Coming back yet again to nuclear power, I’ve been arguing for a while that nuclear power can only work (if at all) on the basis of a single standardised design, and that the only plausible candidate for this is the Westinghouse AP1000. One response from nuclear enthusiasts has been to point to possible future advances beyond the Gen III+ approach embodied by the AP1000 (and less promising competitors like EPR). The two most popular have been Small Modular Reactors and Generation IV (fast) reactors. Recent news suggests that both of these options are now dead.
The news on the Small Modular Reactor is that Babcock and Wilcox, the first firm to be selected by the US Department of Energy to develop a prototype, has effectively mothballed the project, sacking the CEO of its SMR subsidiary and drastically scaling back staff. Westinghouse already abandoned its efforts. There is still one firm left pursuing the idea, and trying (so far unsuccessfully) to attract investors, but there’s no reason to expect success any time soon.
As regards Generation IV, the technology road map issued by the Gen IV International Forum in 2002 has just been updated. All the timelines have been pushed out, mostly by 10 years or more. That is, Gen IV is no closer now than it was when the GenIV initiative started. In particular, there’s no chance of work starting on even a prototype before about 2020, which puts commercial availability well past 2035. Allowing for construction time, there’s no prospect of electricity generation on a significant scale before 2050, by which time we will need to have completely decarbonized the economy.
John Quiggin 
I’m sceptical about that “only one contender” idea for a number of reasons, but even if it were true it strikes me that the CANDU family of reactors is not only proven but is also very nearly available off the peg. That is, those reactors do take work but it is work of a straightforward sort, if only the expertise doesn’t have to redeveloped independently but can be bought in.
Gee, the US is hardly the only party trying to build SMRs – that they’ve put it aside doesn’t mean others will. And the attraction of the SMR approach is that the hard bit is design and development – construction is then quick and relatively cheap. That’s the opposite of using humungous older designs like AP1000 or CANDU.
I think alternative nuclear approaches – especially liquid thorium – are promising enough that governments should be spending serious money developing them. Have a read of this Economist article (and the Economist has long been sceptical of the economics of nuclear power).
I do agree that the timeframes for these are always longer than boosters think so we shouldn’t wait till then before trying to do something about our carbon emissions. But it could even turn out that natural gas, wind and solar end up as stopgap solutions until cheaper nuclear arrives – the opposite sequence to that proposed by some.
“the US is hardly the only party trying to build SMRs”
What others do you have in mind?
@derrida derider
More importantly, your third para is critical. I’m not much interested in predicting post-2050 energy systems: for all I know, nuclear fusion could be working sometime this century, and solving all our problems. It may be short-termist of me, but I’m mainly concerned about saving the planet over the next 30 years or so.
All those bright nuclear scientists would be well advised to focus their minds on energy storage technologies instead. Nail that and we don’t even need these coming-soon reactors.
From a peer-reviewed study in Science of the Total Environment, “The End of Cheap Uranium” – Micheal Dittmar.
“ABSTRACT
Historic data from many countries demonstrate that on average no more than 50–70% of the uranium in a deposit could be mined. An analysis of more recent data from Canada and Australia leads to a mining model with an average deposit extraction lifetime of 10 ± 2 years. This simple model provides an accurate description of the extractable amount of uranium for the recent mining operations.
Using this model for all larger existing and planned uranium mines up to 2030, a global uranium mining peak of at most 58 ± 4 ktons around the year 2015 is obtained. Thereafter we predict that uranium mine production will decline to at most 54 ± 5 ktons by 2025 and, with the decline steepening, to at most 41 ± 5 ktons around 2030. This amount will not be sufficient to fuel the existing and planned nuclear power plants during the next 10–20 years. In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order.
If such a slow global phase-out is not voluntarily effected, the end of the present cheap uranium supply situation will be unavoidable. The result will be that some countries will simply be unable to afford sufficient uranium fuel at that point, which implies involuntary and perhaps chaotic nuclear phase-outs in those countries involving brownouts, blackouts, and worse.”
