Support NeoGAF

[PdotMichael]

If renewable energy rendered nuclear plants obsolete we would be seeing a lot more progress of solar and wind farms versus coal in countries that heavily subsidize them. Instead, these forms of energy are replacing fossil fuels at a glacial pace. Meanwhile, the last nuclear plant in the united states started production in the 70s, and yet the U.S. still gets 20% of its power from 76 nuclear power plants. We would have no carbon footprint from power plants already if we never stopped investing in nuclear. And if things keep going the way they are we'd make faster progress investing in nuclear power plants now to be brought up a decade from now while pushing renewables than just putting all our eggs in one basket.

A nuclear power plant can generate in 1 sq mi the energy that wind does over 260-360 square miles, and that's 260-360 square miles of area where no houses, and no trees can exist. The same amount of power can be generated in 45-75 sq miles of solar, and that's also area where nothing grows, and no one lives.

https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/m...and_Use_Carbon_Free_Technologies.pdf?ext=.pdf

Also, there's a damn good reason that China is investing heavily in nuclear on top of renewables.

The world wide share of renewable energy increased from 19% in 2012 to 26% last year. China was capable of reducing its coal consumption the third year in row, mainly because of the high investment in reneawable energy.

Renewable energy is not just the future but also already lived reality.

 

[Steel]

The world wide share of renewable energy increased from 19% in 2012 to 26% last year. China was capable of reducing its coal consumption the third year in row, mainly because of the high investment in reneawable energy.

Renewable energy is not just the future but also already lived reality.

? This isn't even vaguely true.

This is 2012:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...eration/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

I don't even know how you can think those numbers are true when most countries that heavily invest in renewables barely exceed that number if you include burning bio and waste which have their own carbon footprint. Mind sourcing those numbers?

Ah, wait, you're including hydro. Yeah, hydro's always had that share. But solar and wind are also a minimal part of the whole.

Also note, with very few countries even having access to nuclear power and fewer still actively investing in it, it's 10.8%, far more of a lived reality than solar or wind.

 

[PdotMichael]

I think the International Energy Agency is a little more trustworthy than a nuclear lobby site.

 

[Steel]

I think the International Energy Agency is a little more trustworthy than a nuclear lobby site.

Look at the bottomleft of the picture. It's from the IEA. The numbers you got must have combined hydro into the picture, which makes it seem like things are taking off a lot more than they are.

 

[PdotMichael]

Look at the bottomleft of the picture. It's from the IEA.

And the numbers match with what I say. Maybe even more if you also add biofuels into the race.

The content of the website is ridiculous.

 

[Steel]

And the numbers match with what I say. Maybe even more if you also add biofuels into the race.

The content of the website is ridiculous.

The numbers match what I said as well, solar and wind are still a very small part of total energy production and are growing at a glacial pace while nuclear still eclispses it with minimal investment. Again, we'd already be off carbon in power plants if we never stopped investing in nuclear. And I have a feeling, with the rate the solar has grown in the last 5 years, that I'd be able to say the same thing 10 years from now. We might even get 15% of our power from solar and wind in 10 years!

On the other hand, hydro, which you're including to mask how tiny solar and wind are, is limited and constant. It always has been a part energy production, but it's difficult to grow it.

 

[PdotMichael]

Meanwhile in China

Crazy how China embraces renewable energy instead of nuclear although China should be able to embrace and push nuclear energy if there is only the political will for it.

And with the massively shrinking cost for solar and wind energy, while every new generation also increases efficiency - making it even more competive and cheaper than other energy sources.

 

[Steel]

You realize China is building and investing in new nuclear power plants as well, right? Those don't get built over night, as you like to point out. That graph also is citing capacity, which is very different than production when it comes to wind and solar.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I think you are reading that graph wrong.
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/China-leads-demand-in-a-complex-nuclear-industry

 

[PdotMichael]

You realize China is building and investing in new nuclear power plants as well, right? Those don't get built over night, as you like to point out. That graph also is citing capacity, which is very different than production when it comes to wind and solar.

China will produce 6% of its energy with nuclear power plants in 2020. That's less than what renewable energy has right now in China.
Nuclear is not more than an addition to the renewable energy mix.

 

[pr0cs]

China building nuclear reactors, nope nothing could go wrong there

 

[Steel]

China will produce 6% of its energy with nuclear power plants in 2020. That's less than what renewable energy has right now in China.
Nuclear is not more than an addition to the renewable energy mix.

You really think that it'll remain that way for very long with 66 nuclear power plants in production in China?

 

[Frankfurter]

You really think that it'll remain that way for very long with 66 nuclear power plants in production in China?

More like 22 if we are to believe that link just a few posts above.

 

[Steel]

More like 22 if we are to believe that link just a few posts above.

22 under construction, 44 more planned.

