First small modular nuclear reactor design certified for use in U.S.
Source: CBS News / AP
January 20, 2023 / 9:24 PM / AP
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the design for what will be the United States' first small modular nuclear reactor.
The rule that certifies the design was published Thursday in the Federal Register. It means that companies seeking to build and operate a nuclear power plant can pick the design for a 50-megawatt, advanced light-water small modular nuclear reactor by Oregon-based NuScale Power and apply to the NRC for a license.
It's the final determination that the design is acceptable for use so it can't be legally challenged during the licensing process when someone applies to build and operate a nuclear power plant, NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday. The rule becomes effective in late February.
The U.S. Energy Department said the newly approved design "equips the nation with a new clean power source to help drive down" planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. It's the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The rest are for traditional, large, light-water reactors.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/first-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-certified-united-states/
Here is the announcement from NRC - https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ford_Prefect
(8,459 posts)I know we need to reduce oil and gas dependence but is this REALLY the way to accomplish it?
Tikki
(14,972 posts)And it is not the answer to a cleaner safer environment.
Tikki
hunter
(40,104 posts)Aggressive "renewable" energy policies in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed and will only prolong our dependence on natural gas.
France closed its last coal mine two decades ago. Germany is still tearing down entire villages to reach the coal beneath them.
I used to be an anti-nuclear activist, and a fairly radical one at that. I'm not anymore.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place. The human population has become dependent on high density energy resources. Without them about half of us simply won't survive, mostly for lack of food, clean water, and adequate shelter. If we continue to burn fossil fuels global warming will have equally serious consequences.
There are two things we must do: Quit fossil fuels, and stabilize our population.
The only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power.
We can stabilize our population by the economic and political empowerment of women, realistic sex education, and universal access to birth control.
dalton99a
(90,922 posts)
iluvtennis
(21,394 posts)Tikki
(14,972 posts)Costs to build, cost to maintain, research, WASTE storage safety, cost of decommissioning and remediation. All costing the tax payer never ending costs.
This industry started 70+ years ago and how is it still not dealing with waste and costs.
The Tikkis
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)... is because the anti-nuke lobby WANTS it to be a problem. It's the centerpiece for FUD and NIMBY opposition, and it is FUD and NIMBY that keeps it a problem. Sort of a negative feedback loop that is exploited by those who are against nuclear power as a transcendental concern.
paleotn
(21,081 posts)
IbogaProject
(5,265 posts)All the profit went to shareholders and we as a society are stuck holding the very toxic bag of these Toxic for 250,000 Years waste products that will outlast the flimsy 'storage' containers where this stuff is waiting to leak out into the environment. The inventors of Nuclear tech wanted a safer fuel cycle the rich guys wanted a more toxic system that made it easier to limit competition. I'll post more about this waste issue later.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)... to post more im the way of links that explain and document. In the mean time....
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3022073
FredGarvin
(720 posts)Case it in lead and bury it.
Problem solved.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Probably not yours.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico sued the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Monday over concerns that the federal agency hasn’t done enough to vet plans for a multibillion-dollar facility to store spent nuclear fuel in the state, arguing that the project would endanger residents, the environment and the economy.
New Jersey-based Holtec International wants to build a complex in southeastern New Mexico where tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants around the nation could be stored until the federal government finds a permanent solution. State officials worry that New Mexico will become a permanent dumping ground for the radioactive material.
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-environment-new-mexico-nuclear-waste-3b9b5078e6d4661d6d4255200a5bcd55
paleotn
(21,081 posts)The transuranics that aren't reprocessed, the stuff taking thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to decay, make up only a tiny part of the waste stream. The vast bulk is lightly to medium radioactive waste that decays far, far quicker. In a decade or less. We know exactly now to deal with highly radioactive waste. Burial in dry, geologically stable places. It's human perceptions and foolishness that gets in the way of that, not the technology.
Decommissioning is most often caused by operators getting cold feet about nuclear, not that the site is actually worn out. Considering the actual longevity of a nuclear plant, and the amount of electricity it produces over its lifespan, decommissioning costs are manageable.
If we can ever get past the bullshit, and look at actual data and not perceptions, it would be common knowledge that nuclear power is safe and reliable. But, alas. I guess we'll have to just shiver when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Humans. Ugh. 
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Almost like screw the people of NM. Los Alamos in the forties dumped plutonium in arroyos/ pits - and everytime it rains, 1940 ‘s plutonium runs down the Rio Grande, but not to worry. Let’s take all the used US pits to NM too. We don’t want to contaminate our states.
hunter
(40,104 posts)It's already killing thousands of people every day and that's ignoring deaths by global warming.
