Date: 16/06/2021 16:45:39
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1751991
Subject: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel


Even in the worst-case scenario of a terrorist bombing, molten salt nuclear fuel simply hardens into rock, vastly reducing the consequences of an accident while making these next-gen reactors cheap, effective and small enough to put on floating barges

Copenhagen startup Seaborg Technologies has raised an eight-figure sum of Euros to start building a fascinating new type of cheap, portable, flexible and super-safe nuclear reactor. The size of a shipping container, these Compact Molten Salt Reactors will be rapidly mass-manufactured in their thousands, then placed on floating barges to be deployed worldwide – on timelines that will smash paradigms in the energy industry.

Like other molten salt reactors, which have been around since the 1950s, they’re designed to minimize the consequences of accidents, with a pair of very neat passive safety measures the company claims can greatly change the safety equation at the heart of any nuclear power investment.

Firstly, they use nuclear fuel that’s mixed into fluoride salts. The combination is liquid above 500 °C (932 °F), allowing it to flow through the reactor, which operates at near-atmospheric pressures. This liquid salt functions as a coolant for the nuclear fuel, replacing the high-pressure water cooling in older reactor designs. But if this fuel is exposed to air, instead of venting explosively as steam, it acts like lava and solidifies into rock.

Yes, the rock is radioactive, and you shouldn’t go have a picnic on it, but it’s not a cloud of radioactive gas that can blow across the continent; it’s solid rock that can be cleaned up by safety teams with Geiger counters. It also has very low solubility in water, so it’s comparatively safe even if it falls into the sea.


The Seaborg molten salt reactor design is incredibly compact, and features multiple passive safety features

Secondly, if temperature starts getting out of control for some reason, a “frozen salt” plug at the bottom of the reactor is the first thing that’ll melt, and this will immediately drain the reactor core into a series of cooled drainage tanks underneath.

This pair of simple measures, says Seaborg Technologies co-founder and CEO Troels Schönefeldt, radically re-focuses the nuclear safety question away from total accident prevention with four layers of redundancy at every point of failure, to much simpler consequence mitigation, and it’ll have a huge impact on the cost of nuclear power.

“We take a different approach,” he told Radio Spectrum in an interview. “We’re not reducing the likelihood of an accident to zero, there will be accidents. We should avoid them as much as we can, but there will be accidents. Hopefully, there will be a lot of accidents because we will have a lot of these reactors. What we do, instead of reducing the likelihood, is reduce the consequence of even the worst disasters. Or even acts of war where you actually bomb the reactor. The consequence there is that this fluoride salt will flow out of the reactor, or explode out of the reactor, and lie on the field. It’ll solidify. And now you shouldn’t go onto that field. You should actually keep 10 or 20 feet of distance. But you can go there with a Geiger counter and clean it up. It’s wildly expensive, but you can do it. And that changes the fundamental safety profile of the technology. And in doing so, we change the cost, which again, in turn changes the business model.”


The reactors themselves will be built in Denmark, then sent to shipyards in South Korea to be installed on floating barges and moved to their final locations

But perhaps the most impactful change to the business model is Seaborg’s proposal to install these reactors on barges, and float them offshore rather than buying up land to develop nuclear power plants. There are several advantages here. For starters, you can manufacture them in bulk at a single facility. Seaborg is looking at Korean shipyards, which are already closely and efficiently connected to supply chains with enormous production capacity.

“If you want us to build not one reactor to start with, but a thousand, we could start by building a thousand,” Schönefeldt told Radio Spectrum. “That will take, like, three or four years on these shipyards. So it’s basically unroofed in how fast you can scale it.”

These barges can be moved just about anywhere on the planet, either moored offshore or on large or small rivers, depending on how big a reactor it is. There’s virtually no site preparation required; it’s fully self-contained and very easy to connect to a power grid. Seaborg estimates it can service 95 percent of the world’s population this way, putting basically no land requirements on a baseload or load-following power station up to a healthy 600 MW, which could supply nearly 100,000 homes.


Each shipping container-sized module generates up to 200 MW, and mounting them on floating barges could make these power plants incredibly quick to manufacture and deploy around the globe

The challenge here, as with all molten salt reactors, is corrosion. Hot molten salt itself is highly corrosive, and this will be a serious challenge to design around for every component that comes into contact with the fuel salt. Float the reactors on barges in salty seawater, and you expose the entire exterior to a powerful corrosive agent as well; cargo ships are typically designed with a 25-year service life in mind thanks to the effects of life in salt water.

