Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs.

Inertia refers to a system’s capability to resist change. For a power grid, greater synchronous inertia confers greater ability to resist frequency changes. //

In contrast to gigantic 2,256 megawatt nuclear power plants such as Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) near San Luis Obispo, California which provide very large amounts of synchronous grid inertia, so-called inverter-based resources (IBRs) such as solar powered generators, wind power generators, and batteries supply negligible amounts of synchronous grid inertia. //

Prior to the introduction of significant penetrations of IBRs, each power grid's synchronous generators (coal and natural gas-fired generators, large hydroelectric dams, geothermal plants, and nuclear power plants) had sufficient synchronous grid inertia to assure power grid stability. The synchronous generators have a large amount of rotational inertia as a consequence of having massive rotating turbines and massive rotating generator rotors. (See photograph below.)

As a simplified example, each of the pair of DCPP’s generators have rotating components which weigh in excess of a million pounds (500 tons.) DCPP’s turbines rotate 30 times per second. The rotating magnetic field induces the 60 cycle per second (Hertz) AC voltage (25,000 Volts) and AC current (45,120 Amperes) in the stator windings of each unit. In response to perturbations in grid frequency, the rotational kinetic energy can be instantaneously converted to changes in the output power of the generator which tend to stabilize the generator’s output frequency and voltage.

The Biden administration has announced plans to reignite a shuttered Michigan nuclear power plant with a $1.5 billion loan that, combined with other nuclear announcements yesterday, suggests the US federal government is right now all in on nuclear energy.

The 800-megawatt Holtec Palisades plant, located on Michigan's southwest coast in a relatively low-populated area, shut down in 2022 mainly due to it struggling to afford to stay operational while competing against cheaper fossil fuels.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
Robert Hargraves, Ralph Moir
American Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 4 (July-August 2010), pp. 304-313 (10 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27859537

By Robert F. Hargraves, Ralph Moir

An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined

What if we could turn back the clock to 1965 and have an energy do-over? In June of that year, the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) achieved criticality for the first time at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee.

The Swiss government said on Wednesday it plans to overturn a ban on building new power plants to strengthen local energy supply at a time of increased geopolitical tension.

Energy Minister Albert Roesti said the government would submit a proposal to amend nuclear legislation by the end of 2024 so it can be debated in parliament next year.

"Over the long term, new nuclear power plants are one possible way of making our supply more secure in a geopolitically uncertain time," Roesti told a press conference.

Failure to retain the option could be seen as a betrayal by future generations, Roesti argued.

Construction is underway on a new nuclear power plant in Tennessee – the first officially approved fourth-generation nuclear reactor in the U.S.

Kairos Power has begun building the Hermes Low-Power Demonstration Reactor in Oak Ridge, the first Gen IV reactor approved for construction by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Hermes reactor utilizes a fluoride salt-cooled, high-temperature reactor design, differing from conventional light-water reactors. //

The reactor is set to employ TRISO-coated particle fuel and high-purity fluoride salt coolant, known as FLiBe, a mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. This design is intended to produce affordable nuclear heat rather than electricity, showcasing the potential of a factory-built small modular reactor to revolutionize nuclear construction.

"Kairos will combine the molten salt coolant... with a novel form of nuclear fuel called TRISO, where the fuel is in tiny (<1 mm) particles coated in layers of graphite (both as a moderator and to give the fuel strength and structure)," said Peel.

Construction has started on the new facility in iconic Oak Ridge, Tennessee. //

According to Interesting Engineering, the new Hermes reactor will be the first one built in the United States in 50 years that won’t be cooled by light water. Instead, it will use a system of molten fluoride salt, and a TRISO (tri-structural isotropic particle) fuel pebble bed design will power the generator.

Molten fluoride salts have “excellent chemical stability and tremendous capacity for transferring heat,” per the report, meaning it stays cooler and dissipates heat much faster than the light water that has been used for so long in American reactors.