 

[Lafazar]

You realize China is building and investing in new nuclear power plants as well, right? Those don't get built over night, as you like to point out. That graph also is citing capacity, which is very different than production when it comes to wind and solar.

That reminds me:

Source: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/capacity

 

[Aureon]

Europe-wide bad weather is definitely happening, and i don't see intra-continental grids where a nation can bully another in a brownout happening anytime soon. Especially if that relies on major solar investments in the Sahara or other 1800+ kw*yr / w places, all of which are obviously around the tropics.

The world wide share of renewable energy increased from 19% in 2012 to 26% last year. China was capable of reducing its coal consumption the third year in row, mainly because of the high investment in reneawable energy.

Renewable energy is not just the future but also already lived reality.

I think you're thinking new installed capacity, not energy production as a whole.
Or you're cutting out fuel usage from energy, eg. using electricity instead of energy measurements.
Either way, if you're gonna take pride in how accurate your source is, link it and post a graph from it, at least.

China building nuclear reactors, nope nothing could go wrong there

Nuclear reactors can't actually explode.

 

[JoeMartin]

Nuclear reactors can't actually explode.

They can't cause a nuclear explosion, yes.

However, there are two general categories of fucking-it-up-real-bad in a nuclear reactor that ends in explosions (and the only two accidents that people really care about were either of the two variants!) if you don't do the right stuff at the right time, both are the result of failure to remove the heat load being generated by the reactor, but occur at different rates:

1) Power (heat) spikes rapidly in the reactor, causing coolant temperature to rise rapidly above saturation pressure, causing steam formation in the reactor coolant channels. Steam is understandably much worse at removing heat than water, then temperature starts increasing even faster, and the resultant super-heated vapor can increase pressure so rapidly that it causes a pressure explosion. Chernobyl did this (quite by accident - the plant did everything it was supposed to do; the guys running the show had no idea what Xenon-precluded startup was) by inserting way way too much moderator into the core, to the effect that the power overshoot could not be controlled and was exacerbated by something called control rod water hole power peaking, which has since dramatically changed the design of control rods. This reactor was too a boiling water reactor operating with something called a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity (basically, when coolant temperature changes, power follows that change) - this today is generally regarded as an unacceptable design choice regardless of safety measures in place, given that when power increases temperature increases which can too cause power to increase further, and if the safety system fails then you get a big fucken problem.

2) Heat is incapable of being removed over a longer period of time, even maintaining coolant saturation. Most of the structural metal in the reactor vessel itself is a Zirconium-Tin-(and very small doping by percentages other things) alloy (called Zircaloy). Zirconium nuclei have a comparatively small propensity for interacting with neutrons (a small microscopic cross section for absorption) which makes it an excellent choice for use in nuclear reactors, however in the presence of water at temperatures of ~800C(1500F), zirconium likes to start oxidizing rapidly by an exothermic reaction called zirconium-hydriding, where zirconium oxides and free hydrogen are formed, and typically pushes local temperatures past saturation. All of that hydrogen likes to collect in a bubble at the top of the core and generally presents a large backpressure to coolant flow, and if the core is in this condition you likely don't have forced flow via coolant pumps available for some reason or another, and this causes the process to rapidly increase and result in a hydrogen explosion. This is what happened at Fukushima. We were extremely fortunate to not have this happen at Three Mile Island, but were oh so close.

But yeah, nothing so spectacular as that gif.

 

[PdotMichael]

You really think that it'll remain that way for very long with 66 nuclear power plants in production in China?

I don't need to think but just need to refer to the official Chinese nuclear energy policy. if your critical about it then you can even argue that the 58 gigawatts goal is quite unlikely too happen in 2020, because like everywhere else the Chinese nuclear plants hitting massive problems.

 

[Frankfurter]

22 under construction, 44 more planned.

40 more planned actually. And plans can change obviously. So I really wouldn't count planned plants as in production.

 

[DouglasteR]

They can't cause a nuclear explosion, yes.

However, there are two general categories of fucking-it-up-real-bad in a nuclear reactor that ends in explosions (and the only two accidents that people really care about were either of the two variants!) if you don't do the right stuff at the right time, both are the result of failure to remove the heat load being generated by the reactor, but occur at different rates:

1) Power (heat) spikes rapidly in the reactor, causing coolant temperature to rise rapidly above saturation pressure, causing steam formation in the reactor coolant channels. Steam is understandably much worse at removing heat than water, then temperature starts increasing even faster, and the resultant super-heated vapor can increase pressure so rapidly that it causes a pressure explosion. Chernobyl did this (quite by accident - the plant did everything it was supposed to do; the guys running the show had no idea what Xenon-precluded startup was) by inserting way way too much moderator into the core, to the effect that the power overshoot could not be controlled and was exacerbated by something called control rod water hole power peaking, which has since dramatically changed the design of control rods. This reactor was too a boiling water reactor operating with something called a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity (basically, when coolant temperature changes, power follows that change) - this today is generally regarded as an unacceptable design choice regardless of safety measures in place, given that when power increases temperature increases which can too cause power to increase further, and if the safety system fails then you get a big fucken problem.

