Thanks, liked the article and like you I am extremely dubious of CCS as an emissions reductions option. The way I see it, for every ton of fossil fuels burned there are around 2.5 to 3 tons of CO2 produced - and it should be more but combustion is incomplete. (Which suggests to me some or all of the unburned portion still degrades to CO2 - it just doesn't get counted.) And then there are the production emissions along the supply chain - also not counted in the 'how much emissions per ton of fossil fuels burned' accounting?
The huge disparity between the amount of CCS needed compared to how much fossil fuels are used is the primary reason I think CCS is chasing an illusion of fossil fuel use without emissions. Then there is that pesky problem of who will pay for something that produces no saleable product, but rather, spends money making the world's most produced substance of all 'go away'. (So much CO2 that it very nearly adds up to more than the total amount of every commodity produced put together.)
Obviously you do not under stand the science when it comes to passive safety. Passive safety of the new generation of nuclear plants such as being developed by Terra Power and in China will make nuclear power plants much cheaper to build because you do not need all the concrete. The reason plants such as Hinkley Point 3 have so much concrete is that in order to heat water to above 1000 degrees it has to be pressurised. With Liquid Metal reactors you are dealing with elements that do not boil until 1000 degrees or so at sea level pressure. In the case of Terra Power the turbine is in a seperate building from the reactor. So passive safety will make reactors cheaper to build, cheaper to run and safer. This trifecta of gain along with the other advantage of firm scalable energy is why they are so exciting for decarbonisation.
if you read my blog post on SMRs I explain that these things do not exist as concepts that are distinct from nuclear reactors that have been built in the past, and have not been successful
“On top of this its costs have increased since its inception because of the need to build-in safety requirements. New designs have tended to be made with safety in mind (eg ‘passive’ safety designs) rather than improvements in economic productivity.” In fact the point of the new passively safe Liquid Metal cooled reactors is that they have improved economic productivity and safety. They do not need the containment capable of with standing high pressure.
Google Gemini explains it
“The amount of containment needed for TerraPower's Natrium nuclear reactor compared to Hinkley Point C is significantly different, primarily due to their underlying reactor technologies:
Hinkley Point C (EPR - Pressurized Water Reactor):
* Traditional Design: Hinkley Point C uses the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is a Generation III+ pressurized water reactor (PWR).
* High Pressure, Water Coolant: PWRs operate at very high pressures to keep the water coolant from boiling. This high-pressure environment necessitates robust containment to prevent the release of radioactive material in the event of a breach.
* Double Containment: EPRs like Hinkley Point C are known for their enhanced safety features, including a double-shell concrete containment building with a leak-tight metallic liner. This structure is designed to withstand external impacts (like an aircraft crash) and internal incidents, ensuring a high level of protection.
* Core Catcher: EPRs also incorporate a "core catcher" in case of a meltdown, further reducing the risk of radioactive release.
* Significant Concrete and Steel: The construction of Hinkley Point C involves massive amounts of heavy reinforcing steel and concrete for its containment structures.
TerraPower Natrium Reactor (Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor):
* Advanced Design (Generation IV): The Natrium reactor is a Generation IV sodium-cooled fast reactor. This design offers inherent safety advantages that impact containment requirements.
* Atmospheric Pressure, Sodium Coolant: A key difference is that the Natrium reactor uses liquid sodium as a coolant, and it operates at atmospheric pressure. This is a major advantage because it eliminates the high-pressure conditions found in PWRs.
* Reduced Containment Needs: Because there is no need to contain a major primary coolant leak in the same manner as a pressurized system, the Natrium reactor requires a smaller and simpler containment structure than conventional reactors. TerraPower's CEO Chris Levesque has stated that their plant will have "less steel, less concrete, less labor per megawatt generated," directly implying reduced containment construction.
* Passive Safety Features: The Natrium design capitalizes on natural forces like gravity and thermal convection for passive cooling. This inherent safety feature further reduces the reliance on complex, active safety systems that often contribute to the need for massive containment structures in traditional reactors.
