Energy Discussion

[taxi1]

I might be reading challenged...

Where in that advertisement to laypeople does it say we can design cores without the requirement to remove shutdown decay heat?

Systems still have to get rid of the heat, they are just working towards natural heat-driven circulation rather than driven by pumps.

Small modular reactors: Assessing the passive safety advantage

Discover how the passive design philosophy used in small modular reactors can create a safer, more economical future for nuclear power.

www.innovationnewsnetwork.com

Natural Circulation Loops, driven by heat and gravity, offer their own interesting physics that need careful attention.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029549325001943

If you search on "instability" in this doc, Natural circulation in watercooled nuclear power plants: Phenomena, models, and methodology for system reliability assessments it appears over 500 times.

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1474_web.pdf

 

[Brett327]

Where in that advertisement to laypeople does it say we can design cores without the requirement to remove shutdown decay heat?

It doesn't. It's removed passively, without the need for power. Any other mysteries of nuclear engineering I can simplify for you?

 

[Spekkio]

Natural circulation has also been around since the dawn of nuclear power ... it's a stop gap. You cannot get enough flow rate to sustain safety indefinitely.

If you can't restore active decay heat removal for cores capable of supporting commercial power supply needs, you get a meltdown.

 

[Brett327]

Natural circulation has also been around since the dawn of nuclear power ... it's a stop gap. You cannot get enough flow rate to sustain safety indefinitely.

If you can't restore active decay heat removal for cores capable of supporting commercial power supply needs, you get a meltdown.

Consider the possibility that the soda straw that your Navy training has provided may not permit you to see or understand aspects of nuclear power that are well beyond your experience.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I get that we are going to need fission power, especially as climate change moves from "it's coming" to "it's here" and our AI overlords start consuming mind-boggling vast reams of wattage.

Both of those things (Climate change and AI mass power consumption) are here, and are not theoretical future problems- though they will worsen in the future, and we will have to adapt.

I presented fission power as one of several necessary solutions to limit the damage. I recognize there are challenges and dangers, like any power source. However, I remain steadfast in my argument- if the US Navy can train a bunch of teens to run nuclear reactors with such apparently good success, and if even half the technological advancements I read about are valid, then nukes are not the boogeyman they are being made out to be by some in this thread, and elsewhere.

Put another way, humans cause errors, but can also trap them. We fly airplanes, and I hear those things are dangerous, too.

The power density and energy security implications of modern fission power are too great to ignore. I also love the idea of fusion, but I am not deluding myself that we will develop it anytime soon, particularly under the most rabidly anti-intellectual government in my lifetime.

 

[taxi1]

You have to wonder how lucky we are that there hasn't been a Chernobyl V2.0 over there.

Timely article…

Dec 5 (Reuters) - A protective shield at the Chornobyl nuclear plant in war-torn Ukraine, built to contain radioactive material from the 1986 disaster, can no longer perform its main safety function due to drone damage, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday, a strike Ukraine has attributed to Russia.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said an inspection last week of the steel confinement structure completed in 2019 found the drone impact in February, three years into Russia's conflict in Ukraine, had degraded the structure.

The U.N. reported on February 14 that Ukrainian authorities said a drone with a high explosive warhead struck the plant, caused a fire and damaged the protective cladding around reactor Number Four, which was destroyed in the 1986 disaster.

Ukrainian authorities said the drone was Russian. Moscow denied it had attacked the plant.

Radiation levels remained normal and stable and there was no reports of radiation leaks, the U.N. said in February.

UN agency says Chornobyl nuclear plant's protective shield damaged

It can no longer perform its main safety function due to drone damage, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

www.reuters.com

 

[Randy Daytona]

Timely article…

Dec 5 (Reuters) - A protective shield at the Chornobyl nuclear plant in war-torn Ukraine, built to contain radioactive material from the 1986 disaster, can no longer perform its main safety function due to drone damage, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday, a strike Ukraine has attributed to Russia.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said an inspection last week of the steel confinement structure completed in 2019 found the drone impact in February, three years into Russia's conflict in Ukraine, had degraded the structure.

