Cooling Our Planet with Nuclear Power
Front Page Directory Bulletin Board
Technologies: 1 Capitol Project: The Tools 2 Cooling Our Planet with Nuclear Power 3 Cooling Our Planet with BECCS Power 4 Cooling Our Planet with Geoengineering 5 The Class VI CO2 Disposal Well 6 Nuclear Desalination of Water 7 Nuclear Manufacture of Hydrogen
Cooling Our Planet with Nuclear Power
Why you are wrong about nuclear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3znG6_vla0
We have already proven we know how to use big power plants to change the climate. Nuclear Energy is a Climate Change Game Changer.
“Governments, NGOs, and the private sector all agree: ambitious climate plans only work with nuclear energy. The only question is whether we’re serious about making them work”. - Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Maria Korsnick
UofM School of Nuclear Engineering talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-lVPeTUEFg Getting to Zero New Emissions does not end Climate Change.
NuScale 940 megaWatt 12 Module
Pressurized Light Water Reactor (PWR) Nuclear
5 - 200,000 Ton Per Year Direct Air CO2 Capture Modules, On-Site Class VI CO2 Disposal Injection Well
https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/ https://www.carbfix.com/
demand varies widely over time, making a hybrid facility such as this very
beneficial at all times.
This means you can run the reactor flat-out all the time, shifting between mostly Public Electricity and mostly Direct Air CO2 Capture and Sequestration every 24 hours.
NOTE: The Direct Air CO2 Capture Module also consumes 1/2 ton of natural gas per ton of CO2 captured - the natural gas' CO2 is captured by conventional equipment and added to the main CO2 disposal stream.
Many of the world's 195 countries do not have natural gas distribution systems so Carbon Engineering will have to come up with an all-electric version for Global use.
The world has about 75,000 power plants. The more
power plant modules you have, the more
carbon capturing modules you can have.
The 5 - 200,000 ton per year modules above might be able to extract 1 million tons of CO2 per year per power plant site from the air.
1 million tons per site per year times 75,000 power plant sites is 75 billion tons of CO2 per year.
That could make a big dent in Climate Change's excess 500 billion ton CO2 load on Planet Earth in less than 10 years.
The World Now Has A Melt-Down-Proof Nuclear Fuel Rod
See Also: https://www.deepisolation.com/
Lightbridge claims much better safety. refueling intervals, and power output on existing water-cooled reactors than obtainable from the traditional 77 year old fuel rod design.
Lightbridge Corporation (NASDAQ:LBTR) has decided to prioritize developing fuel for future small modular reactors rather than fuel for large reactor designs, President and CEO Seth Grae said this
week in a business update ahead of a webcast and conference call to discuss the company’s financial results.
The Relative Amounts Of Energy Sources Available And How They Are Being Used
Uranium energy is cheaper than any fossil energy.
Best Way To Get A "Running Start" To 'Repairing The Air' Is To Build On An Existing Coal Power Plant
According to wire service reports, TVA President and CEO Jeff Lyash said last week during an online energy conference hosted by the Atlantic Council that to reach the 100% reduction goal, the utility will need technological advances in energy storage, carbon capture and small modular nuclear reactors. (YouTube video) Lyash said TVA is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2035.
Lyash said that the hundreds of shuttered US coal power plants could be repurposed as small nuclear reactor sites citing easy access to water resources and existing power grid connections. “I see those sites as very viable small modular reactor (SMR) sites.”
Lyash does not see coal as part of the utility’s future, saying TVA will continue to phase it out over the next 15 years because its coal plants are reaching the end of their lives.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who also attended the virtual meeting, agreed, “You could come online much quicker and we could accomplish this at a much faster rate than anything else we could do.”
“Some of our better manufacturing sites are the coal-fired power plants,” said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia. “You could come online much quicker and we could accomplish this at a much faster rate than anything else we could do,” he said about the SMR potential. - - -
The Cost Of Various Types Of Reactors and Uranium
Actually, nuclear power is safer, environmentally cleaner, and cheaper than all other forms of commercial energy.
The Safety Perimeter of a Small Modular Reactor is Tiny compared with a conventional huge reactor
Better to grab a Cat by the tail than a Tiger by the tail.
NuScale Power has gotten the go ahead to prepare a Combined License Application (COLA) to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The UAMPS COLA is expected to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the second quarter of 2023.