* Molten Salt Energy Storage (Separate): The Natrium plant "decouples" the reactor and the electricity-generating portions of the facility, with a molten salt energy storage system located separately from the nuclear island. This separation also contributes to simpler containment requirements for the reactor itself.
* Potential for Underground Installation: Some discussions around TerraPower's design suggest the possibility of installing the reactor below ground, which could further enhance safety and potentially reduce visible containment structures.
In summary, the fundamental difference in operating pressure and coolant type allows TerraPower's Natrium reactor to require significantly less containment in terms of structural complexity, material volume (steel and concrete), and associated labor compared to a traditional pressurized water reactor like those at Hinkley Point C. This reduction in containment is a key factor in TerraPower's goal of achieving lower construction costs and a faster deployment schedule.
The point is that it doesn’t exist and moreover there have been efforts to build molten salt reactors since 1959s without success. I see no reason why this is going to be a breakthrough just because there have been hopeful plans and press releases about this
That was not the point you were making in your post. You were making the point that passive safety will lower economic productivity. That is clearly wrong with the opposite being true.
TerraPower have started construction of the boiler building for generating the power from their Sodium Cooled breeder reactor. They cannot start building the reactor itself because they are still awaiting approval. That is now anticipated this calendar year.
These are the Sodium Reactors currently in operation.
* BN-600 (Russia): This is a long-standing and significant sodium-cooled fast reactor.
* BN-800 (Russia): Another operational reactor in Russia (800MW), which started operation more recently.
* CEFR (China): The Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor has also been connected to the grid. They are now building a larger version.
* FBTR (India): The Fast Breeder Test Reactor in India is also operational and grid connected.
Fast breeder reactors are not new - Uk had one running for many years alongside several other countries and these demonstration plant never got anywhere. Same story again.
Nuclear power is great, and there is no reason not to use it. The reason its not "contributing" is because of the massive campaign against it... run by... hmm.... umm.... "big oil" maybe?
Trouble is, though, nuclear is very expensive - even compared with firmed renewables.
That's why I think the IEA might be right for once that, while nuclear will still grow a bit it won't do so any faster than growing electricity demand. So, it's about 11 percent globally now and will probably stay around that percentage.
So it's not useless, but it's simply never going to be the main game.
People involved in all major energy technologies complain about the regulations. Nuclear power suffers from being a complex construction activity which is very expensive by nature. The health and safety regulations affecting construction in general no doubt increase costs -but that's the same for all construction activity in the West. See my post 'Why nuclear power plant are so expensive, especially in the West'https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/why-nuclear-power-plant-are-so-expensive
Everything is more expensive with regs it’s the crazy part I have trobble with. The regulations are a deliberate tool to stop production , only western country to shift away from carbon is France with nuclear.
That's far from true and only looks at past history. Many nations are beginning a genuine move away from carbon, though it is still early days. But if you look at the facts, renewables and batteries are showing an extraordinary learning curve and represent the great bulk of new energy generation worldwide. This is just beginning to gather pace.
Nuclear will not disappear and there is a place for it in some circumstances (I was speaking as an Australian, where even Fatih Birol from the pro-nuclear IEA says we'd be silly to pursue nuclear). Nuclear is growing a little, but not ahead of the overall growth in electrical generation. It is about 9 percent worldwide at present and will likely remain at about that level for the foreseeable future.
Maybe in a decade or two, IF small modular reactors turn out to be feasible and economically sound, places like Australia MIGHT reconsider their use. But that's a big "if"!
Your comments about regulation are too circular, simplistic, evidence-free and childish to deserve a response.
As an American, I'm actually encouraged by these discussions I read from across the pond. In my state, Florida (a very vulnerable peninsula to sea-level rise) our state censors the use of the term "cli@m@te ch@nge from official documents by law and administrative rule. Our presidential candidates say "drill, baby, drill" and carbon capture/storage remains the political wet dream.