This report backs up my contention that Peak Uranium and thus a uranium fuel shortage is also an issue that nuclear fission generation faces imminently. So not only are there no plausible contender generators for a nuclear renaissance there is also no plausible fuel supply.
A further point to note is that;
“After a decade of falling mine production to 1993, output of uranium has generally risen since then and now meets 86% of demand for power generation.” – World Nuclear Association.
IIRC, the remaining 14% is currently met from stockpiles and uranium “pits” from decomissioned nuclear weapons.
To sum up again, we can’t build enough current-design reactors in time to save the world from over-use of fossil fuels and even if we could there would not be enough fissile material to run them. That’s a comprehensive one-two knockout.
@David Allen Exactly.
In terms of the current crop of reactors the AP1000 does seem the most promising given the standardised design. No argument from me on that point.
In terms of the future the three areas that I tend to watch are:-
TerraPower – but only because they have Bill Gates and his money involved.
Flibe Energy – because they are pursuing LFTR and seem to have the right brains on board.
China – because they seem particularly serious about committing research resources.
I don’t suppose people who should care will, but I will point out that none of the Small Modular Reactors designs that were semi-seriously proposed had any features that would actually lower the cost of nuclear power and were clearly recognized as being more expensive per kilowatt to build. The idea was that they would fit a very small niche of medium scale baseload power needs in grids that were willing to subsidise nuclear power. This niche doesn’t really exist and so they won’t exist. And I’ll point out that the Small Modular Reactors that were not fantasies and actually on the drawing board were not small but hundred(s) of megawatts. They weren’t going to be cheaper to build per kilowatt, for decades nuclear has been going the other way and getting bigger to try to get costs per kilowatt down, but it was hoped that the SMRs could credibly reduce finance costs by reducing construction time, reducing delays and costly mistakes on site by doing more of the work in a factory, and hopefully convince financiers they could avoid Olkiluoto scale mega-disasters. (Actually, since billions of euros have been blow, Olkiluoto should be a multi-giga-disaster.)
@TerjeP
Have you read nothing before your post? The facts are now very clear. Nuclear power cannot be deployed in time to prevent global warming. Even if it could be, uranium reserves are inadequate. Reserves aren’t even adequate to power the current reactors to 2030.
This kind of information supports my suspicion that there are two choices about nuclear power:
1. use existing, (comparatively) cheap current designs, accept their flaws and build policy around managing the (manageable) consequences of accidents, probably relying on extending the lifespan of existing plants for the purpose of CO2 reduction. The obvious example is bringing Japanese plants back online as baseload power sources while they roll out renewables (but I suspect the reason the Japanese plants remain offline even though the govt is pro-nuclear is that they have found serious safety risks in the current crop of plants)
2. Deploy some more modern designs in a few countries with specific pro-nuclear conditions, making them a limited temporary solution to AGW in some countries. The obvious example is China, which has huge pollution issues that nuclear could solve.
The best use of nuclear seems to me to be maintaining existing plants in Japan, Russia, France and Germany as baseload power over the next 10-30 years to support the phasing out of gas and introduction of reliable renewables. The decision to close these plants in Germany and suspend them in Japan is climate madness.
Ok, if they MUST build the b—y things, at least how about away from faultlines and big cities, and some where the water table wont be polluted by any stuff-ups.
Don’t worry, Paul. No one must build nuclear reactors. It makes a lot more sense to take the money that a nuclear reactor would cost to build and then spend it on improving efficiency and renewable energy, as this will cut a great deal more emissions than nuclear power will. And to a considerable extent this is what is being done. France will replace aging nuclear plants with renewables, the Czech Republic has abandonned plans to build new reactors due to renewables pushing down the cost of electricity, and China is currently generating more electricity from wind turbines than nuclear and this year alone will install 14 gigawatts of solar PV, much of it point of use. It’s not all sunny news, or windy news for that matter, but there’s certainly no benefit to building nukes compared to other options. It would be a waste of resources. And given that plenty of existing generating capacity already exists, and the high capital/low fuel cost nature of nuclear power, it has no cost effective future role in filling in for lulls in renewable production. Or “keeping the lights on” as Hermit would say.