2) Heat is incapable of being removed over a longer period of time, even maintaining coolant saturation. Most of the structural metal in the reactor vessel itself is a Zirconium-Tin-(and very small doping by percentages other things) alloy (called Zircaloy). Zirconium nuclei have a comparatively small propensity for interacting with neutrons (a small microscopic cross section for absorption) which makes it an excellent choice for use in nuclear reactors, however in the presence of water at temperatures of ~800C(1500F), zirconium likes to start oxidizing rapidly by an exothermic reaction called zirconium-hydriding, where zirconium oxides and free hydrogen are formed, and typically pushes local temperatures past saturation. All of that hydrogen likes to collect in a bubble at the top of the core and generally presents a large backpressure to coolant flow, and if the core is in this condition you likely don't have forced flow via coolant pumps available for some reason or another, and this causes the process to rapidly increase and result in a hydrogen explosion. This is what happened at Fukushima. We were extremely fortunate to not have this happen at Three Mile Island, but were oh so close.

But yeah, nothing so spectacular as that gif.

Indeed. The explosion would be "normal" but the contact of the inner reactor with the atmosphere....... inimaginable destructively.

Other thing i was thinking another day.

Why there isnt a underground nuclear reactor ? Or inside a mountain of granite ?

I understand that water is used as primary coolant and that steam dont like confined spaces, but.....

 

[JoeMartin]

Indeed. The explosion would be "normal" but the contact of the inner reactor with the atmosphere....... inimaginable destructively.

Other thing i was thinking another day.

Why there isnt a underground nuclear reactor ? Or inside a mountain of granite ?

I understand that water is used as primary coolant and that steam dont like confined spaces, but.....

All nuclear reactors are near large bodies of water, and for good reason. The most important thing in preventing core damage and limiting the release of radioactive contaminants in the event of some form of catastrophic reactor control failure is to keep the core covered with water, however you can. Typically plants will keep massive tanks with heavily borated water (boron has a relatively high microscopic cross section for absorption of neutrons, and the concentration in this water is enough so that it can limit heat production to spontaneous fission even if normal moderator control is completely bunk) connected with pumps outputying at ridiculously high head to ram the reactor full of water and shut it down simultaneously in the event of some serious leak/material failure.

Those systems generally require electricity, and failing that, all of them have massive on-site pneumatic pumps that can put huge quantities of ocean/river/lake water into the reactor for cooling if necessary. This will likely cause irreversible damage to the core to the effect that it can never be safely taken critical again, but will prevent damage and serious release of contaminants. Japan waited far too long to do this part in Fukushima because they didn't want to destroy a four billion dollar reactor, but their shortsightedness will cost them dearly in the long run, both financially and ideologically.

 

[Aureon]

They can't cause a nuclear explosion, yes.

However, there are two general categories of fucking-it-up-real-bad in a nuclear reactor that ends in explosions (and the only two accidents that people really care about were either of the two variants!) if you don't do the right stuff at the right time, both are the result of failure to remove the heat load being generated by the reactor, but occur at different rates:

1) Power (heat) spikes rapidly in the reactor, causing coolant temperature to rise rapidly above saturation pressure, causing steam formation in the reactor coolant channels. Steam is understandably much worse at removing heat than water, then temperature starts increasing even faster, and the resultant super-heated vapor can increase pressure so rapidly that it causes a pressure explosion. Chernobyl did this (quite by accident - the plant did everything it was supposed to do; the guys running the show had no idea what Xenon-precluded startup was) by inserting way way too much moderator into the core, to the effect that the power overshoot could not be controlled and was exacerbated by something called control rod water hole power peaking, which has since dramatically changed the design of control rods. This reactor was too a boiling water reactor operating with something called a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity (basically, when coolant temperature changes, power follows that change) - this today is generally regarded as an unacceptable design choice regardless of safety measures in place, given that when power increases temperature increases which can too cause power to increase further, and if the safety system fails then you get a big fucken problem.

2) Heat is incapable of being removed over a longer period of time, even maintaining coolant saturation. Most of the structural metal in the reactor vessel itself is a Zirconium-Tin-(and very small doping by percentages other things) alloy (called Zircaloy). Zirconium nuclei have a comparatively small propensity for interacting with neutrons (a small microscopic cross section for absorption) which makes it an excellent choice for use in nuclear reactors, however in the presence of water at temperatures of ~800C(1500F), zirconium likes to start oxidizing rapidly by an exothermic reaction called zirconium-hydriding, where zirconium oxides and free hydrogen are formed, and typically pushes local temperatures past saturation. All of that hydrogen likes to collect in a bubble at the top of the core and generally presents a large backpressure to coolant flow, and if the core is in this condition you likely don't have forced flow via coolant pumps available for some reason or another, and this causes the process to rapidly increase and result in a hydrogen explosion. This is what happened at Fukushima. We were extremely fortunate to not have this happen at Three Mile Island, but were oh so close.