So the hope of the world rests with you guys. Thank you for keeping the conversation on track while America eats their cake
Thanks for the overview on carbon capture. Have you ever calculated the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce wind and/or solar? Wind requires massive concrete foundations, and both demand mining of raw materials — to my knowledge this is done (and seems likely to be for a long while) using diesel-powered machinery. I’m aware RMI is looking at ways to recycle batteries that potentially could vastly minimize their need for raw materials, and other ideas are in the works. The output of energy by these two alternatives is clearly better, but the carbon footprint required, while improving, is not wholly “green.”
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, does improved energy sourcing change our modern industrialized society’s Overshoot, which in essence, is the root of our many ecological concerns?
there's a lot of work been done on these issues - Ember has some commentary which quotes a UN based survey which all show that wind and solar have very low carbon footprints - indeed I think the numbers for solar will now be even lower since there are continuous improvements in efficiency of production. Nothing is ever green outside of heaven, which for me being an agnostic is only a romantic concept. see https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/why-wind-and-solar-are-key-solutions-to-combat-climate-change/
Blue hydrogen is a short term fix. Why not direct the subsidies if is getting on more wind power and electrolyses to produce green hydrogen? Once the carbon capture and storage infrastructure is in place courtesy of more public money, the argument will be we have to sweat the asset, and we’ll be stuck with using methane for decades.
we need some green hydrogen for sure, although I rather fear that hydrogen has been overhyped - there's a longer discussion here, obviously. As for the need to 'sweat' the assets, probably (in my estimation) much of the 'assets' so created will be such that they are not capable of producing much of anything, including sweat.
Thanks, liked the article and like you I am extremely dubious of CCS as an emissions reductions option. The way I see it, for every ton of fossil fuels burned there are around 2.5 to 3 tons of CO2 produced - and it should be more but combustion is incomplete. (Which suggests to me some or all of the unburned portion still degrades to CO2 - it just doesn't get counted.) And then there are the production emissions along the supply chain - also not counted in the 'how much emissions per ton of fossil fuels burned' accounting?
The huge disparity between the amount of CCS needed compared to how much fossil fuels are used is the primary reason I think CCS is chasing an illusion of fossil fuel use without emissions. Then there is that pesky problem of who will pay for something that produces no saleable product, but rather, spends money making the world's most produced substance of all 'go away'. (So much CO2 that it very nearly adds up to more than the total amount of every commodity produced put together.)
Obviously you do not under stand the science when it comes to passive safety. Passive safety of the new generation of nuclear plants such as being developed by Terra Power and in China will make nuclear power plants much cheaper to build because you do not need all the concrete. The reason plants such as Hinkley Point 3 have so much concrete is that in order to heat water to above 1000 degrees it has to be pressurised. With Liquid Metal reactors you are dealing with elements that do not boil until 1000 degrees or so at sea level pressure. In the case of Terra Power the turbine is in a seperate building from the reactor. So passive safety will make reactors cheaper to build, cheaper to run and safer. This trifecta of gain along with the other advantage of firm scalable energy is why they are so exciting for decarbonisation.
They all need containment walls. And Liquid Metal reactors have been tried before.
Except you said they do not exist and that it’s been the attempts to build them that have not been successful. Clearly wrong.
if you read my blog post on SMRs I explain that these things do not exist as concepts that are distinct from nuclear reactors that have been built in the past, and have not been successful
In your post you say:
“On top of this its costs have increased since its inception because of the need to build-in safety requirements. New designs have tended to be made with safety in mind (eg ‘passive’ safety designs) rather than improvements in economic productivity.” In fact the point of the new passively safe Liquid Metal cooled reactors is that they have improved economic productivity and safety. They do not need the containment capable of with standing high pressure.