The fuel bed consists of hundreds of millimeter-sized particles of uranium encased in multiple layers of special ceramic, which allows each individual piece of fuel to have its own containment and pressure vessel, per Ultra Safe Nuclear. The ceramic casing is stronger and more resilient than the typical zirconium alloy, meaning it can withstand higher temperatures and neutron bombardment past the failure point of other types of fuel. //

To be classified as Generation IV, a system must meet, or at least have the ability to meet, the following criteria:

(1) it is much more fuel-efficient than current plants;

(2) it is designed in such a way that severe accidents are not possible, that is, plant failure or an external event (such as an earthquake) should not result in radioactive material release to the outside world;

[3] the fuel cycle is designed in such a way that uranium and plutonium are never separated (“diverged”) but only present in a mix and with other elements. This makes it more difficult to create nuclear weapons. //

The Swiss government said on Wednesday it plans to overturn a ban on building new power plants to strengthen local energy supply at a time of increased geopolitical tension.

Joe Swyers
2 hours ago edited
"the cost to Germans for being forced to rely on alternative energy sources is estimated to be $1 million per day."

Germans need to build over a hundred nuclear power plants to replace that 110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year of natural gas all four Nordstream pipelines could transport.
35,300 BTU per cubic meter
110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year
3,883,000,000,000,000 BTU per year
3,412 BTU per KWH
1,137,995,510,149 KWH
8,760 hours per year
129,908,163 KW
130 GW
1 GW average per nuclear power plant
130 Nuclear Power Plants needed by Germany.

France has 18 power plants with 56 operable reactors.
Germany will need ten times that number by the time they actually get them built and bring them online.
Better get cracking -- atoms, that is.

mopani Joe Swyers
3 minutes ago edited
If Germany had spent $580 billion on nuclear power instead of Energiewiend green energy they would have the cheapest, most reliable, lowest carbon footprint energy in the world.

With Nuclear Instead of Renewables, California and Germany Would Already Have 100 percent Clean Electricity
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments //

California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity sectors had their investments in renewables been diverted instead to new nuclear, a new Environmental Progress analysis finds.

In 2017, Germany generated 37 percent of its electricity from non-carbon sources.[1] In pursuing the Energiewende, Germany will have invested $580 billion in renewable energy and storage by 2025.

If Germany had invested in nuclear instead, it could have built 46 1.6 GW EPR reactors at the $12.5 billion per reactor cost of the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C. German companies assisted with the design of the EPR and the reactor was explicitly planned to meet the strictest European regulations.

In this scenario, EP assumes that a Germany pursuing nuclear power would maintain the same level of nuclear generation as it produced annually before implementing its nuclear phase-out in 2011, about 133 TWh per year.

With 46 EPRs operating at 90 percent capacity factor, Germany could first eliminate all coal, gas, and biomass electricity, then make up for today’s 150 terawatt-hours per year of wind and solar from its renewables investment, all while exporting 100 terawatt-hours of electricity to its neighbors (double 2017’s actual exports). Finally, with the remaining 133 terawatt-hours, Germany could decarbonize its entire light vehicle fleet including all 45 million of its passenger vehicles.[2]

With resounding bipartisan, bicameral support that also achieved enthusiastic support of the Executive Branch, the US has enacted a new law announcing its support of nuclear energy. It has the potential to make an even larger impact on global atomic energy use than the combination of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program of international nuclear energy expansion.

Seventy years ago, that earlier combination of law and policy partially removed the blanket of tight security that had locked up fission energy in the years immediately following WWII. President Eisenhower’s clearly stated goal in enabling commercial atomic energy was to develop “the greatest of destructive forces” into a “great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.”

The “great boon” produced a wave of nuclear power plants that now produce the energy equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s oil production. That energy comes at a low marginal cost without air pollution or greenhouse gases, but nuclear power’s contribution to world energy production leveled off at roughly 2600 TWh/yr 20 years ago.

A growing fraction of the world’s science, engineering, environmental and political leaders agree that the situation needs to be changed. In November 2023, the United States led a coalition of two dozen nations in a promise to take action to triple world nuclear energy production by 2050.

Even before the U.S. signed that declaration of intent, House and Senate Republicans and Democrats began holding hearings, listening to constituents, debating with colleagues and engaging in what used to be considered the normal order of business to produce the ADVANCE Act of 2024. ///

Does this change anything about ALARA or LNT guiding regulations? Then I don't see it as anything more than a response to strong criticism of both. Changing the "mission" of the NRC without changing either of those is just more of the same, just "better". Which is not better for energy availability.

