The Return Of Nuclear Power !?!

[KemppiFrog]

For some not to easy to understand reasons...... If it is weapons, the money can usually be found..

 

[Seadog]

Profit.

 

[fizzy]

Fusion seems to have picked up a lot of attention over the past year or so. I was listening to a journalist on an American NPR station a while ago who was proposing that some of what is going on re "fusion" is actually being funded to support weapon development. Ever since atmospheric tests were banned, development of N weapons has depended a lot on computer simulation, but this guy claimed they now need to perform some experiments (in order to make progress on weapons) and some of that is being done under the cover of fusion energy research.

As for SMR's, despite all the recent hype, there seems to me nothing more than hype!

The biggest fusion bomb ever was the Tsar Bomba back in the 60s. Fusion bombs are very well developed. Do they really need more actual tests?

 

[daleyd]

The biggest fusion bomb ever was the Tsar Bomba back in the 60s. Fusion bombs are very well developed. Do they really need more actual tests?

If they want to make things smaller, lighter, more efficient, use different materials, study different effects then yes.

The actual “how to make a ….” part is of course well understood, but that's not to say there isn’t better ways/methods of doing the same thing. The fact that “the biggest ever” was made 60 odd years ago is kind of irrelevant - there’s never been a bigger one made as it was never needed. What they required were smaller more efficient designs, not more ultimate power.

It’s kind of how science works, theoretical stuff is backed up by experiments.

 

[Ross365]

The biggest fusion bomb ever was the Tsar Bomba back in the 60s. Fusion bombs are very well developed. Do they really need more actual tests?

They may be wanting to make them smaller. The Russians claimed some time ago they were ready to deliver bombs on scramjets rather than ballistic missiles. A scramjet would be hard to detect in-flight, but it has to be powered (propelled) throughout its flight. Reducing the size /mass of the warhead could be a key issue with this approach. There are people around (on both sides) who still think there could be winnable nuclear wars.

In the case of the existing warheads, they do require significant periodic maintenance and they could make improvements there to reduce costs and improve reliability.

 

[toddy]

there is 2 main reactors that were built for weapon's tests, they are NIF in the usa and ORIAN in the uk, these are both laser fusion devices but are very inefficient.
with in the next 5-10 years the Culham science site (where there is currently 2 fusion reactors currently) will be getting another 3, but these will not be government ran, one is by general fusion, one by first light fusion and one by tokamak energy.
we are now getting to the point we will be seeing a lot of interest and advances in the next 10 years.

 

[Munkul]

As for SMR's, despite all the recent hype, there seems to me nothing more than hype!

There are jobs being created in the SMR field all the time now. Rolls Royce went on a huge recruitment drive about 6 months ago, and it's still ongoing IIRC.
Nothing happens in the nuclear world quickly. We're still nearly a decade away from firing up a SMR in anger.

 

[fizzy]

There are jobs being created in the SMR field all the time now. Rolls Royce went on a huge recruitment drive about 6 months ago, and it's still ongoing IIRC.
Nothing happens in the nuclear world quickly. We're still nearly a decade away from firing up a SMR in anger.

Yes SMRs are far from hype. Proven technology used in submarines.
The biggest stumbling blocks are governments not making up their minds.

 

[Erie Fred]

I like the pebble bed reactor, but that's just me.

 

[Ross365]

I worked in the Nuclear industry for some years back in the 1980's, mainly in regard to the last of the AGR's, built at Heysham and Torness and now (unbelievably) near end of life , and then with the Sizewell B PWR.

Even back in the 80's, RR were talking about "SMR's". The idea then was to assemble them on barges and "park" them in river estuaries. That scheme was liked because it would enable overseas sales, which had never been possible with the AGR's. It was long before 9/11 and selling reactors to Third World countries seemed plausible.

My perception (over some decades) is that RR are frequently advertising jobs, but I'm not sure how many people they take on. Isn't it the case that the next generation of UK submarine reactors will walk way from the RR heritage (which started in the 60's with an American design) and be a close copy of the current US design?

About a year ago, the Johnson Government was "on the point" of announcing the location of the first SMR (north Wales was tipped) but I don't think that ever happened. Suddenly, the interest seemed to be re-directed towards a full-size PWR at Sizewell.

What's real and what's hype in the Nuclear industry is hard to know. Perhaps it has something to do with the close links between energy generation and weapons production?

 

[Erie Fred]

What's real and what's hype in the Nuclear industry is hard to know. Perhaps it has something to do with the close links between energy generation and weapons production?

Yup ^^^
And "Billary" didn't do anything to help the situation either.

 

[Ross365]

Yup ^^^
And "Billary" didn't do anything to help the situation either.

I think your reference to the Clintons and Nuclear is a bit obscure for us Brits. When I left Nuclear, I went in to aerospace/defence and went to the States quite often on business. I went to see a company in Virginia in 1998 and their senior guys took us for dinner. Jeeze, those guys so hated Bill Clinton. What really surprised me was that they would say what they were saying about a serving President in front of foreigners . That said, I guess I would now be tempted to do the same regarding any of our recent Prime Ministers.

