SMR’s a conundrum.

[An OtherParticipant @another21905]

Samsaranda: Dave, you are probably right about the design exercise, although the article does suggest more than that (identifying buildings, etc) – lets hope so.

Not sure about contributions of constructive engineering ideas from this forum – IMO agreement between contributors would be a major problem

[DiodeDickParticipant @diodedick]

Yes, the CEGB had a design/development department at Berkeley but that was part of the problem. They were always looking for something better, rather than just sticking to something that was known to work.

The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had outline approval to build a nuclear station at Stakeness, Banffshire, but the scientists at Berkeley could not agree on which type of reactor to build. In the end, the Hydro Board built an oil-fired station at Boddam, south of Peterhead, which had to be converted to natural gas and/or oil on the drawing board when the price of oil shot up.

That station, 2 x 660mw, did sterling service during the 1985 difficulties, burning CEGB oil and sending their MW's "down the wires"

SMR's will work IF RR are allowed to make them PWRs, which they know inside out. If the government advisers, who told every one to switch to diesel cars, stick their noses in and insist on something new, then stock up on candles.

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by J Hancock on 09/11/2021 08:30:09:

The idea we should have 'submarine size/type ' reactors in every town is a myth currently being destroyed.

Funny you should mention submarines. There is a nuclear submarine in the Cherbourg maritime museum. It is an excellent day out by the way.The Titanic visited there on its fatal trip

Before visitors could tour the sub, which is in dry dock, they removed the reactor. & Dumped it on the dock wall

It was left there for several years before going to Flamevile for destruction. The surprising thing about it was that its size was approx 1Metre *1Metre *1Metre. So a reactor that powered a sub for circa 20 years & with enough power to keep the crew under water for months on end; so they can launch 14 nuclear missiles into space; could easily power a small town for a while & sit in a bloke's shed somewhere. Just need a sheet of lead for cladding and a steam generator, a couple of wires & away we go. Oh! and a cold water tank on top for cooling- but hook that up to the district heating system & you get buy one get one free.

So joking aside, It cannot be that difficult to build these mini reactors & Rolls Royce should be applauded for giving it a go. It should also be a terrific export item for the UK — if only the home market allows it to develope in the interim

So whilst one is suggesting the myth is currently being destroyed- perhaps it is the NYMBY's along with the media that is doing the destroying & not those that need the electric.- Or a district heating system

Going back to the sub- It is really interesting until one gets to the missile tubes & then one's mind starts to focus

 

Edited By Sam Longley 1 on 10/11/2021 07:51:23

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Strange that RR should be given a nest egg to "Develop" a domestic power system, to echo Sam's posting, all UK new clear (NOT New que lar as many ignoramuses state) powered subs have a steam generating plant supplied by RR so it's not new technology for them. It seems that the "Think of a number and quadruple it" costing syndrome applied to government supplies is being thrust upon us. Generating "Sets" of various sizes have been constructed for more than sixty years so it's hardly a new black art sadly though "We didn't think that would happen" issues on safety are not learned, must try harder on that aspect.

After extensive "Tours" on both small (SSNs) and large (SSBNs) thanks to immediate family connections, and a "round the bay and back in time for tea" trip, despite the formica clad walls in many sections, realisation hits pretty quickly that they are not underwater caravans but are – – -warships. Sam.

 

Regards Ian.

 

 And oh yes Michael, the word BOGOFF is a duplex term, one is an acronym, the other a directive and applied as a dangler especially to enable some to increase their post count.

Edited By Circlip on 10/11/2021 10:14:51

Edited By Circlip on 10/11/2021 10:15:52

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Draw a circle , 30miles in diameter.

Colour the top half blue , that is sea.

Colour the bottom half green , that is 'uninhabited ' land.

A shiver used to go through the members of the TNPG commissioning team when they opened the

re-assignment letters , report to the centre of the circle ……………………Dounreay.

This was where the SMR's were developed and tested., for the military.

A world of difference to the 'civilian' application they now hope to fill.

TNPG =The Nuclear Power Group ,

[Oven ManParticipant @ovenman]

Posted by Circlip on 10/11/2021 10:11:58:

Strange that RR should be given a nest egg to "Develop" a domestic power system, to echo Sam's posting, all UK new clear (NOT New que lar as many ignoramuses state) powered subs have a steam generating plant supplied by RR so it's not new technology for them.

Rolls-Royce have always said that their SMR proposal is not based on the reactors used in submarines so there is obviously going to be a fair bit of development work required. But at least they have all the basic knowledge required to built a nuclear reactor, so thats a start.

I find things like SMRs and fusion really exciting but I am getting to stage in life when I doubt I am going to be around long enough to see any of these new proposals actually come to fruition.

Peter

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by J Hancock on 10/11/2021 10:16:55:

Draw a circle , 30miles in diameter.

Colour the top half blue , that is sea.

Colour the bottom half green , that is 'uninhabited ' land.

A shiver used to go through the members of the TNPG commissioning team when they opened the

re-assignment letters , report to the centre of the circle ……………………Dounreay.

This was where the SMR's were developed and tested., for the military.