We deal with that problem mostly by ignoring it.
The interesting thing about nuclear waste is that the volumes are so small they can be contained indefinitely.
Many toxins in fossil fuel waste, coal waste is especially bad, have a half life of forever and are dumped recklessly everywhere.
ancianita
(42,394 posts)cstanleytech
(28,007 posts)"Even though geothermal power is globally sustainable, extraction must still be monitored to avoid local depletion.[21] Over the course of decades, individual wells draw down local temperatures and water levels until a new equilibrium is reached with natural flows. The three oldest sites, at Larderello, Wairakei, and the Geysers have experienced reduced output because of local depletion."
ancianita
(42,394 posts)minuses. Just sayin'.
Polybius
(21,046 posts)But not for a couple of decades, even with the breakthrough.
IbogaProject
(5,265 posts)The experts advocated for Thorium back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, as it needs nudging to keep going, it isn't a self perpetuating reaction it needs neutron input to burn. Thorium has a much cleaner (relatively) waste cycle. The final bonus is that it can burn up existing nuclear waste speeding it's processing to safer to dispose material. We need a moon shot where we put New Modular Thorium reactors on site w every existing and retired power reactor, increase the total nuclear share with a type that can lower the very long lived toxic Actinide atoms that Uranium reactors produce and leave as waste.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)For nuclear reactor- why the corporations are going with wind!
Benefitting New Mexico & Arizona
In connection with SunZia Transmission, Pattern Energy is developing the SunZia Wind project in, Lincoln, Torrance, and San Miguel counties, New Mexico. Once complete, SunZia Transmission, along with SunZia Wind will constitute the largest clean energy infrastructure project in United States history, harnessing and delivering over 3,000 MW of renewable energy; enough to power the needs of more than 2.5 million Americans. https://patternenergy.com/projects/sunzia-transmission/
hunter
(40,104 posts)... and the fossil fuel industry knows it, just like they knew about climate change long before it was a popular issue.
The gas industry especially knows damned well that solar and wind power are simply not economically viable without natural gas as a primary energy source, and solar and wind enthusiasts seem to know this too, sheepishly accepting gas as "backup power."
That experiment has been already been done in places like Germany, Denmark, and California, and at huge scales.
Wind and solar are incapable of displacing fossil fuels entirely for the very simple reason that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
So far massive energy storage schemes at the scale required to solve this problem are not practical technologies, just as carbon sequestration schemes are not a practical technologies, and likely never will be.
In any case, "3,000 MW" is not the unit of energy you think it is. A 3,000 MW gas or nuclear plant supplies that much energy continuously but a solar or wind system with that nameplate rating supplies only a small fraction of that in an unpredictable manner.
What's your opinion of the natural gas industry? Should it be shut down?
I think so. Natural gas is hardly any better than coal or oil. Fossil fuels are destroying the natural environment we are familiar with. Global warming caused by our use of fossil fuels will probably be the end of the world as we know it.
I fully respect the dangers of nuclear power. I truly fear the dangers of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are killing thousands of us every day, they are causing the extinctions of species every day, and it's only going to get worse.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)“However, David Schlissel at the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis expressed concerns about the costs. Schlissel, who has studied the history of the nuclear power industry and the finances of the NuScale project, expects they will continue to go up, which could limit how many NuScale reactors are built. He said he thinks they're not competitive in price with renewables and battery storage.”
Corporations will not build nuclear reactors when for way less money they can build wind farms and make way more money.
hunter
(40,104 posts)Meanwhile we'll continue to burn fossil fuels, the world will get hotter, extinctions will accelerate, and billions of humans will suffer and die.
All because nuclear power was too scary, expensive, or some other nonsense.
Oh well...
I'm not specifically invested in NuScale as the answer to our energy problems. Here in the U.S.A. it's simply the first SMR design out of the box because of its conservative design. Worldwide and domestically there are many other competing technologies.
Terrapower's prototype Natrium SMR, promoted by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett was expected to follow a similar development schedule, unfortunately that reactor design relied on a fuel that's only available in commercial quantities from Russia.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Georgia nuclear plant's cost now forecast to top $30 billion.
A nuclear power plant being built in Georgia is now projected to cost its owners more than $30 billion.
“A financial report from one of the owners on Friday clearly pushed the cost of Plant Vogtle near Augusta past that milestone, bringing its total cost to $30.34 billion.