 

[Ross365]

I was listening to an American radio station today and there was a brief mention of the current goings on at Hinkley C. The story was that it was going to come in way over budget (as they always do) and the Chinese have refused to put in any more funding. That would mean the cost would have to be borne by our French chums at EDF and they are a "company" that already has serious financial problems. The same programme strongly suggested that SMR's just don't make sense from any point of view and will probably never happen... not, at least, on any truly objective appraisal or their merits and de-merits.

 

[Keith 66]

The obvious place to put a Nuclear power station is in London, they could run a district heating system from the waste heat and much of the demand is there due to the big servers needing to be close to the City, so few transmission losses. They never do build one anywhere close to London though, I wonder why?

Bradwell isnt far from London & i believe they intend to build a new nuclear station there, old one has been shut down for years.

 

[Ross365]

There is a very strong lobby group trying to get the Severn area (i.e. Bradwell) back in to nuclear. When I worked in nuclear in the 1980's, there was a Magnox station at Berkley just down the road from Bradwell, and also, the Berkley Nuclear Research Laboratory, which was a world leader in the work they did, but I think it got closed down when the industry was privatised.

I think that over the past year or two, I have cooled off of nuclear a lot. Britain had a nuclear industry that achieved some success, but successive governments over some decades let it rot. With the advances in wind and solar, and the terrible problems unique to nuclear, I don't think the latter is now attractive.

 

[daleyd]

I was listening to an American radio station today and there was a brief mention of the current goings on at Hinkley C. The story was that it was going to come in way over budget (as they always do) and the Chinese have refused to put in any more funding. That would mean the cost would have to be borne by our French chums at EDF and they are a "company" that already has serious financial problems. The same programme strongly suggested that SMR's just don't make sense from any point of view and will probably never happen... not, at least, on any truly objective appraisal or their merits and de-merits.

There is a very strong lobby group trying to get the Severn area (i.e. Bradwell) back in to nuclear. When I worked in nuclear in the 1980's, there was a Magnox station at Berkley just down the road from Bradwell, and also, the Berkley Nuclear Research Laboratory, which was a world leader in the work they did, but I think it got closed down when the industry was privatised.

I think that over the past year or two, I have cooled off of nuclear a lot. Britain had a nuclear industry that achieved some success, but successive governments over some decades let it rot. With the advances in wind and solar, and the terrible problems unique to nuclear, I don't think the latter is now attractive.

I think it’s got it’s place and will be a necessary asset in the coming decades, but it’s certainly not going to provide all our needs nor is it going to provide cheap energy which some people seem to think.

The drawbacks and legacy are immense though as you say.

 

[julianf]

There is a very strong lobby group trying to get the Severn area (i.e. Bradwell) back in to nuclear. When I worked in nuclear in the 1980's, there was a Magnox station at Berkley just down the road from Bradwell, and also, the Berkley Nuclear Research Laboratory, which was a world leader in the work they did, but I think it got closed down when the industry was privatised.

I think that over the past year or two, I have cooled off of nuclear a lot. Britain had a nuclear industry that achieved some success, but successive governments over some decades let it rot. With the advances in wind and solar, and the terrible problems unique to nuclear, I don't think the latter is now attractive.

You mention wind and solar -

I heard an interesting point a while back that made me think...

The gist was that the evolution of, pretty much anything, required iterations.

With nuclear, those iterations are hugely slow and massively expensive. With solar and wind the iterations and hence the evolutionary gains are, and will continue to be, so much more rapid. Battery storage is coming on in leaps and bounds at present. Portable electronics and EVs with their competition and market forces will continue to push that area forwards at speeds that the nuclear industry could only dream of.

The long and the short of the point that was made to me -

Sure, we still need nuclear in the short to medium term, but, really, simply due to its inability to iterate and evolve at anywhere near the rate of alternatives, it's already "walking dead"

 

[Ross365]

Sure, we still need nuclear in the short to medium term, but, really, simply due to its inability to iterate and evolve at anywhere near the rate of alternatives, it's already "walking dead"

Yes, I think that's true. The other issue that has come along is the security issue in the World after 9/11. We can only guess at the sort of security that is now in place around both the working and shutdown reactors. Even if the Small Modular Reactors were ready and sorted, I suspect the security problems in having a fleet of them would be daunting.

 

[daleyd]

Yes, I think that's true. The other issue that has come along is the security issue in the World after 9/11. We can only guess at the sort of security that is now in place around both the working and shutdown reactors. Even if the Small Modular Reactors were ready and sorted, I suspect the security problems in having a fleet of them would be daunting.

That was one of the arguments against them iirc- nuclear benefits from economies of scale, you will need almost the same number of skilled people to run/maintain an SMR as a full scale plant, same with security etc. But you need many more of them to provide the same power….

Some of the security issues will be offset by siting them on existing nuclear sites but not all will be.

 

[julianf]

I do wonder a little bit with nuclear as to if there isn't some interest in maintaining as centralized supply as possible.

It's not financially viable for someone to lobby government on behalf of the hugely decentralized small scale renewables. I mean even the old ROCS scheme effectively got stopped for anyone who isn't big... So there will never be the pressure on government to promote decentralized power gen, simply as there isn't someone with a massive bank account influencing their choices.

I'm not even talking about brown envelopes, but just the influence of government by huge sums of money running down "legitimate" pathways. Decentralized power gen will never have that financial influence and, as such, will never have the same government assistance.