Skip to main content

Nuclear Blog Highlights During Thanksgiving Week

Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving last Thursday, at least those who celebrated! :-) For me, I was out all last week with the family enjoying the sun's radiation in hometown Phoenix, AZ. Of course, after unplugging from the internet for quite a few days, I found my Google Reader was +1,000 and that I'd missed out on some great discussions and debates. For those who were out as well, here's my wrap-up of what went on:

David Walters has generated quite the discussion at DailyKos about the UK's latest report that found new renewables are more expensive than new nuclear.

Charles Barton's blog, Nuclear Green, turns one-year-old this coming Friday. Congratulations!

Dr. James Hansen, "best known for his research in the field of climatology" wrote an eight page paper to President-elect Obama (pdf) on how we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power was mentioned as one of the five mitigation technologies that can make a difference. Of course, Joseph Romm disagreed with parts of Hansen's paper (nuclear being one part) in which Sovietologist set Romm straight.

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights shared his thoughts on Thomas Friedman's latest book Hot, Flat and Crowded. He also got the comments rolling on the over-hype of Hyperion's mini-reactors.

(I know it's not nuclear-related but I feel it's worth mentioning.) Over at Knowledge Problem, Michael Giberson wrote an interesting analysis on how the abundance of wind capacity has supposedly caused power prices to fall negative at times in West Texas ("suppliers are paying ERCOT to take their power"). He thinks wind's production tax credit has something to do with it.

And Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat explains that an "expansion of federal loan guarantees [for new nuclear plants] could create 100,000 jobs."

There's my wrap-up. If I missed anything, let me know.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's not surprising that Rod Adams would say Hyperion's small reactor design is "overhyped." He's been trying to market his own small reactor design for many years. Doesn't mean he's wrong, of course, but it's useful information for context and should have been mentioned.
Anonymous said…
So what feed do you have in your google reader David?
Sovietologist said…
I've been really enthusiastic about Hyperion, but the company really needs to explain how it's going to get the HPM licensed. The fuel qualification issue that came up in the discussion thread to Rod's post must be addressed somehow, and I can imagine ways that Hyperion can do so--but they must start talking about these nuts-and-bolts technical issues if they expect to be taken seriously. I certainly hope they do so, as I think the hydride fuel concept has a lot of potential.
Another Comment said…
Hyperion is claiming that it will deliver a demonstration reactor in 5 years. There is no way that any regulatory authority in the world is going to license a reactor design that relies on hydriding/dehydriding of fuel to perform a fundamental safety function, without previous irradiation testing and PIE of fuel. Testing of fuel must occur in a test reactor like the ATR, but there exists no evidence that any fuel testing is planned (certainly the 2013 schedule for a demonstration reactor precludes such a test program).

Dehydriding fuel fast enough to respond to reactor transients requires that the fuel be in the form of finely dispersed particles or a more complex porous structure with interconnected porosity, so there is a very large amount of surface area and diffusion can occur over small distances in the solid fuel.

Nature hates structures with very high surface area. Under high temperatures, temperature gradients, and irradiation, nature causes mass transfer that will cut off interconnected porosity and reduce surface area. Perhaps Hyperion fuel would be well behaved, but no nuclear safety authority should believe this, or is likely to, absent an extensive fuel irradiation test program.

Most of Hyperion's credibility is coming from its extensive advertisement of its linkage to Los Alamos National Laboratory. Rightly or wrongly, LANL's reputation will suffer if the Hyperion concept crashes when faced with the legitimate realities of reactor safety regulation.
David Bradish said…
So what feed do you have in your google reader David?

I have about 60 different subscriptions. I keep up with everyone on our blog roll, anti-nuclear blogs, and several general interest sites. I also have a couple of feeds set up that search blogs and the news for nuclear energy and nuclear power. Blog names include Instapundit, FuturePundit, Gristmill, DailyKos, Freakonomics, NAM, Next Big Future, The Oil Drum, Treehugger, The Foundry and the WSJ's Environmental Blog to name a few. What feeds do you recommend?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…