NRC review of the COLA is expected to be completed by the second half of 2025, with reactor construction of the project beginning shortly thereafter. NuScale expects to have the first of 12 units in revenue service before the end of the decade. Eventually, plans are for the site to have 12 SMRs. The power rating of the site is a work in progress as NuScale started with an estimate of 50 MWE, but has since increased its design objective to 60 MWe and indicated it has plans for 77 MWe.
The NuScale reference power plant can house up to 12 NuScale Power Modules for a total facility output of 924 megawatts of electricity (MWe). NuScale also offers smaller power plant solutions in 4-module and 6-module sizes with outputs of 308 MWe (gross) and 462 MWe (gross), respectively. The multi-module NuScale plant design is scalable, allowing customers to incrementally increase facility output to match demand.
NuScale Power announced this week together with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) that it has executed agreements to facilitate the development of the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP), which will deploy NuScale Power Modules at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Fluor Corporation and NuScale (as a subcontractor to Fluor) are to develop higher maturity cost estimates and initial project planning work for the licensing, manufacturing and construction of the CFPP.
NuScale's Control Room Simulator
Control stations for 12 NuScale Reactor Units. - Not
completely unlike Henry Ford's Model T engine, the very simple NuScale Reactor
units need relatively little in the way of controls.
The suggested NuScale reactor actually shares a critical thermodynamic feature [convection water cooling] with the Ford Model T engine (October 1, 1908, to May 26, 1927).
Technology Readiness Levels for these new thermal technologies.
The NuScale, Lightbridge, and Carbon Engineering products have been approved by the U.S. Government.
At this time, CarbFix is a user option.
The Class VI CO2 Disposal Well is a U.S. Government Design for an environmentally approvable disposal license.
These 'Cooling the Planet' technologies are of little or no value until Rolling Back Climate Change Part 1: DECARBONIZATION (i.e., Net-Zero) has been achieved.
The necessity for uranium enrichment forLight Water Reactors and the presence of plutonium in the spent fuel are the primary proliferation concerns.
There are differing national policies for the use or storage of fissileplutonium in the spent fuel, with some nations electing to recycle plutonium for use in new fuels and others electing to leave it intact withinthe spent fuel (IAEA, 2008a). The presence of plutonium and minor actinides in the spent fuel leads to greater waste-disposal challenges as well. Heavy isotopes such as plutonium and minor actinides have very long half-lives, as high as tens to hundreds of thousands of years (NRC, 1996), which require final waste-disposal strategies to address safety of waste disposal on such great timescales. Alternative strategies to isolate and dispose of fission products and their components apart from actinides could have significant beneficial impact on waste disposal requirements (Wigeland et al., 2006). Others have argued that separation and transmutation of actinides would have little or no practical benefit for waste disposal (NRC, 1996; Bunn et al., 2003).
Alternative nuclear fuel cycles, beyond the once-through uraniumcycle, and related reactor technologies are under investigation. Partial recycling of used fuels, such as the use of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuels where U-235 in enriched uranium fuel is replaced with recycled or excess plutonium, is utilized in some nations to improve uranium resource utilization and waste-minimization efforts (OECD and NEA, 2007; World Nuclear Association, 2013).
The thorium fuel cycle is an alternative to the uranium fuel cycle, and the abundance of thorium resources motivates its potential use (see Section 7.4.3). Unlike natural uranium, however, thorium does not contain any fissile isotopes. An external source of fissile material is necessary to initiate the thorium fuel cycle, and breeding of fissile U-233 from fertile Th-232 is necessary to sustain the fuel cycle (IAEA, 2005b).
Ultimately, full recycling options based on either uranium or thorium fuel cycles that are combined with advanced reactor designs — including fast and thermal neutron spectrum reactors — where only fission products are relegated as waste can significantly extend nuclear resources and reduce high-level wastes (GIF, 2002, 2009; IAEA, 2005b). Current drawbacks include higher economic costs, as well as increased complexities and the associated risks of advanced fuel cycles and reactor technologies. Potential access to fissile materials from widespread application of reprocessing technologies further raises proliferation concerns. The advantages and disadvantages of alternative reprocessing technologies are under investigation. - from Energy Systems Chapter 7 - IPCC 5 - IPCC Working Group III - 2014.
Please look again at how much uranium mankind has available. There is so much there is absolutely no reason to recycle spent nuclear fuel. It should be buried irretrievably.
Please visit: https://www.deepisolation.com/
Linked below is an article that sounds too good to be true but was written 20 years before the Republicans legalized lying.
Sub-Seabed Nuclear Waste Disposal in Stable Clay Formations.pdf
Bury It In A Subduction Zone And You'll Never Get It Back