The U.N. reported on February 14 that Ukrainian authorities said a drone with a high explosive warhead struck the plant, caused a fire and damaged the protective cladding around reactor Number Four, which was destroyed in the 1986 disaster.

Ukrainian authorities said the drone was Russian. Moscow denied it had attacked the plant.

Radiation levels remained normal and stable and there was no reports of radiation leaks, the U.N. said in February.

UN agency says Chornobyl nuclear plant's protective shield damaged

It can no longer perform its main safety function due to drone damage, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

www.reuters.com

Wanted to say thank you to you and Spekkio, it has been an informative discussion. Do you have any thoughts on the small nuclear reactors that have been in the news?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/29/these-nuclear-companies-lead-the-race-to-build-small-reactors-in-us.html

 

[hscs]

Will say two things:

1) Think the “damage” is more Info Ops than anything on Chernobyl. We are nearly 40 years since the event, so past a few half-lives since the event.

2) The SMRs are a system engineering difficulty. OBTW- SSN plants are pretty small all things considered. The “tail” is the problem. If you can minimize the tail, you can make some leaps. Main leap would be to minimize preventative maintenance and utilize a condition based plan without refueling.

 

[Spekkio]

Consider the possibility that the soda straw that your Navy training has provided may not permit you to see or understand aspects of nuclear power that are well beyond your experience.

Ah, there's the personal attacks. Good boy.

Consider that this is a math problem and no amount of technological advancement is going to change that.

Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it

The global sustainability of nuclear power thus relies on efforts to increase its economic viability. But how? Standardized designs and downsized reactors can help. Governments can offer additional support. But that still might not be enough to keep the nuclear power industry alive in the United...

thebulletin.org

Going back to the original point - it costs more per KW-hr to deliver nuclear power than any other medium in the U.S. due to the construction and O&M costs compared to fossil fuels. And every time there's a 'black swan' event, policymakers add new design requirements to mitigate that risk.

Uninformed people think that nuclear is cheaper and it's just fear mongering, whereas informed people will argue that the increased cost of power consumption is worth the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and hedges against the long-term problem of fossil fuel scarcity. In the latter case, we get into utility functions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is going to vary person-to-person. On a broad voter scale, people don't have a lot of tolerance to pay a premium for electricity generated from a source that can potentially make the terrain uninhabitable for decades in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Either way, you can keep holding your breath for magic reactors if you want to.

 

[hscs]

Ah, there's the personal attacks. Good boy.

Consider that this is a math problem and no amount of technological advancement is going to change that.

Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it

The global sustainability of nuclear power thus relies on efforts to increase its economic viability. But how? Standardized designs and downsized reactors can help. Governments can offer additional support. But that still might not be enough to keep the nuclear power industry alive in the United...

thebulletin.org

Going back to the original point - it costs more per KW-hr to deliver nuclear power than any other medium in the U.S. due to the construction and O&M costs compared to fossil fuels. And every time there's a 'black swan' event, policymakers add new design requirements to mitigate that risk.

Uninformed people think that nuclear is cheaper and it's just fear mongering, whereas informed people will argue that the increased cost of power consumption is worth the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and hedges against the long-term problem of fossil fuel scarcity. In the latter case, we get into utility functions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is going to vary person-to-person. On a broad voter scale, people don't have a lot of tolerance to pay a premium for electricity generated from a source that can potentially make the terrain uninhabitable for decades in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Either way, you can keep holding your breath for magic reactors if you want to.

New requirements are not often imposed. Like all mishaps, the mistakes are there, the leadership just needs to ID the error chain and do their job.

 

[Spekkio]

New requirements are not often imposed. Like all mishaps, the mistakes are there, the leadership just needs to ID the error chain and do their job.

Aside from my disagreement that all mishaps are created equal... a reactor accident isn't a mishap.

 

[hscs]

And yet, the principles are still the same. It’s how you execute.