That amount doesn't count the $3.68 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners after going bankrupt, which would bring total spending to more than $34 billion.
Vogtle is the only nuclear plant under construction in the United States, and its costs could deter other utilities from building such plants, even though they generate electricity without releasing climate-changing carbon emissions.” https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)For $8 billion Sun Zia will service 2.5 million customers.
Georgia Power plant - for $30 billion they will service 1 million customers. Which way will corporations go?? Where the money is.
https://www.enr.com/articles/54503-8b-sunzia-transmission-wind-project-work-to-start-in-2023
LudwigPastorius
(13,672 posts)Metaphorical
(2,537 posts)I've come to believe that the best strategy for energy is a full spectrum one, where we use a mix of power sources tied into the electrical grid and storage batteries. Get ICE vehicles off the road over the course of the next two decades in favor of EVs, and phase out oil to critical use domains only. Start building out small, modular nuclear piles, increase use of solar panels and kinetic wind farms.
We also need to start going after the oil companies for fraud and deceptive practices. Enough billion dollar fines might make Exxon and company think really hard about their greenwashing efforts.
Arthur_Frain
(2,251 posts)Fixed it for you, there are a couple of key technologies right on the cusp that may do just that, cheaper, safer, but we need the bridge to the time when they get brought up to speed.
We do need a game plan for disposal of waste, and a forward thinking plan to bridge the gap to new tech would include that. But there’s our problem, and that’s the problem I still have with nuclear energy. Nobody wants it in their backyard. And I’m not sure I want to space this stuff, as one launch disaster would have the potential to release a lot of pain and misery on purely random people.
We have so many issues right now, failure to attend to the right one will ultimately lead to our demise. Resources are scarce, so as always, politically, which is where this stuff gets debated and decided it’s going to be a crapshoot as to whether we spend those resources on the right ones.
I don’t even want to touch population stabilization, as I have a sinking feeling that’s going to take care of itself.
hunter
(40,104 posts)Should we bet our world civilization on them?
It's entirely possible fusion power and super-batteries will always be impractical in this universe.
Nuclear power is a mature seventy year old technology that works and we know how to dispose of the waste.
Arthur_Frain
(2,251 posts)Fission. Markedly expanded and improved storage for renewables. Marked improvement in collection/generation in said renewables. A few others but those are the three that leap to my mind.
It’s just as possible that they will be practical, and no reason to 86 researching the technology.
Despite your assertion about our ability to dispose of the waste, I disagree. I think there’s a lot more to the equation of how to safely dispose of the waste that’s not being discussed.
hunter
(40,104 posts)We need more research, not less, in every scientific field. But you can't discount the possibility that somewhere in the intersection of quantum physics and information theory someone will have a Eureka! moment and recognize why fusion is so damned difficult and impractical as a commercial power source. Or maybe they'll figure out how to make it practical. We just don't know. Want to bet your grandchildrens lives on that?
The first nuclear reactor was activated on December 2, 1942. The first nuclear power plant prototype came online December 20, 1951.
Only 66 years separated the Wright brothers first flight from the first man on the moon.
The first controlled fission experiment succeeded in 1958, the Scylla θ-pinch machine. Look where we are now...
Meanwhile most everyone ignores the problem of fossil fuel wastes, as the planet warms and toxic fossil fuel wastes are dumped everywhere, many of these toxins having a half life of forever.
Hoping that renewable energy or fusion will save the world is just another flavor of climate change denial.
California has solar, wind, hydro, and energy storage infrastructure measured in gigawatt capacities. You can use that REAL WORLD data, which is freely available, to model any sort or renewable energy scheme you like. You can subtract out all fossil fuel and nuclear inputs.
If you do that it's immediately apparent that wind and solar power cannot displace fossil fuels entirely. Only nuclear power can do that.
Look at it this way: If I have a hypothetical electric power grid that gets 50% of its power from nuclear energy simply doubling the number of power plants will bring that percentage up to 100%. The same is not true of wind or solar. You quickly run into a wall of diminishing returns where additional solar and wind capacity is useless, even with ludicrously large and expensive energy storage schemes of the most fantastical sort.
Arthur_Frain
(2,251 posts)It appeared that you were dismissing out of hand both fission and “super batteries” as non viable, and you stated that nuclear was a “mature technology that we understand”
I don’t mean to be argumentative, but only half of us here in the states are ignoring fossil fuel wastes, and we both know which side is doing that. Most of my liberal friends do all the conservation and recycling they can, none of them “roll coal”.