Ikonoclast – The uranium that is in limited supply is U235. IFR – uses U238. LFTR is fuelled by thorium not U235.
The thorium fuel cycle if commercialised would not suffer fuel constraints. The amount of thorium present in surface mining coal waste is enormous and would provide all the power human society needs for thousands of years, without resorting to any special mining for thorium, or the use of any other form or energy recovery. Add up the other reserves and we’re good for at least a million years.
Even the available supply of U235 can increase if we are prepared to pay more. And fuel is not the major cost in a LWR so paying more for U235 need not have much impact on electricity costs.
As for timeliness of deployment to mitigate global warming I don’t think anything will be deployed fast enough to make a meaningful difference. Short term I’m for adaptation.
The@John Quiggin
“Saving the planet over the next 30 years or so” isn’t 100 per cent clear. Do you think the “planet” will suffer adverse effects by then (contrary to the claim that there might be benefit for the average human up to about 2080 or 2 degrees increase) APART FROM what is set up for the future in terms of irreversible change?
@Ikonoclast
Do you think that study – “peer reviewed” no less (sorry if that sounds cynical but my Mum runs the journal mypeer reviewed articles are published in) – about shortage of uranium is convincing. A Club-of-Romeish isn’t it. Think shale oil fracking etc.?? And thorium…..
No mention I think of pebble bed nuclear technology so presumably none of the a priori anti nukes have thought kf Googling “China nuclear power technology”.
Wsetinghouse is no longer American but part of the Japanese conglomerate Toshiba. The Chinese government must have serious reservations about being dependent on Japan for a major technology. Rather than making a conscious decision to standardize on the AP1000 as JQ recommends, they are putting money into a design that is not dependent on foreign IP and can be exported. The candidate is the CAP1400, based on the AP1000: a joint venture with Westinghouse for which China will own the IP. (So Toshiba have no reason to make heroic efforts.) Wikipedia says that ground should be broken this month on the first CAP-1400 at Shidaowan. Will this work? Previous experience with Chinese attempts at the frontiers of technology, such as their first aircraft carrier, is not encouraging.
China was covered, Yuri, in a “if anyone is going to do it China will, mainly because their need is huge an government funding us not a problem” thread recently.
I wonder if modular construction will come to the AP 1000 or its Chinese derivative the CAP 1400. Note the how laptop computers influenced the ‘all in one’ desktop PC whereby the processor is now in the back of the monitor not in a separate box. SMRs could influence the design of large reactors. We’ll need large generators for example Bayswater B of at least 2 GW planned for the Hunter Valley. Gas is already too expensive for whatever form this plant will take but let’s hope it’s not air release coal with the ploy ‘carbon capture ready’.
I also wonder if the US has misjudged both its own soft power (compared to say Russia) and the lucrative export market. The makers of the mPower could not get private customers to sign up in advance in the style of military hardware sold between governments. Potential buyers would obviously like to see the first machine working glitch free. I think Australia needs to see SMRs working here before committing to a big machine like the Bayswater replacement. Otherwise coal it is then for most of our electricity for the foreseeable future.
@yuri
{Sighs ,,,}
The planet will survive the worst we humans throw at it. It may survive in a way however that prejudices the quality, quantity or distribution of ecosystem services. Given that as far as we can tell, planets that tick all the boxes for support of human life are very rare, trashing this one enough to make life much tougher for us ought to be fairly easy.
And yes, the window of the next thirty years is important. Ecosystems are not things one can repair quickly, so even if “we” start fixing “our” mess in 2044 “we” may not succeed in remediating “our” mess.
As to whether there will be a benefit for “the average human” in a 2 degree rise the studies strongly suggest that cropping will be seriously disrupted inter alia, by the redistribution of precipitation patterns, and of course the growing heat in the oceans will not simply end this uncontrolled experiment in changing the ecosystem there. After 2 degrees comes far worse.