A world of difference to the 'civilian' application they now hope to fill.

TNPG =The Nuclear Power Group ,

And yet coal is a much bigger killer than nuclear.

UK statistics show coal mining killed about 1000 people per year. There are no statistics for mining injuries or the consequences of local pollution caused by large-scale burning of dirty coal. Indications of the latter pop up occasionally, as in the 1952 Great Smog, which was agreed to have killed 4000 Londoners at the time, and modern analysis shows to have been between 10,000 and 12,000. In modern times, this paper suggests air pollution killed over 1,000,000 Chinese people in 2016.

Unfortunately, that's not the end of the case against coal. Though many are still in denial, evidence has accumulated strongly over the last 40 years to confirm massive burning of fossil fuels has put enough Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere to act as an insulating blanket causing solar energy to heat up the whole planet.

Although the temperature change is small, the amount of heat involved is enormous. Think how much electricity would be needed to heat all the water in the world's oceans by 1°C! As engineers interested in steam and IC, we surely understand that heat translates into work. In the case of global warming the work is more energetic weather: frequent violent storms, droughts, floods, cold and hot snaps. And because the entire planet is effected, the average weather of entire countries and regions alters. That's climate change. Millions of square kilometres; if nothing else it will cause mass migrations. Hundreds of millions of people forced off their land.

Part of the problem is the scale of what's happening is beyond ordinary comprehension. Common sense and previous experience are dangerously misleading because this is a difficult new problem requiring new answers. Believe it or not, times and circumstances change. We can't expect tomorrows problems to be fixed by yesterdays methods, or assume that they'll go away if we carry on as before.

Dave

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by Circlip on 10/11/2021 10:11:58:

After extensive "Tours" on both small (SSNs) and large (SSBNs) thanks to immediate family connections, and a "round the bay and back in time for tea" trip, despite the formica clad walls in many sections, realisation hits pretty quickly that they are not underwater caravans but are – – -warships. Sam.

Yes, they are & when one looks at those tubes- as do all the others who I have taken on that trip- I cannot help wondering if this climate carp is worth bothering with. Especially when we have submarines circling the globe, each loaded with enough destructive power to ruin the atmosphere far beyond anything a couple of windmills can solve.

To avoid breaching forum rules & becoming political, I would not mention anywhere in particular. However, one does have to wonder what is the greater threat & where we should really be focussing our minds.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

What you write SoD is entirely true , snag is , it suggests ANY form of energy NOT derived from the Sun's daily quota is , ultimately adding to the Earth's early 'demise' , for 'us'.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by J Hancock on 10/11/2021 10:16:55:

……….

TNPG =The Nuclear Power Group ,

Or as others who worked on the same site but for different companies knew them, Tin Pot Goblins

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 10/11/2021 11:17:49:

[…]

Part of the problem is the scale of what's happening is beyond ordinary comprehension.

.

Very true … and another part is that we may not be clever-enough to change the destination.

This, from yesterday’s News, is disturbing to say the least.

**LINK**

https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-melting-glaciers-could-see-perus-economy-crash-if-no-action-is-taken-on-climate-change-12464456

MichaelG.

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

One thing (two?) has really wound me up about the news reports concerning the SMR concept.

Area being defined by the football pitch and power being defined by the number of homes (kilohome?).

These are not useful units. I understand acres and hectares and I understand MW and GW.

It is a given that half the population are educationally subnormal, but why must the news reporters insult the rest of us by using such gobbledygook?

Bah! Humbug!

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

I found it interesting that the BBC used The Nuclear Consulting Group for several interviews, This is an anti-nuclear group but are clever how they do it.
The cost of nuclear is interesting. Hinkley C will cost a lot to build and decomission, About twice the cost of the same avrage capacity off-shore windfarm. However the nuclear plant will last twice as long…….

In the UK we have actually started burning coal again becaue of the cost of gas
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Submarine reactors use highly enriched uranium fuel, which is how they can be so small. This is very expensive, and also a proliferation issue, so civil reactors use low enriched. You cannot make a nuclear bomb from low enriched, and nuclear reactors cannot become a nuclear explosion. Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by lack of coolant, I think Fukushima was hydrogen caused by reaction of water with very hot metal. 

Edited By duncan webster on 10/11/2021 23:57:41

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

You're right DW but when things get out of control , like Chernobyl , you can kiss goodbye to 400+sq miles for a long, long time.

The last resort SCRAM procedure has never had to be used on our stations , Windscale was a narrow escape though.

Anyway , COP has finished now and we can all go back to sleep ,while more time is wasted deciding ' what to do'.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by J Hancock on 11/11/2021 08:28:19:

[…]

Anyway , COP has finished now and we can all go back to sleep ,while more time is wasted deciding ' what to do'.

.

Meanwhile, in India, they are getting-on with doing something: **LINK**

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/india-bets-its-energy-future-on-solarin-small-ways-and-big-

MichaelG.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

A Scram is an emergency shut down of a reactor, usually by inserting the control rods. Nothing to do with the Windscale incident where the graphite moderator caught fire due to a release of Wigner energy. This doesn't make it any less significant, but such things are much better understood nowadays. The Chernobyl design reactor would never have got past the regulator in this country, and it was deliberately operated in an unsafe manner with safety systems overridden.