And it doesn’t stop there for Seaborg. Other molten salt reactors use graphite as a moderator, slowing down the neutrons produced by each fission reaction to maintain the chain reaction. But graphite tends to fracture and weaken when exposed to intense radiation with repeated heating and cooling, eventually resulting in what Seaborg co-founder and CTO Eirik Eide Pettersen describes to Thomas Thor Associates as “unacceptable hotspots.”

Seaborg’s solution is to use another molten salt – sodium hydroxide – as a liquid moderator. Thus, the core design places the fuel salt tube inside a larger tube filled with sodium hydroxide, creating a first-of-its-kind all-liquid reactor that’s remarkably compact. But sodium hydroxide itself is a powerfully caustic base, often used as oven cleaner or drain cleaner; the Seaborg design has to deal with this added corrosive agent too.

And on top of all that, there’s the freaky phenomenon of “grain-boundary corrosion” to boot, caused by the presence of tellurium as a fission by-product in the fuel salt stream. Tellurium atoms can merrily penetrate through metals, and swap positions with other elements, leading to embrittlement of the metals at their weakest points.

The company is well aware of its key challenges here. “Seaborg’s core IP is based on corrosion control in the moderator salt, and applying the lessons learned since the 1950s,” says Pettersen. “But it is not just a question of corrosion, it is also how easy it is to put these things together. Hands-on experience is important. They need to be welded, tested, inspected, maintained. We are working towards having perhaps 20 or 30 test loops in Copenhagen, with the experiments designed, set up and executed. The conceptual design is already done; we are now working on the basic design and in that way we are working up towards a full-scale prototype.”


Seaborg has engaged regulatory bodies in the nuclear industry very early on, with a view to mass manufacture and global rollout on a very rapid time scale

That full-scale prototype is currently scheduled to go online in 2025, at which point it’ll likely be sent to work off an island in Southeast Asia. Having raised some reasonably substantial capital, Seaborg is hiring like mad to work toward that goal. It hopes to achieve regulatory type approval for its design by 2026, and commercial serial production could follow as early as 2027.

These timelines are “almost insane” in the energy market, Schönefeldt told the Switch 2020 audience in a presentation earlier this year, and a validation of the mass production strategy and floating barge approaches. Energy industry investors, who are used to dealing with extremely long planning and construction phases, as well as multi-decade return on investment periods, can now put their money into something that’s online incredibly rapidly and paying for itself within 6-10 years.

The Seaborg reactor is small enough to fit in a shipping container, making it remarkably easy to move around even for ground installations. It’ll run for around 12 years without refueling. Its fuel cannot be used in nuclear weapons. It’s capable of being run on refined, recycled nuclear waste from older reactors – although there will be some regulatory hurdles there, says Schönefeldt. You can draw heat straight from the reactor even more efficiently than drawing electricity, so it’ll be useful in ways other than just being a power station.

Next-generation advanced nuclear power is a hot topic at the moment. With global resolve hardening around the target of zero carbon emissions by 2050, coal- and gas-fired power stations are rapidly being retired. Renewable resources like solar and wind energy will provide the bulk of the energy we’ll need moving forward, but nuclear offers a reliable, cheap and green way to bolster the base load and fill in gaps when renewables aren’t generating.

Despite some extremely high-profile catastrophes, nuclear is already by far the safest method of power generation, with a “deathprint” 330 times lower than coal-fired electricity. The new generation of advanced nuclear reactors promises to be even safer, and molten salt designs like Seaborg’s can dramatically lower the consequences of those vanishingly rare incidents as well. If this company can solve the corrosion issues as effectively as its investors believe it can, what an enormous game-changer this could be.

Source: Seaborg Technologies via IEEE Spectrum, Thomas Thor Associates and Switch 2020

https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 16:48:36
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 1751992
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

PermeateFree said:



Even in the worst-case scenario of a terrorist bombing, molten salt nuclear fuel simply hardens into rock, vastly reducing the consequences of an accident while making these next-gen reactors cheap, effective and small enough to put on floating barges

Copenhagen startup Seaborg Technologies has raised an eight-figure sum of Euros to start building a fascinating new type of cheap, portable, flexible and super-safe nuclear reactor. The size of a shipping container, these Compact Molten Salt Reactors will be rapidly mass-manufactured in their thousands, then placed on floating barges to be deployed worldwide – on timelines that will smash paradigms in the energy industry.