Finally, in matters if public policy, Homer Simpsonism (“can’t somebody else do it?”) is not only ethically bankrupt but also reckless. We are betting without foundation in this case that our guesses about the future will be far more rosy than we are entitled to assume, when we ought to be accepting that the reverse is at least as possible and that our successors will discover that when it is far too late to foreclose a roiling series of disastrous setbacks to human communities. There are no ‘do overs’ in public policy. “Oops, my bad” is not good enough. Farnarkling about now because 30 years from now, some bright shiny new technology might come to our aid is the behaviour of a hopeless gambler. We are not entitled to take this sort of all in bet with civilisation, IMO.
Nuclear power advocates are impervious to real evidence. I guess the only reason to argue with them is to counter their misinformation so that undecided people will not be propagandised.
Because of the time lags involved in the global warming process, it is the CO2 emissions of the next 30 years (and then onwards) which must be brought down and kept down to prevent dangerous global warming into the future. John Quiggin has demonstrated factually that insufficient current builds of nuclear power stations are occuring to effect that change. Further, he has shown that commercial IFR and LFTR reactors cannot feasibly be implemented until well past 2035.
I have shown, with references in this thread and past threads, that Peak Uranium production is a real and imminent phenomenon. Even if more conventional once-through reactors could be built there is not the fuel to run them. Commercial breeder and thorium reactors (two-cycle / muilti-cycle) are still a pipe-dream for now. They might work one day but not commercially within the next 20 to 30 years.
It would actually be better to leave remaining uranium in the ground until when and if breeder reactors are perfected and commercialised. Uranium used on a once-through cycle basis is eventually being (or to be) stored in repositories where recovery is impossible due to safety concerns and other practical factors. Once-through use and permanent waste storage foregoes future cycle use.
I always attempt to provide links to reputable science to support my views in this debate (as above). Nuclear boosters simply rely on ridicule of science and unsupported and fanciful assertions of their own. I appeal to people undecided on the nuclear issue to consider these differences and assess credibility accordingly.
I don’t think Australia needs to worry about uranium depletion this century. We also have the most thorium according to Geosciences. However if we don’t enrich uranium, yet another value adding opportunity foregone, then we will be beholden to others. Ironically the ANSTO developed laser enrichment process is going great in the US. We could use lightly enriched uranium and possibly thorium in CANDU reactors the slight problem being they require $1.5 bn of heavy water in addition to everything else.
The Russians may have stolen a march on ‘breeder’ reactors with the 800 MW machine Beloyarsk 3 about to start. They are also working on a floating Gen 3 reactor with Indonesia said to be a potential client. I’m not sure why the Brits are dragging their feet on the PRISM reactor that could burn their large plutonium stockpile. The deal would be no money upfront but a fee for results arrangement.
If the first SMR isn’t ready until 2025 by then I suspect we will be importing 80% of our oil and our major gas users will priced out of business. There is nothing to suggest wind and solar will increase more than by a modest amount. I suspect Germany will still have nuclear despite a 2022 phaseout pledge. If things are desperate maybe the Chinese will have to build reactors for us with payment in uranium.
Nuclear power advocates are impervious to real evidence. I guess the only reason to argue with them is to counter their misinformation so that undecided people will not be propagandised.
TerjeP and Hermit, as nuclear power advocates, either do not address AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) at all or they dismiss it as already happening so we must simply adapt to it. Even if the later is partially true now (which is likely) that is no reason not to pursue CO2 emission reduction. Indeed, it is a reason to pursue it more quickly and vigorously to reduce future risks as much as is still possible. Finally, on this point, none of their contentions recently has been linked to a single scientific paper (or any supporting evidence at all).
In addition, our resident nuclear boosters, not limited to TerjeP and Hermit, never answer or attempt to refute any scientifically supported evidence with scientifically supported evidence of their own. Often, they never even address the fact-supported arguments against nuclear power being practicably useful for CO2 emissions reduction in the next 30 years. They ignore all evidence and endlessly restate their prior beliefs.
Then Hermit makes the unsupported blanket statement “There is nothing to suggest wind and solar will increase more than by a modest amount.” On the contrary, there is much to suggest that wind and solar generation are exponentially increasing. There is also much to suggest that prices and wind and solar power are rapidly decreasing.
This linked graph from Wikipedia shows the exponential growth of world wind power.