I agree almost completely with your first paragraph, but I think there’s a fair amount of misunderstanding on both of our parts here. I don’t feel that the idea of using nuclear in particular instances shouldn’t be considered outright, but the proliferation whereby “everyone has one in their backyard” (which is of course, hyperbole, a 50 megawatt new line nuclear reactor powers a community or a town, not a single family home) is not a good idea either, for many of the same reasons we’re having problems now.
And real world data gets blown out of the water just as easily in that “eureka” moment you stated where it’s discovered it can’t be done, as in the moment where there is a breakthrough moment that pushes the technology forward.
I guess my surprise at your resistance to my points comes from your initial statement about your stance on nuclear energy being completely anti nuke in the 70’s. We could go on about diminishing returns vs current storage schemes, but I don’t think we’re going to change one another’s perception of what problems matter more.
Part of my problem is you haven’t squared the waste issue. More nuclear plants = more waste, you will run out of space to store it securely on site, nobody wants to be the state that stores it (for obvious reasons if not always accurate, would you buy a home with a nuclear waste dump next to it for your grandchildren?), it’s an obvious target for domestic/international terrorism, and honestly it appears we have to deal with half of our nation shooting up our electric substations, I don’t think they’ll hesitate to consider a nuclear waste storage facility a priority target.
Plus there’s the entire human nature aspect of this. I grew up watching industry after industry (including the nuclear industry early on, and once again now) telling me all of this is safe, and ”we promise to be responsible and do the right thing” which almost never happens. It always, everywhere, comes down to trying to cut corners to squeak out a few more ergs of profitability, and that’s when the bad shit starts to happen.
You’re going to tell me that this time, we will do it right and not be the lazy, greedy, inattentive people that we’ve been up to now? Shit, most of the folks in my town can’t be bothered to come to a full stop at a stop sign or follow the speed limit. I’m sure similar attention will be given to radioactive waste regulations. I don’t want to see the radioactive version of Love Canal.
Oddly enough, my state is one I think we will end up seeing get a couple of the new reactors. Alaska has many communities that have been waiting for this day. So one way or another, we will get to see how this plays out.
hunter
(40,104 posts)Even though it directly kills thousands of people every day, not including the increasing suffering and death caused by climate change.
There's simply no responsible way of dealing with fossil fuel wastes and we are all guilty of producing them, some of us in less noxious ways than others, but all with deadly consequences. Whenever you drive your car its like a miniature Fukushima nuclear accident, spewing carcinogens everywhere. Your gas stove fills your house with toxic fumes. Large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are lost along the way from the gas fields to your gas appliances.
We're all dealing with these ugly realities by ignoring them.
We've got decades of experience safely handling nuclear waste. The volumes of it are manageable.
We still haven't figured out how to safely dispose of fossil fuel wastes, especially greenhouse gasses.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)... I want one in MY backyard. But I'm going to have to go through the HOA 
.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Some reactor sites will give free iodine to those within 10 miles.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)... of iodine, buried with my ten year supply of soy beans!
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Only the best. 😱
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)EX500rider
(12,072 posts)womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)I know this because I grew up in NJ and my cousin lives within 10 miles of this plant. It’s been shut down but might get new owners
“I just heard about it and I would like to get more information about it,” said Phyllis Toledo. a Waretown resident.
That seemed to be the general consensus after speaking with dozens of people living, working and shopping in the Lacey Township area. The Ocean County Health Department is distributing free potassium iodide tablets to anyone within a 10-mile radius of the Oyster Creek Nuclear power plant. And for those unfamiliar with the practice, the recent notifications have been unsettling.
Brian Lippai, a manager at the Ocean County Health Department, says “The Health Department has been offering free potassium iodide pills, or KI tablets if you will, for many, many years now. But there is absolutely no imminent danger or imminent threat or any concern.”
A spokesperson for the county health department says it’s all part of a routine preparedness measure in the event there is a nuclear emergency, but not a direct response.
“This is a typical scenario that’s done around most nuclear power plants, because if in the event there is an accident or explosion it is radioactive iodine that gets released into the atmosphere,” said Chairman of Emergency Services at Hackensack Meridian Health Dr. Joseph Feldman. https://yourhhrsnews.com/health-department-distributes-potassium-iodide-pills-around-oyster-creek-nuclear-plant/
EX500rider
(12,072 posts)Metaphorical
(2,537 posts)Last bastion of a nuclear free America!
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)Response to reACTIONary (Reply #5)
Metaphorical This message was self-deleted by its author.