Like other molten salt reactors, which have been around since the 1950s, they’re designed to minimize the consequences of accidents, with a pair of very neat passive safety measures the company claims can greatly change the safety equation at the heart of any nuclear power investment.

Firstly, they use nuclear fuel that’s mixed into fluoride salts. The combination is liquid above 500 °C (932 °F), allowing it to flow through the reactor, which operates at near-atmospheric pressures. This liquid salt functions as a coolant for the nuclear fuel, replacing the high-pressure water cooling in older reactor designs. But if this fuel is exposed to air, instead of venting explosively as steam, it acts like lava and solidifies into rock.

Yes, the rock is radioactive, and you shouldn’t go have a picnic on it, but it’s not a cloud of radioactive gas that can blow across the continent; it’s solid rock that can be cleaned up by safety teams with Geiger counters. It also has very low solubility in water, so it’s comparatively safe even if it falls into the sea.


The Seaborg molten salt reactor design is incredibly compact, and features multiple passive safety features

Secondly, if temperature starts getting out of control for some reason, a “frozen salt” plug at the bottom of the reactor is the first thing that’ll melt, and this will immediately drain the reactor core into a series of cooled drainage tanks underneath.

This pair of simple measures, says Seaborg Technologies co-founder and CEO Troels Schönefeldt, radically re-focuses the nuclear safety question away from total accident prevention with four layers of redundancy at every point of failure, to much simpler consequence mitigation, and it’ll have a huge impact on the cost of nuclear power.

“We take a different approach,” he told Radio Spectrum in an interview. “We’re not reducing the likelihood of an accident to zero, there will be accidents. We should avoid them as much as we can, but there will be accidents. Hopefully, there will be a lot of accidents because we will have a lot of these reactors. What we do, instead of reducing the likelihood, is reduce the consequence of even the worst disasters. Or even acts of war where you actually bomb the reactor. The consequence there is that this fluoride salt will flow out of the reactor, or explode out of the reactor, and lie on the field. It’ll solidify. And now you shouldn’t go onto that field. You should actually keep 10 or 20 feet of distance. But you can go there with a Geiger counter and clean it up. It’s wildly expensive, but you can do it. And that changes the fundamental safety profile of the technology. And in doing so, we change the cost, which again, in turn changes the business model.”


The reactors themselves will be built in Denmark, then sent to shipyards in South Korea to be installed on floating barges and moved to their final locations

But perhaps the most impactful change to the business model is Seaborg’s proposal to install these reactors on barges, and float them offshore rather than buying up land to develop nuclear power plants. There are several advantages here. For starters, you can manufacture them in bulk at a single facility. Seaborg is looking at Korean shipyards, which are already closely and efficiently connected to supply chains with enormous production capacity.

“If you want us to build not one reactor to start with, but a thousand, we could start by building a thousand,” Schönefeldt told Radio Spectrum. “That will take, like, three or four years on these shipyards. So it’s basically unroofed in how fast you can scale it.”

These barges can be moved just about anywhere on the planet, either moored offshore or on large or small rivers, depending on how big a reactor it is. There’s virtually no site preparation required; it’s fully self-contained and very easy to connect to a power grid. Seaborg estimates it can service 95 percent of the world’s population this way, putting basically no land requirements on a baseload or load-following power station up to a healthy 600 MW, which could supply nearly 100,000 homes.


Each shipping container-sized module generates up to 200 MW, and mounting them on floating barges could make these power plants incredibly quick to manufacture and deploy around the globe

The challenge here, as with all molten salt reactors, is corrosion. Hot molten salt itself is highly corrosive, and this will be a serious challenge to design around for every component that comes into contact with the fuel salt. Float the reactors on barges in salty seawater, and you expose the entire exterior to a powerful corrosive agent as well; cargo ships are typically designed with a 25-year service life in mind thanks to the effects of life in salt water.

And it doesn’t stop there for Seaborg. Other molten salt reactors use graphite as a moderator, slowing down the neutrons produced by each fission reaction to maintain the chain reaction. But graphite tends to fracture and weaken when exposed to intense radiation with repeated heating and cooling, eventually resulting in what Seaborg co-founder and CTO Eirik Eide Pettersen describes to Thomas Thor Associates as “unacceptable hotspots.”

