https://www.rt.com/news/325593-fast-neutron-nuclear-reactor/
Quote" Fast neutron reactors use high-energy neutrons to induce fission in fuel rods. This requires the fuel to be enriched to a higher grade than in regular thermal neutron reactors, so the fuel is more expensive." End of quote

Even if this is 20%, the increase of production cost to produce a MW of power is pennies more rather then dollars due to the fact that enriching right now is extremely cheap.
http://www.uxc.com/review/UxCPrices.aspx


Enrichment is only needed at startup, as the reactor breeds its own fissile. Depleted Uranium is all it takes to sustain operation. And since fast reactors are much less affected by Xe/Kr and other fission products, they can achieve much higher burnups, reducing the need for reprocessing cycles.

Its however important to realize that not only a fast reactor needs much higher enrichment, but also need a lot more fuel (around 5x), so the initial enrichment cost might amount to 10 years worth of enrichment cost for a regular reactor.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2016 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
BN-800 Reactor dimensions

Diameter 12.9 M Area = 3.14*6.452*6.45 = 130 M2
Height 15 M Volume = 15*130=1959 M3
Reactor thermal capacity 2100 th MW
2100/1959 = 1 cubic meter per 1 th MW

IMSR-800 Reactor Dimensions

Volume = 200 M3 (Note: This is a guess from drawings)
Reactor thermal capacity 2100 th MW
2100/200 = 1 cubic meter per 10 th MW

Therefore IMSR can produce ten times more energy per cubic meter of reactor space.

Note though, IMSR reactor core last only 7 years where as a BN reactor could last 50 years. 7 years times 7 reactors = 49 years

So, which system will be cheaper if you need 7 IMSR reactor cores compared to 1 BN reactor over a period of 50 years?


Last edited by Wilson on Feb 03, 2016 8:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2016 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
Wilson wrote:
BN-800 Reactor dimensions

So, which system will be cheaper if you need 7 IMSR reactor cores compared to 1 BN reactor over a period of 50 years?

As long as the change out process is well designed, and recycling costs don't kill then, then a core designed for 7 years is going to be a lot cheaper than a core designed for 50 years.

As an aside, graphite swelling determines core life, and that is determined neutron flux. So in theory you could slow down the IMSR 7 fold, and make it last 50 years. They don't do that.

The other point to note is that (1) cost measurement and (2) regulation need to be changed for a core swap out.
(1) So ThorCon for example claim a very low capital cost per KW. But that excludes the Can, which is between an operating expense and a capital expense. But given the high discount rates applied to nuclear, future capital cost is much better than current capital cost.
(2) Reactors tend to be licensed for 40 years, plus an extension. How long will a ThorCon or IMSR be licensed for? In theory, the plant could last forever, with a new core after 4 or 7 years, new turbines after 30 years, new plumbing after 60 years. Will the regulators regulate every core like they currently regulate a PWR? Or will they just submit to a quick set of acceptance tests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2016 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
IMSR-800 Reactor Dimensions

Volume = 200 M3 (Note: This is a guess from drawings)
Reactor thermal capacity 2100 th MW
2100/200 = 1 cubic meter per 10 th MW


Based on David's ancient presentations, the power density of the IMSR 600 (with its buffer salt taken into account) is a lot less than that (I don't know if I can write it here).

But I saw that they changed the drawing of the reactor recently so I don't know now.

Also the BN800 is not supposed to be the competitive product, the BN1200 is planned to be more compact.

At the end the IMSR 600 (with the buffer salt) will have a higher power density that the BN1200 but not 10 times more, it will be much closer I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2016 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
If Russia can copy the increase in reactor power density for their BN-1200 that they did from BN-600 to BN-800, it would be an outstanding achievement. The difference in volume between BN-600 and BN-800 reactors was only 3% more, where as the power increase is 33% more.
Source of numbers
http://stoppingclimatechange.com/1_4_co ... ulator.htm


Attachments:
BN.JPG
BN.JPG [ 61.12 KiB | Viewed 2366 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 10, 2016 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
Sorry I did not give source of numbers.

http://stoppingclimatechange.com/1_4_co ... ulator.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
macpacheco wrote:
Its however important to realize that not only a fast reactor needs much higher enrichment, but also need a lot more fuel (around 5x), so the initial enrichment cost might amount to 10 years worth of enrichment cost for a regular reactor.
Unless you start off with reactor grade Pu, no?

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2016 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
KitemanSA wrote:
macpacheco wrote:
Its however important to realize that not only a fast reactor needs much higher enrichment, but also need a lot more fuel (around 5x), so the initial enrichment cost might amount to 10 years worth of enrichment cost for a regular reactor.
Unless you start off with reactor grade Pu, no?

Sure, whatever is cheaper... Some countries don't reprocess at all, so its either weapons grade Pu that needs disposing or highly enriched U235.
GE S-PRISM materials argue they need lots of new ESBWR, otherwise a fleet of S-PRISM would eat up all SNF available (since reprocessing is built into the design), which proves my point that fast breeders gob up a lot of Plutonium or HEU for startup.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 15, 2016 5:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
http://fissilematerials.org/
Russia. US and UK have fissile material to burn, at lest as fuel in reactors.All it needs is a decision to act on common sense. So do France and Japan but have burnt their fingers and are hesitant to try again.
Most of used nuclear fuel worldwide has not been processed and the fissile material is lying "safely" but still causing worry.
Technically, there is enough fissile material to move to fast uranium and thorium cycles. The Russians are moving right ahead. The Indians and the Chinese are following.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 16, 2016 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
jagdish wrote:
Technically, there is enough fissile material to move to fast uranium and thorium cycles. The Russians are moving right ahead. The Indians and the Chinese are following.

While they move ahead the USA falls behind.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 20, 2016 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 348
Follow-up, from World Nuclear News, about the BN-800 fast reactor in Russia, which has reached full power. It will enter commercial operation later this year:

Russian fast reactor reaches full power

Although most of us on this forum do prefer molten salt reactors, I do think that this is still welcome news as the actual operation of this reactor is proof that 4th generation reactor technology is advancing, albeit slowly.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group