Google Gemini explains it
“The amount of containment needed for TerraPower's Natrium nuclear reactor compared to Hinkley Point C is significantly different, primarily due to their underlying reactor technologies:
Hinkley Point C (EPR - Pressurized Water Reactor):
* Traditional Design: Hinkley Point C uses the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is a Generation III+ pressurized water reactor (PWR).
* High Pressure, Water Coolant: PWRs operate at very high pressures to keep the water coolant from boiling. This high-pressure environment necessitates robust containment to prevent the release of radioactive material in the event of a breach.
* Double Containment: EPRs like Hinkley Point C are known for their enhanced safety features, including a double-shell concrete containment building with a leak-tight metallic liner. This structure is designed to withstand external impacts (like an aircraft crash) and internal incidents, ensuring a high level of protection.
* Core Catcher: EPRs also incorporate a "core catcher" in case of a meltdown, further reducing the risk of radioactive release.
* Significant Concrete and Steel: The construction of Hinkley Point C involves massive amounts of heavy reinforcing steel and concrete for its containment structures.
TerraPower Natrium Reactor (Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor):
* Advanced Design (Generation IV): The Natrium reactor is a Generation IV sodium-cooled fast reactor. This design offers inherent safety advantages that impact containment requirements.
* Atmospheric Pressure, Sodium Coolant: A key difference is that the Natrium reactor uses liquid sodium as a coolant, and it operates at atmospheric pressure. This is a major advantage because it eliminates the high-pressure conditions found in PWRs.
* Reduced Containment Needs: Because there is no need to contain a major primary coolant leak in the same manner as a pressurized system, the Natrium reactor requires a smaller and simpler containment structure than conventional reactors. TerraPower's CEO Chris Levesque has stated that their plant will have "less steel, less concrete, less labor per megawatt generated," directly implying reduced containment construction.
* Passive Safety Features: The Natrium design capitalizes on natural forces like gravity and thermal convection for passive cooling. This inherent safety feature further reduces the reliance on complex, active safety systems that often contribute to the need for massive containment structures in traditional reactors.
* Molten Salt Energy Storage (Separate): The Natrium plant "decouples" the reactor and the electricity-generating portions of the facility, with a molten salt energy storage system located separately from the nuclear island. This separation also contributes to simpler containment requirements for the reactor itself.
* Potential for Underground Installation: Some discussions around TerraPower's design suggest the possibility of installing the reactor below ground, which could further enhance safety and potentially reduce visible containment structures.
In summary, the fundamental difference in operating pressure and coolant type allows TerraPower's Natrium reactor to require significantly less containment in terms of structural complexity, material volume (steel and concrete), and associated labor compared to a traditional pressurized water reactor like those at Hinkley Point C. This reduction in containment is a key factor in TerraPower's goal of achieving lower construction costs and a faster deployment schedule.
“
Google Gemini does not equal built reactors
Idiotic comments do not equal reasoned argument.
The point is that it doesn’t exist and moreover there have been efforts to build molten salt reactors since 1959s without success. I see no reason why this is going to be a breakthrough just because there have been hopeful plans and press releases about this
That was not the point you were making in your post. You were making the point that passive safety will lower economic productivity. That is clearly wrong with the opposite being true.
TerraPower have started construction of the boiler building for generating the power from their Sodium Cooled breeder reactor. They cannot start building the reactor itself because they are still awaiting approval. That is now anticipated this calendar year.
These are the Sodium Reactors currently in operation.
* BN-600 (Russia): This is a long-standing and significant sodium-cooled fast reactor.
* BN-800 (Russia): Another operational reactor in Russia (800MW), which started operation more recently.
* CEFR (China): The Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor has also been connected to the grid. They are now building a larger version.
* FBTR (India): The Fast Breeder Test Reactor in India is also operational and grid connected.
Several
Fast breeder reactors are not new - Uk had one running for many years alongside several other countries and these demonstration plant never got anywhere. Same story again.
Carbon Capture is fully nonsense.