Seaborg’s solution is to use another molten salt – sodium hydroxide – as a liquid moderator. Thus, the core design places the fuel salt tube inside a larger tube filled with sodium hydroxide, creating a first-of-its-kind all-liquid reactor that’s remarkably compact. But sodium hydroxide itself is a powerfully caustic base, often used as oven cleaner or drain cleaner; the Seaborg design has to deal with this added corrosive agent too.

And on top of all that, there’s the freaky phenomenon of “grain-boundary corrosion” to boot, caused by the presence of tellurium as a fission by-product in the fuel salt stream. Tellurium atoms can merrily penetrate through metals, and swap positions with other elements, leading to embrittlement of the metals at their weakest points.

The company is well aware of its key challenges here. “Seaborg’s core IP is based on corrosion control in the moderator salt, and applying the lessons learned since the 1950s,” says Pettersen. “But it is not just a question of corrosion, it is also how easy it is to put these things together. Hands-on experience is important. They need to be welded, tested, inspected, maintained. We are working towards having perhaps 20 or 30 test loops in Copenhagen, with the experiments designed, set up and executed. The conceptual design is already done; we are now working on the basic design and in that way we are working up towards a full-scale prototype.”


Seaborg has engaged regulatory bodies in the nuclear industry very early on, with a view to mass manufacture and global rollout on a very rapid time scale

That full-scale prototype is currently scheduled to go online in 2025, at which point it’ll likely be sent to work off an island in Southeast Asia. Having raised some reasonably substantial capital, Seaborg is hiring like mad to work toward that goal. It hopes to achieve regulatory type approval for its design by 2026, and commercial serial production could follow as early as 2027.

These timelines are “almost insane” in the energy market, Schönefeldt told the Switch 2020 audience in a presentation earlier this year, and a validation of the mass production strategy and floating barge approaches. Energy industry investors, who are used to dealing with extremely long planning and construction phases, as well as multi-decade return on investment periods, can now put their money into something that’s online incredibly rapidly and paying for itself within 6-10 years.

The Seaborg reactor is small enough to fit in a shipping container, making it remarkably easy to move around even for ground installations. It’ll run for around 12 years without refueling. Its fuel cannot be used in nuclear weapons. It’s capable of being run on refined, recycled nuclear waste from older reactors – although there will be some regulatory hurdles there, says Schönefeldt. You can draw heat straight from the reactor even more efficiently than drawing electricity, so it’ll be useful in ways other than just being a power station.

Next-generation advanced nuclear power is a hot topic at the moment. With global resolve hardening around the target of zero carbon emissions by 2050, coal- and gas-fired power stations are rapidly being retired. Renewable resources like solar and wind energy will provide the bulk of the energy we’ll need moving forward, but nuclear offers a reliable, cheap and green way to bolster the base load and fill in gaps when renewables aren’t generating.

Despite some extremely high-profile catastrophes, nuclear is already by far the safest method of power generation, with a “deathprint” 330 times lower than coal-fired electricity. The new generation of advanced nuclear reactors promises to be even safer, and molten salt designs like Seaborg’s can dramatically lower the consequences of those vanishingly rare incidents as well. If this company can solve the corrosion issues as effectively as its investors believe it can, what an enormous game-changer this could be.

Source: Seaborg Technologies via IEEE Spectrum, Thomas Thor Associates and Switch 2020

https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/

Very interesting.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:02:35
From: sibeen
ID: 1751993
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Coming to Australia real soon.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:08:20
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1751995
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

sibeen said:


Coming to Australia real soon.

Something that might interest you of which nobody has had anything to say.

sibeen said:
The government proposed that a large gas power plant be built. The pushback has been severe. The Greens are basically calling it evil incarnate.
Oh, and what does our exported gas power? Perchance it stops a coal fired station being built.

PermeateFree said:
It will do no such thing, in fact it will increase our CO2 and methane emissions considerably:

>>……..The Burrup Hub alone, if it were to go ahead as planned, is estimated take up about half (49%) of the
state’s carbon budget for the entire energy and industry sector . Cumulative emissions of the Burrup
Hub until 2070 (expected end of lifetime) would take up around 80% of WA’s carbon budget.
The Barrup Hub alone would burn up around 7-10% of Australia’s Paris Agreement compatible budget
for the entire energy and industry sector to 2050; the WA LNG industry as a whole about 18-20%.
At a global level, the Burrup Hub alone would contribute about 1% of the total global energy and
industry carbon budget calculated on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways. This is about
the same as the share of the entire carbon budget for Australia’s energy and industry emissions to
2050.