For someone to claim, “There is nothing to suggest quantity Y will increase more than by a modest amount,” – when variable Y shows an exponential increase to date on a graph plot – is the silliest claim imaginable except with one proviso. The only way to support such a claim would be to demonstrate a near hard limit or ceiling to further growth. Hermit has demonstrated no such near hard limit. So his idea that wind and solar power will suddenly revert to “modest” growth is entirely unsupported by him and as such is pure belief.
Note: I am a Limits to Growth person. However, exponential growth from a very low base, in a field where energies and materials are not yet in short supply, is possible for some time. Limits to Growth became apparent when exponential growth “attempts” to continue from a very high base. Other aspects of our economy do exhibit these characteristics of a high current base and apparent attempted continued exponential growth. That is where the problem lies. But solar and wind power are far from hard limits.
@BilB
And is the blog thread you refer to a good place to find out about pebble bed nuclear technology and what JQ and others think about it?
It’s not particularly relevant, but I’ll mention that controlled fusion does not look like it will be a cost effective way to generate electricity. This is because controlled fusion is really difficult to do and requires a lot of very complex and very expensive equipment, so it looks like the capital cost of fusion power will be extremely high making it uneconomical compared to other low emission energy sources. And while future technological advances may lower the cost of building fusion reactors, it’s unlikely that just the cost of fusion reactors will be reduced. Presumably roboengineers would be able to lower the cost of other sources of energy as well.
The Wikipedia article on pebble bed nuclear technology points out the very many practical problems they have encountered. The technology is still highly experimental, past experiments and test reactors were failures and current claims for and against them are theoretical rather than practical or proven claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Hermit, are you ready to continue with thinking things through? If so, I’ll just repeat my last basic question – Are you aware that South Australia gets over 25% of its electricity from wind power?
@Fran Barlow
An interesting response to my question to JQ if a bit summary on the issue of when the benefits of extra warmth run out. However I really was asking JQ a question. After all he is not only the conductor of this somewhat discordant orchestra but the previous government must have appointed him to the Climate Change Authority [name?] for a reason – maybe even expertise rather than politics.
@yuri
Pebble bed is already dead. The only active program was in South Africa and was dumped a few years ago, as noted in the Wikipedia article. China is giving it another go, as with lots of other things, but there’s little likelihood of success, for the reasons noted by Fran
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/04/06/2011040600630.html
@ Ikonoclast & Fran Barlow…I’m a big fan of solar partly because I am optimistic enough to extrapolate from the increasing tempo of innovation, discovery and invention over the last 450 years and expect millions of bright Chinese and Indians to speed it up still more. Even if nuclear fusion and batteries with 10 times the storage density aren’t part of it, much that is unexpected will turn up, mostly positive with just ordinary luck.
But can one be sanguine about wind power even with better storage (maybe by pumping water uphill rather than in batteries) and even with huge grids to pick up the benefits of win blowing in widely separated areas? The blight on the landscape of the towers and the extended grid is surely counted at too low a cost. The effect on property values is a pretty good measuring stick.
Tidal and wave generated power shouldn’t be such a blight but, though optimistic, I expect there will be problems e.g for fishermen and whale watchin tourism.
But much more fundamental for Australians, even those who accept that there is a moral obligation for us to join in worldwide efforts which will be futile without vigorous participation by China, the US and India, is how we should best spend our money (that includes all kinds of subsidies, tax rebates etc.). If it costs us $50 billion to meet some renewables or emissions reduction target which will make no difference to our future climate, sea level or coral reefs will we then be willing to levy swingeing taxes to pay for the adaptations we and some of our Asia-Pacific neighbours will need.
Perhaps Prof Quiggin could give us all a primer on opportunity cost and its universal and everyday implication and applications.
@John Quiggin
Thanks. Will try and follow up. If I had a dog in the fight I’ld chase down all the links asap and seek to pick some nits….