We have a stark choice, extreme weather making large areas of planet uninhabitable, no power when the wind isn't blowing, or reliable, safe nuclear. I know which I prefer.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Sad after all the years since Calder Hall, we still haven't got a SAFE steam kettle and given the speed of invention in the event of a war, we can devise more effective ways to kill each other quickly but it's so expensive to "Research" ways to have a more comfortable existence without screwing the planet.

Regards Ian.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

DW I was thinking of the 'Super scram lethal dump/injection of Lithium '.

I see the 'nukes' were running IN the red at 6.15GW this morning , flat out and some more.

This will not end well.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by J Hancock on 11/11/2021 13:03:30:

DW I was thinking of the 'Super scram lethal dump/injection of Lithium '.

I see the 'nukes' were running IN the red at 6.15GW this morning , flat out and some more.

This will not end well.

Not necessarily, if that was from Gridwatch. It may well mean that all the units are available and on-line. Nuclear power does require reloading with fuel, which is generally a sequence of down time, to best suit the grid and the generator, and normally carried out before the winter demands are upon us.

Nuclear plants are designed to run at full capacity and they are less efficient if throttled back – hence why they are base load generators.

Edited By not done it yet on 11/11/2021 14:26:41

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by not done it yet on 11/11/2021 14:26:27:

Posted by J Hancock on 11/11/2021 13:03:30:

DW I was thinking of the 'Super scram lethal dump/injection of Lithium '.

I see the 'nukes' were running IN the red at 6.15GW this morning , flat out and some more.

This will not end well.

…

Nuclear plants are designed to run at full capacity and they are less efficient if throttled back – hence why they are base load generators.

…

Coal also runs most efficiently flat out: high thermal lag in the boilers mean they respond slowly to increased demand, and waste a lot of energy when throttled back.

Gas is the best generator of all in terms of efficiency and flexibility. A gas turbine fires up from cold in a few minutes, and they can be turned off without wasting fuel. It's possible to produce electricity with banks of medium-sized generators that come on and off-line individually as necessary to meet demand, as well as operating more sluggish combined cycle plants that achieve extremely high efficiencies. Burning gas produces less Carbon Dioxide too. The 'Dash for Gas' occurred because gas is cheaper, cleaner, more efficient and more flexible than coal. Not just thermally, but gas power stations were smaller, cheaper and faster to build than coal.

Despite gas having many advantages, time and circumstances have shifted against it in the UK. Gas made huge sense when the North Sea produced it in large quantities. Far less gas coming out of UK North Sea sources today, so most UK gas is imported. Getting expensive and some of the suppliers are unreliable. Green is cheaper: if only it was consistent as well!

I don't think there's a single simple solution to energy supply in future. Instead, many different sources will have to be managed together as a basket. Management isn't so much about running technology, it will be more about continually balancing demand, supply and costs, as they change hour by hour. There will have to be a charge for pollution.

Dave

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Just look at the gas generation and the interconnector graphs 0600—1200hrs today , there was a problem !

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

To pose an idiot question.

If when decommissioning a nuclear power station, the materials are still so radio active when "exhausted", as to be dangerous, there would seem to be energy still be obtained. Hopefully, it would be possible to extract more energy, from the fuel, until it would be so depleted that it no longer represents a danger, or at most, a greatly reduced danger.

Ultimately, one would hope that the uranium could be reduced to lead, which is, by comparison, fairly harmless?

Howard

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by J Hancock on 11/11/2021 13:03:30:

DW I was thinking of the 'Super scram lethal dump/injection of Lithium '.

……

Still not relevant to the Windscale fire, this was a graphite fire, eventually put out with a fire hose.

To get more use from spent fuel you have to reprocess it, extracting the radioactive fission products from the (now depleted) uranium and plutonium. Unless you have a fast breeder reactor programme to convert depleted uranium into plutonium, from which you then make more fuel, it is my opinion that the best thing to do with spent fuel is store it in a retrievable form until the relatively short lived highly active parts have decayed, and then either permanently dispose or recycle. We have lots of plutonium in store, it was intended to build a reactor at Sellafield to use plut fuel to get rid of it. Note the plut from spent commercial fuel is not much use for making nuclear bombs, and as plut is an alpha emitter it is quite easy to store safely.

Edited By duncan webster on 11/11/2021 18:29:38

[DiodeDickParticipant @diodedick]

A small point on reactor refuelling:

Pressurised Water Reactors are refuelled off load. This can be done during statutory examinations or refits.

The last four Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors were intended to be refuelled ON load and this has been done, one channel at a time, although at reduced load, not full load. The wind down/exchange/reload cycle costs lost output. Some feel that it is more cost effective to come off load when demand will below for a period and do a batch. One complication is that because they were intended to be refuelled one channel at a time, storage for discharged fuel stringers is less the 25% of a reactor's complement. (Unless they have increased it since commissioning)

[Author]

Posts