Cumulative total (Scope 1 and Scope 3) emissions for 2025 to 2070 for the Burrup Hub alone (until the
end of planned lifetime) of 6.1 Gt CO2e are equal to about 1% of the total global energy and industry
carbon budget calculated based on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways and about the
same as the share of the global carbon budget estimated for Australia’s energy and industry emissions.
The Burrup Hub project as proposed would not be consistent with Australia achieving the necessary
reductions in the range of 44-61% by 2030 are needed for the level of action Australia needs to take in
global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
These emission reductions are needed by 2030 to put the country on a cost-efficient pathway to
achieve zero net GHG emissions by around 2050. The Hub’s projected emissions by 2030 are likely to
be in the range of 4.6-6.5% of Australia’s 1.5°C compatible pathway and, if unabated, this would mean
other sectors would need to reduce by some 3% more (about 47-64% by 2030)11.

https://climateanalytics.org/media/climateanalytics-burruphubwacarbonbudget-report-feb2020.pdf
Over its proposed 50-year lifetime the Burrup Hub project would release over 6 billion tons
(gigatons) of carbon pollution, equivalent to 11x Australia’s annual emissions.

Each year the Burrup Hub project would result in 139 million tonnes of carbon pollution
(including scope 3 emissions), equivalent to:
• over 4x the emissions of the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine4
• 35 of the largest, dirtiest coal-fired power stations5
• the entire national emissions of New Zealand, Ireland, Norway and Bolivia6
• over a quarter of Australia’s entire national emissions

Each year, the direct emissions (scope 1) from the Burrup Hub project generated here in WA
(16mtpa) would be equivalent to:
• almost 8x more than the annual emissions reduction delivered by Australia’s 2.1 million
solar rooftops
• 4 coal fired power stations the size and age of WA’s Muja power station
• half the emissions abatement already delivered under the Morrison government’s
$4.5 bn Emissions Reduction Fund (RET)

The reason for the very high emissions
from the Browse Basin development is
three-fold: *1 Very high CO2 contained in the gas
field, which Woodside plans to vent into
the atmosphere*

2 The considerable amount of energy
required to extract the gas from the
low-pressure field and pump it 900km
to the onshore processing plant

3 Australia’s oldest and least efficient LNG
facility utilised to process the gas

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccwa/pages/11680/attachments/original/1586154175/CCWA_Clean-State_Burrup-Hub_Report_WEB-READER.pdf?1586154175

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:21:10
From: party_pants
ID: 1751996
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Something I am not getting – if the modules are only shipping container sized, why mount them only on barges? If they are that small and compact they could easily be built on cheap land outside of major cities, and connected up to the grid in the usual manner. Transportation of the modules sould likewise be simple, even if the trucks carrying the containers only travel at 20 km/h in the dead of night with a police escort. Very simple and doable.

Not dissing the overall concept of such a reactor, it sounds like a decent improvement. Just the fixation with mounting these things only on barges seems a bit odd.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:23:29
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1751997
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

thorium

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:24:07
From: sibeen
ID: 1751999
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

PermeateFree said:


sibeen said:

Coming to Australia real soon.

Something that might interest you of which nobody has had anything to say.

sibeen said:
The government proposed that a large gas power plant be built. The pushback has been severe. The Greens are basically calling it evil incarnate.
Oh, and what does our exported gas power? Perchance it stops a coal fired station being built.

PermeateFree said:
It will do no such thing, in fact it will increase our CO2 and methane emissions considerably:

>>……..The Burrup Hub alone, if it were to go ahead as planned, is estimated take up about half (49%) of the
state’s carbon budget for the entire energy and industry sector . Cumulative emissions of the Burrup
Hub until 2070 (expected end of lifetime) would take up around 80% of WA’s carbon budget.
The Barrup Hub alone would burn up around 7-10% of Australia’s Paris Agreement compatible budget
for the entire energy and industry sector to 2050; the WA LNG industry as a whole about 18-20%.
At a global level, the Burrup Hub alone would contribute about 1% of the total global energy and
industry carbon budget calculated on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways. This is about
the same as the share of the entire carbon budget for Australia’s energy and industry emissions to
2050.