But yeah, nothing so spectacular as that gif.

Those are steam-explosions, fukushima style though. Lots of smoke, but ain't gonna look like a dynamite explosion, much less a nuclear one : )

Indeed. The explosion would be "normal" but the contact of the inner reactor with the atmosphere....... inimaginable destructively.

Other thing i was thinking another day.

Why there isnt a underground nuclear reactor ? Or inside a mountain of granite ?

I understand that water is used as primary coolant and that steam dont like confined spaces, but.....

The answer is easy: You're extremely overestimating the danger of nuclear reactors.

Fuel rods coming into contact with the atmosphere isn't particularly dangerous.

If you put that same risk-intolerance in all our energy generation, dams would be outlawed, and let's not even talk about fossil fuel.

 

[Trokil]

Nuclear reactors can't actually explode.

Why there isnt a underground nuclear reactor ? Or inside a mountain of granite ?

Of course there were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor

 

[DrROBschiz]

that was a gas explosion dude

not a reactor explosion

more specifically the build up of hydrogen gas i believe outside of the containment vessel?

this was widely and correctly reported by the media surprisingly

 

[Trokil]

that was a gas explosion dude

not a reactor explosion

more specifically the build up of hydrogen gas i believe outside of the containment vessel?

this was widely and correctly reported by the media surprisingly

So it was an explosion, but not the explosion you mean or like the explosions in Tschernobyl which ended in firing radioactive material into the atmosphere. So nuclear reactor can only explode is some ways but not in other ways. And hydrogen explosion from the reactors is not a real explosion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

On 26 April 1986, at 01:23 (UTC+3), reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase, leading to explosions in its core

But that was no explosion either I guess.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Those are steam-explosions, fukushima style though. Lots of smoke, but ain't gonna look like a dynamite explosion, much less a nuclear one : )

Fukushima wasn't a steam explosion though, it was a hydrogen explosion.

 

[Nikodemos]

Those are steam-explosions, fukushima style though. Lots of smoke, but ain't gonna look like a dynamite explosion, much less a nuclear one

You know what's the common denominator in all those cases?

Water.

It's an absolutely garbage moderator/coolant. Terribly unstable at high temperatures, corrosive, pressure-sensitive, you name it. The only worse one is sodium, because that one spontaneously combusts if it touches oxygen while molten.

If non-water reactors would become the accepted design, rather than the experimental freaks they're seen as now, 90% of the problems afflicting nuclear reactors would instantly disappear. Water reactors really are that bad a design.

 

[JoeMartin]

You know what's the common denominator in all those cases?

Water.

It's an absolutely garbage moderator/coolant. Terribly unstable at high temperatures, corrosive, pressure-sensitive, you name it. The only worse one is sodium, because that one spontaneously combusts if it touches oxygen while molten.

If non-water reactors would become the accepted design, rather than the experimental freaks they're seen as now, 90% of the problems afflicting nuclear reactors would instantly disappear. Water reactors really are that bad a design.

Water is literally the best moderator there is, short of liquid hydrogen.

Non-water designs are cool and can work, but suffer problems of practicality. Pretty much everything you read about on the internet about nuclear power that sounds cool but isn't widely done isn't because 80 years of dedicated academic research and engineering is missing out on something that a random journal has queued in on, it's because there's a problem of economics or there's a problem of practicality, usually both and usually because the later begets the former.

Water satisfies exceedingly well for many considerations - especially moderation and cooling - but more importantly, water based systems are so much easier to do casualty analysis and planning for, which is the real lynch pin.

 

[DouglasteR]

Water is literally the best moderator there is, short of liquid hydrogen.

Non-water designs are cool and can work, but suffer problems of practicality. Pretty much everything you read about on the internet about nuclear power that sounds cool but isn't widely done isn't because 80 years of dedicated academic research and engineering is missing out on something that a random journal has queued in on, it's because there's a problem of economics or there's a problem of practicality, usually both and usually because the later begets the former.

Water satisfies exceedingly well for many considerations - especially moderation and cooling - but more importantly, water based systems are so much easier to do casualty analysis and planning for, which is the real lynch pin.

I concur, even with its corrosion problems, water is abundant, easy to move, to drain you name it.

Is there any molten salt reactor in TRUE operation ? It is the next step right ?

Its so sad that this tech isnt pushed even further.