The mission of the NRC is still "avoid accidents", not balancing the tradeoff of "energy is dangerous, lets make sure its both available and safe."

Joe Swyers
2 hours ago edited
"the cost to Germans for being forced to rely on alternative energy sources is estimated to be $1 million per day."

Germans need to build over a hundred nuclear power plants to replace that 110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year of natural gas all four Nordstream pipelines could transport.
35,300 BTU per cubic meter
110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year
3,883,000,000,000,000 BTU per year
3,412 BTU per KWH
1,137,995,510,149 KWH
8,760 hours per year
129,908,163 KW
130 GW
1 GW average per nuclear power plant
130 Nuclear Power Plants needed by Germany.

France has 18 power plants with 56 operable reactors.
Germany will need ten times that number by the time they actually get them built and bring them online.
Better get cracking -- atoms, that is.

mopani Joe Swyers
3 minutes ago edited
If Germany had spent $580 billion on nuclear power instead of Energiewiend green energy they would have the cheapest, most reliable, lowest carbon footprint energy in the world.

With Nuclear Instead of Renewables, California and Germany Would Already Have 100 percent Clean Electricity
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the president signed into law the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, bipartisan legislation to provide a major boost to the future of nuclear energy in America. //

The ADVANCE Act will:

Facilitate American Nuclear Energy Leadership by:
Empowering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to lead in international forums to develop regulations for advanced nuclear reactors.
Directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to improve its process for approving the export of American technology to international markets, while maintaining strong standards for nuclear non-proliferation.
Support Development and Deployment of New Nuclear Energy Technologies by:
Reducing regulatory costs for companies seeking to license advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
Creating a prize to incentivize the successful deployment of next-generation reactor technologies.
Requiring the NRC to develop a pathway to enable the timely licensing of microreactors and nuclear facilities at brownfield and retired fossil-fuel energy generation sites.
Directing the NRC to establish an accelerated licensing review process to site and construct reactors at existing nuclear sites.
Preserve Existing Nuclear Energy by:
Modernizing outdated rules that restrict international investment.
Strengthen America’s Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain Infrastructure by:
Directing the NRC to enhance its ability to qualify and license accident-tolerant fuels and advanced nuclear fuels that can increase safety and economic competitiveness for existing reactors and the next generation of advanced reactors.
Tasking the NRC to evaluate advanced manufacturing techniques to build nuclear reactors better, faster, cheaper, and smarter.

The federal government recently made a big move to streamline the nuclear regulatory process. The ADVANCE Act, signed into law on July 9, will make building new nuclear reactors easier everywhere in the country. //

First, it will streamline the process for converting “covered sites” (land formerly used for coal plants, factories, etc.) into nuclear reactor sites. Missouri is moving toward shuttering its coal plants—meaning that many covered sites will become available. //

Second, the ADVANCE Act mandates that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expedite the “combined license” process for applicants building at a site where a nuclear plant currently operates or has previously operated.

William Burr and Leopoldo Nuti examine the Kennedy Administration's efforts to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy, part of a secret deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban missile crisis. //

Jupiter Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) at Cigli air base in Turkey, 1963. There a squadron of 15 Jupiters was deployed becoming operational in March 1962. //

Kissinger’s finding that “almost everyone” among senior Italian government officials suspected a US-Soviet “agreement” on the Jupiters was not the only time such suspicions surfaced. In the days and weeks after the crisis began to dissipate, mid-level State Department officials discussed rumors that President Kennedy had favored a deal and had a “keen interest” in getting the Jupiters out. In the months after the crisis, McNamara and Rusk tried to batten down suspicions of a deal, testifying before Congress that there had been no such thing. But doubts persisted. Senator John Stennis (D-Ms), among other Senators, was convinced there had been a trade.[v]

It was essential for the Kennedy administration to implement the secret deal and make good on a commitment to the Soviet leadership, but executing it had its complexities. While Khrushchev focused mainly on the Jupiters in Turkey, withdrawing the IRBMs from Italy was also a US goal. Under a coherent policy, the US could not leave Jupiters anywhere on NATO territory, although this made the diplomacy more complicated. And the withdrawal of the Jupiters could not be completely secret, because it had to be carefully and delicately coordinated with Italy and Turkey, whose governments had signed agreements accepting the missiles. Both were NATO allies, and Washington could not ride roughshod over them.