Cumulative total (Scope 1 and Scope 3) emissions for 2025 to 2070 for the Burrup Hub alone (until the
end of planned lifetime) of 6.1 Gt CO2e are equal to about 1% of the total global energy and industry
carbon budget calculated based on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways and about the
same as the share of the global carbon budget estimated for Australia’s energy and industry emissions.
The Burrup Hub project as proposed would not be consistent with Australia achieving the necessary
reductions in the range of 44-61% by 2030 are needed for the level of action Australia needs to take in
global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
These emission reductions are needed by 2030 to put the country on a cost-efficient pathway to
achieve zero net GHG emissions by around 2050. The Hub’s projected emissions by 2030 are likely to
be in the range of 4.6-6.5% of Australia’s 1.5°C compatible pathway and, if unabated, this would mean
other sectors would need to reduce by some 3% more (about 47-64% by 2030)11.

https://climateanalytics.org/media/climateanalytics-burruphubwacarbonbudget-report-feb2020.pdf
Over its proposed 50-year lifetime the Burrup Hub project would release over 6 billion tons
(gigatons) of carbon pollution, equivalent to 11x Australia’s annual emissions.

Each year the Burrup Hub project would result in 139 million tonnes of carbon pollution
(including scope 3 emissions), equivalent to:
• over 4x the emissions of the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine4
• 35 of the largest, dirtiest coal-fired power stations5
• the entire national emissions of New Zealand, Ireland, Norway and Bolivia6
• over a quarter of Australia’s entire national emissions

Each year, the direct emissions (scope 1) from the Burrup Hub project generated here in WA
(16mtpa) would be equivalent to:
• almost 8x more than the annual emissions reduction delivered by Australia’s 2.1 million
solar rooftops
• 4 coal fired power stations the size and age of WA’s Muja power station
• half the emissions abatement already delivered under the Morrison government’s
$4.5 bn Emissions Reduction Fund (RET)

The reason for the very high emissions
from the Browse Basin development is
three-fold: *1 Very high CO2 contained in the gas
field, which Woodside plans to vent into
the atmosphere*

2 The considerable amount of energy
required to extract the gas from the
low-pressure field and pump it 900km
to the onshore processing plant

3 Australia’s oldest and least efficient LNG
facility utilised to process the gas

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccwa/pages/11680/attachments/original/1586154175/CCWA_Clean-State_Burrup-Hub_Report_WEB-READER.pdf?1586154175

And some may have noted that you didn’t address the point at all.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:24:59
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1752001
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

party_pants said:


Something I am not getting – if the modules are only shipping container sized, why mount them only on barges? If they are that small and compact they could easily be built on cheap land outside of major cities, and connected up to the grid in the usual manner. Transportation of the modules sould likewise be simple, even if the trucks carrying the containers only travel at 20 km/h in the dead of night with a police escort. Very simple and doable.

Not dissing the overall concept of such a reactor, it sounds like a decent improvement. Just the fixation with mounting these things only on barges seems a bit odd.

They do say near the end of the article that the can be used on land.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:28:06
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1752002
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

sibeen said:


PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Coming to Australia real soon.

Something that might interest you of which nobody has had anything to say.

sibeen said:
The government proposed that a large gas power plant be built. The pushback has been severe. The Greens are basically calling it evil incarnate.
Oh, and what does our exported gas power? Perchance it stops a coal fired station being built.

PermeateFree said:
It will do no such thing, in fact it will increase our CO2 and methane emissions considerably:

>>……..The Burrup Hub alone, if it were to go ahead as planned, is estimated take up about half (49%) of the
state’s carbon budget for the entire energy and industry sector . Cumulative emissions of the Burrup
Hub until 2070 (expected end of lifetime) would take up around 80% of WA’s carbon budget.
The Barrup Hub alone would burn up around 7-10% of Australia’s Paris Agreement compatible budget
for the entire energy and industry sector to 2050; the WA LNG industry as a whole about 18-20%.
At a global level, the Burrup Hub alone would contribute about 1% of the total global energy and
industry carbon budget calculated on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways. This is about
the same as the share of the entire carbon budget for Australia’s energy and industry emissions to
2050.