Nuclear power is great, and there is no reason not to use it. The reason its not "contributing" is because of the massive campaign against it... run by... hmm.... umm.... "big oil" maybe?
Trouble is, though, nuclear is very expensive - even compared with firmed renewables.
That's why I think the IEA might be right for once that, while nuclear will still grow a bit it won't do so any faster than growing electricity demand. So, it's about 11 percent globally now and will probably stay around that percentage.
So it's not useless, but it's simply never going to be the main game.
Nuclear is expensive because of the crazy regulations that are put on it, does hinkly point in the uk need a tsunami wall?
You can just as easily argue that everything is expensive because of "crazy" regulations.
Even if regulations for nuclear are excessive, they are the only way you achieve social licence - and without that you're simply a non-starter.
People involved in all major energy technologies complain about the regulations. Nuclear power suffers from being a complex construction activity which is very expensive by nature. The health and safety regulations affecting construction in general no doubt increase costs -but that's the same for all construction activity in the West. See my post 'Why nuclear power plant are so expensive, especially in the West'https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/why-nuclear-power-plant-are-so-expensive
Everything is more expensive with regs it’s the crazy part I have trobble with. The regulations are a deliberate tool to stop production , only western country to shift away from carbon is France with nuclear.
That's far from true and only looks at past history. Many nations are beginning a genuine move away from carbon, though it is still early days. But if you look at the facts, renewables and batteries are showing an extraordinary learning curve and represent the great bulk of new energy generation worldwide. This is just beginning to gather pace.
Nuclear will not disappear and there is a place for it in some circumstances (I was speaking as an Australian, where even Fatih Birol from the pro-nuclear IEA says we'd be silly to pursue nuclear). Nuclear is growing a little, but not ahead of the overall growth in electrical generation. It is about 9 percent worldwide at present and will likely remain at about that level for the foreseeable future.
Maybe in a decade or two, IF small modular reactors turn out to be feasible and economically sound, places like Australia MIGHT reconsider their use. But that's a big "if"!
Your comments about regulation are too circular, simplistic, evidence-free and childish to deserve a response.
As an American, I'm actually encouraged by these discussions I read from across the pond. In my state, Florida (a very vulnerable peninsula to sea-level rise) our state censors the use of the term "cli@m@te ch@nge from official documents by law and administrative rule. Our presidential candidates say "drill, baby, drill" and carbon capture/storage remains the political wet dream.
So the hope of the world rests with you guys. Thank you for keeping the conversation on track while America eats their cake
Thanks for the overview on carbon capture. Have you ever calculated the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce wind and/or solar? Wind requires massive concrete foundations, and both demand mining of raw materials — to my knowledge this is done (and seems likely to be for a long while) using diesel-powered machinery. I’m aware RMI is looking at ways to recycle batteries that potentially could vastly minimize their need for raw materials, and other ideas are in the works. The output of energy by these two alternatives is clearly better, but the carbon footprint required, while improving, is not wholly “green.”
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, does improved energy sourcing change our modern industrialized society’s Overshoot, which in essence, is the root of our many ecological concerns?
there's a lot of work been done on these issues - Ember has some commentary which quotes a UN based survey which all show that wind and solar have very low carbon footprints - indeed I think the numbers for solar will now be even lower since there are continuous improvements in efficiency of production. Nothing is ever green outside of heaven, which for me being an agnostic is only a romantic concept. see https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/why-wind-and-solar-are-key-solutions-to-combat-climate-change/
Blue hydrogen is a short term fix. Why not direct the subsidies if is getting on more wind power and electrolyses to produce green hydrogen? Once the carbon capture and storage infrastructure is in place courtesy of more public money, the argument will be we have to sweat the asset, and we’ll be stuck with using methane for decades.
we need some green hydrogen for sure, although I rather fear that hydrogen has been overhyped - there's a longer discussion here, obviously. As for the need to 'sweat' the assets, probably (in my estimation) much of the 'assets' so created will be such that they are not capable of producing much of anything, including sweat.