To minimize suspicions of a US-Soviet deal, the reasoning for the Jupiter withdrawals would be carefully explained to Italian, Turkish, and other NATO interlocuters.

Washington, D.C., October 30, 2019 – The current crisis with Turkey over Syria has raised questions, yet to be resolved, about the security of 50 U.S. nuclear weapons stored at Incirlik Air Base. These questions have been posed before, going back almost to the start of nuclear deployments in Turkey in 1959.  How the United States responds carries implications for the region, for U.S.-Turkey relations, and for NATO. //

Members of Congress Worried in 1960 That Leaders of a Coup “Might Seize Control” of Weapons

Other U.S. Officials Feared Risks of Accidental War or Overreaction to Local Crises

During Mid-1960s Turkish Officials Were Interested in Producing an “Atomic Bomb” //

Document 13

Memorandum of Conversation, 14 December 1962, Top Secret
Dec 14, 1962
Source
RG 59, Records of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs, Subject Files, 1961-1963. Box 2. Memoranda (5 of 5)

The Jupiter missile deployments in Turkey (and to some degree Italy) were central to the Cuban Missile Crisis, both to instigating it–Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’ saw them as a “bone” in his throat–and to the secret Kennedy-Khrushchev agreement that resolved the crisis. While President Kennedy provided secret assurances to Khrushchev that the U.S. would remove the Jupiters, only a handful of people knew about the secret deal, and the NATO countries, included Turkey, learned nothing of it at the time.

Speaking with Turkish Defense Minister Ilhami Sancar, McNamara misled him by saying that the U.S. had refused to discuss with the Soviets the “comparability” of the Jupiters with the missiles in Cuba. He further argued that the U.S. was doing Turkey a favor by removing the dangerous and obsolete weapons and replacing them with Polaris missiles that would be deployed in the Mediterranean.

A bipartisan bill that will advance the development of nuclear energy power plants in the nation was passed by the United States Senate on Tuesday. In an 88-2 vote, the Senate voted to pass the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, which is part of the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S.8.70), according to a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). The ADVANCE Act will now move forward to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed. //

The Bill only needs to be 2 lines long as expressed by poster #7. However, the ADVANCE Act is 156 pages so I fear what else is in there. That said, the Union of Constrained Anxientists is already attacking it so it must be good for America. //

This wouldn't have anything to do with Bill Gates recent investment, would it?

Nuclear power could be America’s saving grace — if progressive activists would only stop kneecapping its spread.

Although it’s both clean and abundant, nuclear power is often overlooked by a misinformed public and environmental activists alike.

But change makers like Bill Gates are championing the technology, and should be celebrated for doing so.

The billionaire philanthropist has invested $1 billion in TerraPower, a brand new nuclear power plant which commenced construction in June in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

A 345-megawatt Natrium reactor — the next-generation of nuclear technology — it’s expected to be safer than traditional fission power plants because sodium is used to cool the reactor.

The plant, which has an estimated total cost of $4 billion, is yet to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Gates said that he’s confident TerraPower will hold up to scrutiny.

When a teenager attempts to build a breeder reactor

Dear Dr. Zoomie – I was watching The Man in the High Castle and there was a bit about weapons-grade uranium posing a health risk to people around it. Is this true? //

The short version is that uranium – even highly enriched uranium – is simply not very radioactive. I can confirm this from personal measurements – I’ve made radiation dose rate measurements on depleted uranium, natural uranium, and enriched uranium and none of them are very radioactive. Here’s why: //

. It takes about 100 rem to cause radiation sickness, about 400 rem to give someone a 50% chance of death (without medical treatment), and nearly 1000 rem to be fatal. With a dose rate of 1 R/hr at a distance of 1 meter this part’s easy – it’ll take 25 hours of exposure to cause a change in blood cell counts, 400 hours to give a 50% risk of death, and 1000 hours to cause death. At a speed of 60 mph it takes about 50 hours to cross the US – not even enough time to develop radiation sickness. And that’s for a person sitting for that whole time at a distance of 1 meter from the uranium...

Urenco is an international supplier of enrichment services and fuel cycle products for the civil nuclear industry, serving utility customers worldwide who provide low carbon electricity through nuclear generation. //

SWU stands for Separative Work Unit. It is the standard measure of the effort required to separate U235 and U238.