Happy Hoosier
(9,184 posts)And yes I'd gladly have one of these modern safe designs near me. I'd take it over a fossil fuel briunging plant any day.
jeffreyi
(2,470 posts)Built and maintained with copious amounts of fossil fuels, by the way. Put them on rooftops and parking lots.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)China, still the world’s most aggressive nuclear builder, has added nearly 40 reactors to its grid over the last decade, but its nuclear output was still a third lower than its wind generation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J
Happy Hoosier
(9,184 posts)But no reason not to take advatage of multiple technologies. Also in favor of solar. No reason for parking lots not to be covered with panels.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)In fact, I lived off grid for 6 yrs till I decided in my old age to hook up to grid. Many of my neighbors are still off grid.
And I have more solar panels pumping up my well water into a huge holding tank.
If I go 15 miles down the road, I can see wind turbines turning on the top of a mesa. Actually, 90 ft high transmission lines from that wind farm cross my property. That I’m not happy about.
cstanleytech
(28,007 posts)wind can only do so much.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)For a fourth of the money.
cstanleytech
(28,007 posts)enough suitable space to build enough of them.
certainot
(9,090 posts)they could force large scale expensive centralized solutions like more nukes on us
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)We should keep working on other options, but TODAY nuclear is the ONLY way to make a large dent in coal.
tonekat
(2,391 posts)Would give us another bin for the curb for nuclear waste.
Mysterian
(6,046 posts)Humans will not reduce consumption. The US must designate one county to be the disposal site.
dalton99a
(90,922 posts)There are plenty of good sites there
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)New Mexico’s top Democrat political leaders voiced their opposition to a proposed storage facility for nuclear waste to be built near Carlsbad and Hobbs, warning the U.S. Department of Energy that the site could become a perpetual dumping ground as a permanent repository does not exist.
Holtec International applied for a 40-year license to build a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) at a remote location near the Eddy-Lea county line, through the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) in 2017.
https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2021/07/06/new-mexico-leaders-oppose-holtec-nuclear-waste-site-near-carlsbad/7872429002/
cstanleytech
(28,007 posts)paleotn
(21,081 posts)Those being geologically inactive regions in the US. By the time those areas become active again, our species might be long extinct. Nothing but an interesting layer in the rock record for future intelligent species to ponder.
FredGarvin
(720 posts)Encased in lead.
hunter
(40,104 posts)The waste just sits there, going nowhere, doing nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
Unlike dangerous and toxic fossil fuel wastes which are pretty much dumped freely everywhere without regard to the consequences.
womanofthehills
(10,539 posts)Happy for you if you don’t live there.
pfitz59
(12,003 posts)with nary an incident. This is doable. The waste problem is solvable. Anti-nuke concerns real, but I feel over-blown.
iluvtennis
(21,394 posts)Happy Hoosier
(9,184 posts)3825-87867
(1,665 posts)Haven't seen any definitive answer. And if it's not that bad, then maybe bury the stuff next to the facility or outskirts of heavily populated cities. But maybe better bet is in someone else's back yard...possibly those who advocate this type of energy solution (not that bad, right?)?
BTW, the bottom of the ocean or abandoned mines doesn't count...anymore.
The only real solution to the waste is launch it to the sun...and pray the rocket actually works.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)FredGarvin
(720 posts)
Tennessee Hillbilly
(693 posts)Having a pre-approved standard design can drastically shorten the approval process for every new proposed plant. And the availability of the standard design can save a considerable amount of money on the construction of each plant.
Ford_Prefect
(8,459 posts)It also separates disposal from the overall costing of operations and maintenance. The acceleration of the process also removes any reason to pause on account of errors in the design discovered after initial approval.
That's damn poor QC on something which uses radioactive fuel that has a half life of 50,000 years.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)... nuclear plant designs: "It's the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The rest are for traditional, large, light-water reactors."
Warpy
(114,107 posts)The modular reactors produce more waste per KWH than the most modern large scale reactors do. That being said, they will likely be a good stopgap solution until we manage commercial fusion power.
In addition, they use water as a moderator and to power steam turbines. That makes them unsuitable for many locations around the planet, including mine.
Deserts around the world will do better with molten salt reactors and ultra high temperature thermoelectric generators, both of which are in the prototype stage but have not yet been put together.
(Last year, the Rio Grande wasn't even the Rio Creek, it was the Sand Box Grande. This is why conventional reactors of any size are not going to work)
BWdem4life
(2,819 posts)
multigraincracker
(36,588 posts)We have lots of experience with small reactors used in submarines. They have been very safe and spent fuel has not been a problem.