I highly recommend this WISE Uranium Project Slide Talk. It is slightly dated now (2006 data sources) but contains excellent information and projections. It details a host of practical problems and limits with uranium supply and enrichment and does so in a dispassionate scientific fashion. Can I suggest John Q watch it too? It essentially indicates that uranium supply and enrichment limitations are of equal importance to the build-out or build-up problems of commissioning new nuclear plants. Either problem of its own, of course, ends the nuclear “renaissance”.
I challenge our nuclear boosters to watch it and then find credible debunking evidence from other scientific sources.
Ensure you tick both options for the full slide show. Let it run automatically, the pacing is reasonable.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd03e
You’ll be happy to know I’m writing a book on this very topic. Less happy to know that I’m not applying my own analysis to getting it finished on time
Never let the facts get in the way of some plucky thinking
@ Ikon solar installations have nosedived since 2012. See Clean Energy Regulator REC-Registry Data-reports
@ RonaldB SA gets 50% of its electricity from burning gas, the same gas which is expected to double or triple in price. See AEMO 2014 South Australian Fuel and Technology Report. Tasmania I believe was some 86% renewable in 2013 yet they’re broke.
Hermit, in order to think things through it’s important to keep it simple. This is why I’m asking very basic questions. So do you know that South Australia gets over 25% of its electricity from wind power? You haven’t actually answered this.
Yuri, do you agree with me that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that climate sensitivity, that is the amount that the earth warms with each doubling of CO2 concentration, is likely to be somewhere around 3 degrees celcius?
Hermit, watch the WISE Uranium Project Slide Talk I linked to above. Then provide scientific and quantitative debunking if you can. I had to watch the show twice to understand everything he was saying and demonstrating by graph. In particular, I didn’t understand the tails assay argument points and graphs until my second viewing. If a person like me with a Qld senior physics grade of 6 (out of 7) albeit over four decades ago and with no physics since can understand this slide show on 2 viewings then it shouldn’t be too hard to absorb. If you don’t have at least senior physics, chemistry and maths passes to your name then honestly you are unlikely to know enough or understand enough to participate in this argument.
Have a look at Graph of the Day: World solar capacity up 35% in 2013.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-world-solar-capacity-up-35-in-2013-2013
So it is you who never lets the facts get in the way of your fantasy thinking. If Australian solar growth has temporarily stalled it is of little global consequence as the figure above shows. Our stall is due to local stupidity engendered and led by people like Abbott, Bolt and Murdoch.
The interesting thing about solar and wind is this. Wind provides the best EROEI and currently, I think, the lower cost numbers. Wind is the more suited to rapid ramping up but solar still has valuable niche and capability characteristics to offer currently. In the long run, solar power has by far the highest energy gathering and production potential. Thus I would expect wind to lead the charge in the vanguard and then solar (PV and CST) to come ramping up slowly but surely as the main long term renewable infrastructure providing strategic capacity.
@Ronald Brak
Well funnily since I’ve linked to a 2014 AEMO report on SA power sources I’m looking at Figure 2-2 on p9 of that link.
Did you know SA has the world’s largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam? That factoid was curiously omitted from the AEMO report. It’s like going on safari and the guide says that large thing staring at us is not an elephant so don’t concern yourselves.
Hermit, I’ll assume that your reply means that yes, you are aware that South Australia gets over 25% of its electricity from wind. Now you haven’t actually said this, so if I have misunderstood you, please forgive and correct me.
So do you agree with me that each kilowatt-hour generated by wind power result in a kilowatt-hour, or about a kilowatt-hour of electricity not being generated from fossil fuels?
Ikonoclast – I’m not boosting nuclear as a cure for AGW. So my operating parameters are different.
@Hermit
Take up the challenge in my post above. Debunk the presentation about uranium fuel supply if you can. Supply links and references.
Actually, it’s interesting, if frustrating, arguing with you. You link disparate and unrelated facts, exclude other relevant information entirely and then imagine you have constucted an argument. For example;
“Tasmania I believe was some 86% renewable in 2013 yet they’re broke.”
Is Tasmania broke? In what sense is a small state that gets fiscal transfers from the Commonwealth broke? If a state with high renewable energy production was “broke” would the two phenomena necessarily be correlated? They might be or they might not be. You have not provided any evidence to connect the two. There might be any number of other reasons a state was “broke”.