Choose your relevant calculator from the list below. Enter the known quantities before pressing the calculate button to see the result.

DDopson Ars Tribunus Militum
22y
1,933
Subscriptor
Doc12 said:
If someone has access to industrial centrifuges then HALEU seems like a convenience rather than a necessity. Could use un-enriched uranium in your centrifuges and would just take longer to get to the end point?
Yes, quite a bit longer. If you are a nation-state that can build an industrial scale centrifuge operation, then any reactor fuel is a proliferation risk. It takes several times more effort to concentrate to 5% than from 5% to 90%.

There's a concept called Separation Work Units (SWUs) that can be used to quantify how much centrifuge time is needed to separate x kg of uranium at y% enrichment into an enriched stream at z% enrichment and a tailings stream with <<y% enrichment. And there's a calculator here. https://www.urenco.com/swu-calculator

Let's say you want to produce 1 kg of 90% enriched U235.

Starting from 176 kg of natural uranium, it takes 227 SWUs of effort if you are exhausting tailings at 0.2%. Or if you exhaust tailings at 0.5% it only takes 154 SWU, but then you need a whopping 424 kg of natural Uranium feedstock. Either way, it's a lot of work.

Starting with 20 kg of 5% enriched reactor fuel, drained down to 0.5% tailings, is 48 SWU. Or if you can afford be wasteful of 5% enriched reactor fuel, 30 kg + 30 SWU gets you to the same place with 2% tailings, something that only makes sense if you've stolen the reactor fuel rather than enriching it from natural uranium.

Starting with 5 kg of 20% enriched HALEU drops the separation effort to 12 SWU, assuming 2% tailings. Or if you stole a lot of it, and only need to extract half the U235 content, 10% tailings is 7.4 SWU per kg of weapons-grade HEU.

The key point is that the greatest investment of separation work comes in the early enrichment stages where vast quantities of natural uranium are concentrated into relatively smaller quantities of moderately enriched uranium. It takes several times more effort to concentrate to 5% than from 5% to 90%.

So this risk isn't unique to HALEU. Regular reactor fuel is almost as problematic. //

DDopson Ars Tribunus Militum
22y
1,933
Subscriptor

clewis said:
Timed to the µs? I'll just use a Raspberry π and a real time operating system. If we need ns, I might have to buy some speciality expansion boards.

While modern technology has rendered trivial some aspects of the problem that were much harder in the pre-transistor era, it's still not quite as simple as that. You need high quality explosive initiators that will trigger detonation with a predictable lag, versus all of the default solutions have unacceptably high variability such that one side goes before the other, creating an asymmetric implosion. The solution is often found by driving enormous currents through wires or foil embedded in relatively sensitive explosives, and in 1945, achieving such a rapid current rise was a major challenge. Today, someone developing similar high-precision initiators would benefit tremendously from the plethora of off-the-shelf power electronics (much more important even than the Raspberry pi), but it's still something that a real engineer needs to spend some time testing very carefully or your weapon will dramatically underperform it's designed yield. //

DDopson Ars Tribunus Militum
22y
1,933
Subscriptor

Wickwick said:
Sandia National Labs has (at least) one group which specializes in analyzing the risk of improvised industrial goods for explosive yield. Many years ago I helped adapt some lab equipment so it could be used in a cloud of muriatic acid as if someone had detonated a railcar full of the stuff. Just last year at a conference I was speaking to one of their researchers about the threats posed by things like diesel tankers, LNG ships, etc. None of those things are viewed particularly highly on the threat matrix compared to something like ANFO (Beirut port explosion). Fuels have a lot of stored chemical energy, but you can't couple that to the environment in a manner that creates a large explosion without having an oxidizer intimately mixed in. Achieving the near-nuclear-level blast of a massive fuel-air burst bomb is a non-trivial engineering feat. //

+1, and note that weaponized fuel-air bombs don't just use any old fuel laying about. They have a specifically engineered mix of a highly volatile liquid with a wide detonation range (better tolerance for uneven dispersion), such as ethylene oxide, with a powder like aluminum, which boosts the energy release per unit of oxygen consumed.

Poorly dispersed commercial fuels badly underachieve their on-paper energetic value.