My guess is it's way to late to save the planet anyway.
reACTIONary
(6,772 posts)Nuclear energy is one of the largest sources of emissions-free power in the world.
It generates nearly a fifth of America’s electricity and half of its clean energy.
During this process, it creates spent or used fuel (sometimes incorrectly referred to as nuclear waste) but it’s not the green oozy liquid you might be thinking of when watching "The Simpsons."
In fact, some in the industry actually consider it a valuable resource.
Say what?
Don’t worry, we’ll get you up to speed with these 5 fast facts on spent fuel that is generated from commercial nuclear power reactors in operation today.
1. COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IS A SOLID
Spent fuel refers to the nuclear fuel that has been used in a reactor.
The fuel used in today’s commercial reactors is made up of small ceramic pellets of low-enriched uranium oxide. The fuel pellets are stacked vertically and encased in a metallic cladding to form a fuel rod. These fuel rods are bundled together into tall fuel assemblies that are then placed into the reactor.
The spent nuclear fuel is a solid when it goes into the reactor and a solid when it comes out. Sorry “Simpsons.”
2. THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF SPENT FUEL EACH YEAR
This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce.
The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.
The nation’s spent nuclear fuel is initially stored in steel-lined concrete pools surrounded by water. It’s later removed from the pools and placed into dry storage casks that are made of steel and concrete or other materials used for protective shielding.
3. SPENT FUEL FROM U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IS STORED AT MORE THAN 70 SITES IN 35 STATES
Most of the nation’s spent fuel is safely and securely stored at more than 70 reactor sites across the country. Roughly a quarter of these sites no longer have a reactor in operation.
The U.S. Department of Energy is now exploring the possibility of consolidating this spent nuclear fuel at one or more federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process.
For the foreseeable future, the spent fuel can safely stay at the reactor sites or a future consolidated interim storage facility until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.
4. SPENT FUEL IS SAFELY TRANSPORTED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
Over the last 55 years, more than 2,500 cask shipments of spent fuel have been transported across the United States without any radiological releases to the environment or harm to the public.
The fuel is shipped in transportation casks that are designed to withstand more than 99 percent of vehicle accidents, including water immersion, impact, punctures and fires.
5. SPENT FUEL CAN BE RECYCLED
That’s right!
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on spent nuclear fuel in the future.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Still dont know why we dont recycle like France does
h2ebits
(951 posts)Thank you so much for providing this information, which has created a great discussion thread also.
I know very little about nuclear power or the various other solutions presented in the thread. This is the type of thing that makes DU great!
Red Mountain
(2,204 posts)The company estimates a twelve-unit NuScale plant would cost $4,200 (an earlier estimate was $5,000) per kilowatt. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration in 2013 estimated overnight costs to be $4,700 per kilowatt for conventional nuclear power, $4,600 for a carbon sequestration coal plant and $931 at a gas-fired plant or in excess of $1,800 for a gas-fired plant with carbon sequestration (all 2011 dollars)
I have questions about the gas-fired carbon sequestration (all? part?) but it seems to be much less expensive.....and that's before the inevitable cost overruns that this new design might or might not avoid.
Not opposed to nuclear at all but question the cost.
DBoon
(24,422 posts)Sometimes the lesser evil is the proper choice
You have a possibility of local contamination from waste versus the ongoing reality of global destruction from fossil fuels
Ideally wind and solar would replace fossil fuels, but they cannot entirely, especially for 24x7 baseline production
On Edit: Burning coal releases radioactive material in addition to other long lasting toxins such as mercury. Replacing coal with nuclear may actually reduce net radioactive emissions
Wolf Frankula
(3,791 posts)Slavery is so GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!
Wolf
aka-chmeee
(1,219 posts)Sol Roth and Robert Thorn! Let those who use produce (Would also be beneficial to overweight Americans (like me)).
Happy Hoosier
(9,184 posts)This is our best shot to save the planet. We need to embrace it.
Takket
(23,303 posts)LudwigPastorius
(13,672 posts)I get the passive cooling concept, but what would happen in the off chance that there is a leak, or a hole blasted, in the reactor vessel?
Are the control rods designed to scram passively, or is this something that must be done by an operator?
Thanks!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)next month in GA is delayed due to vibrations discovered during pre-startup trials. It and another will be the first new reactors in the U.S. in some decades but are several years behind schedule.
Meanwhile, global warming hasn't been waiting.