“Did you know SA has the world’s largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam?”
This is irrelevant or of low relevance. We have no reactors and no enrichment structure. We have strong political resistance to nuclear power. Nuclear power is not the answer to the world’s energy and climate problems as I, Prof. J.Q. , Ronald Brak and others have demonstrated with scientific and quantitative arguments and references. If it takes too long to ramp up nuclear power world-wide (and the world has the right infrastructure) then it would take us too long and even longer than that(!) as we have no infrastructure.
I could equally say, “Did you know SA has one of the world’s largest sunny, uninhabited arid zones located close to a major city.” So why not use it for solar power?
@TerjeP
Why are you boosting it then?
I didn’t realise that the pebble bed reactor had those risks. I assumed from the way it was being spoken of by the Chinese that it was very safe. The lead cooled fast reactor looks like the most trouble free of the fast reactors all except that is on knowing what is going on in the reactor core. For all of the reasons that lead is good in terms of heat transfer and radiation shielding it is bad in terms of transparency and corrosion. Then there is the density of the lead fluid and the power of hydraulic shock waves in such a medium and their deforming effects on the delicate support structures of a reactor. A lot of variables.
@BilB
Yep, solar and wind power engineering is positively sleek, simple, safe and elegant compared to nuclear power. Nuclear power presents an absolute gnarl of horrendously difficult and dangerous problems.
Hermit, I suggest you stop yourself whenever you are about to type “I suspect”. In my experience of you, it invariably means “I suggest, with no evidence or in the face of abundant contrary evidence”
In support of my argument that nuclear power is a veritable gnarl of problems just consider fission products and neutron poisoning of the reactor core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison
Also look up Iodine Pit and Xenon Pit.
@ John Quiggin,
I agree that standardized designs are important for economical nuclear construction programs, and that the AP1000 is the best candidate because it is the basis for China’s Gen III fleet. But other models have good prospects, too. The South Korean APR1400 is a good, very cheap Gen III design and is developing an export market, with 4 reactors under construction in UAE. Russia’s Gen III-ish VVER family has more builds under way then does the AP1000, with exports to India, China, Iran, Turkey, Belarus, Finland and elsewhere.
SMRs are pretty torpid in the West, but there are vigorous programs elsewhere. China, of course, is developing two models, the 100 MW ACP100, the first due to begin construction next year, and the CAP150.
@ John Quiggin, on Gen IV,
“In particular, there’s no chance of work starting on even a prototype before about 2020, which puts commercial availability well past 2035.”
John, no, where are you getting that from? There are utility-scale Gen IV reactors in commercial operation now and due on line in the next year or two.
Russia’s BN-600 sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor, about 600 MW, has been in commercial operation since 1981, with a decent service record and a 76 percent lifetime capacity factor. It’s service life has been extended to 2025. A more advanced model, the BN-800, is under construction and due on line next year.
China has a 210-MW Gen IV high-temperature gas reactor under construction, due on line in 2017. They plan to deploy these units in groups of 18 to make large power plants. China also has a fast reactor program, and recently shortened its deadline for a molten salt reactor prototype to 10 years.
India has a 500 MW fast breeder reactor under construction, due to go into commercial operation next year.
GE has offered to build a 600 MW Prism IFR in Britain as soon as it’s licensed.
There will be lots of Gen IV prototypes in service before 2020.
“Pebble bed is already dead. The only active program was in South Africa and was dumped a few years ago, as noted in the Wikipedia article. China is giving it another go, as with lots of other things, but there’s little likelihood of success, for the reasons noted by Fran”
This paragraph confused me. How can pebble bed research be “already dead” if the Chinese are avidly pursuing it and building new pebble bed reactors? How do you know there’s “little likelihood of success?” (What reasons noted by Fran are you talking about?) Your reference is to a German pebble-bed reactor that failed 30 years ago (partly from post-Chernobyl political considerations). Does one past failure doom all subsequent efforts? Should we have given up on solar power in 1980 just because all the past experiments with it had been costly failures?