Cumulative total (Scope 1 and Scope 3) emissions for 2025 to 2070 for the Burrup Hub alone (until the
end of planned lifetime) of 6.1 Gt CO2e are equal to about 1% of the total global energy and industry
carbon budget calculated based on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways and about the
same as the share of the global carbon budget estimated for Australia’s energy and industry emissions.
The Burrup Hub project as proposed would not be consistent with Australia achieving the necessary
reductions in the range of 44-61% by 2030 are needed for the level of action Australia needs to take in
global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
These emission reductions are needed by 2030 to put the country on a cost-efficient pathway to
achieve zero net GHG emissions by around 2050. The Hub’s projected emissions by 2030 are likely to
be in the range of 4.6-6.5% of Australia’s 1.5°C compatible pathway and, if unabated, this would mean
other sectors would need to reduce by some 3% more (about 47-64% by 2030)11.

https://climateanalytics.org/media/climateanalytics-burruphubwacarbonbudget-report-feb2020.pdf
Over its proposed 50-year lifetime the Burrup Hub project would release over 6 billion tons
(gigatons) of carbon pollution, equivalent to 11x Australia’s annual emissions.

Each year the Burrup Hub project would result in 139 million tonnes of carbon pollution
(including scope 3 emissions), equivalent to:
• over 4x the emissions of the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine4
• 35 of the largest, dirtiest coal-fired power stations5
• the entire national emissions of New Zealand, Ireland, Norway and Bolivia6
• over a quarter of Australia’s entire national emissions

Each year, the direct emissions (scope 1) from the Burrup Hub project generated here in WA
(16mtpa) would be equivalent to:
• almost 8x more than the annual emissions reduction delivered by Australia’s 2.1 million
solar rooftops
• 4 coal fired power stations the size and age of WA’s Muja power station
• half the emissions abatement already delivered under the Morrison government’s
$4.5 bn Emissions Reduction Fund (RET)

The reason for the very high emissions
from the Browse Basin development is
three-fold: *1 Very high CO2 contained in the gas
field, which Woodside plans to vent into
the atmosphere*

2 The considerable amount of energy
required to extract the gas from the
low-pressure field and pump it 900km
to the onshore processing plant

3 Australia’s oldest and least efficient LNG
facility utilised to process the gas

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccwa/pages/11680/attachments/original/1586154175/CCWA_Clean-State_Burrup-Hub_Report_WEB-READER.pdf?1586154175

And some may have noted that you didn’t address the point at all.

Only to point that what you were saying about the reduction of co2 emissions from gas was wrong.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:28:35
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 1752003
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

party_pants said:


Something I am not getting – if the modules are only shipping container sized, why mount them only on barges? If they are that small and compact they could easily be built on cheap land outside of major cities, and connected up to the grid in the usual manner. Transportation of the modules sould likewise be simple, even if the trucks carrying the containers only travel at 20 km/h in the dead of night with a police escort. Very simple and doable.

Not dissing the overall concept of such a reactor, it sounds like a decent improvement. Just the fixation with mounting these things only on barges seems a bit odd.

We’re talking Denmark here, barges would be ideal for them not having a lot of spare land, as you say they could be plonked anywhere.
There are, from what I read some time ago, already small nuclear plants available based on submarine nuclear plants designs and the like

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:28:47
From: party_pants
ID: 1752005
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

PermeateFree said:


party_pants said:

Something I am not getting – if the modules are only shipping container sized, why mount them only on barges? If they are that small and compact they could easily be built on cheap land outside of major cities, and connected up to the grid in the usual manner. Transportation of the modules sould likewise be simple, even if the trucks carrying the containers only travel at 20 km/h in the dead of night with a police escort. Very simple and doable.

Not dissing the overall concept of such a reactor, it sounds like a decent improvement. Just the fixation with mounting these things only on barges seems a bit odd.

They do say near the end of the article that the can be used on land.

Ok. I skim-read the last bit of it.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:29:07
From: sibeen
ID: 1752006
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

PermeateFree said:


sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Something that might interest you of which nobody has had anything to say.

sibeen said:
The government proposed that a large gas power plant be built. The pushback has been severe. The Greens are basically calling it evil incarnate.
Oh, and what does our exported gas power? Perchance it stops a coal fired station being built.

PermeateFree said:
It will do no such thing, in fact it will increase our CO2 and methane emissions considerably:

>>……..The Burrup Hub alone, if it were to go ahead as planned, is estimated take up about half (49%) of the
state’s carbon budget for the entire energy and industry sector . Cumulative emissions of the Burrup
Hub until 2070 (expected end of lifetime) would take up around 80% of WA’s carbon budget.
The Barrup Hub alone would burn up around 7-10% of Australia’s Paris Agreement compatible budget
for the entire energy and industry sector to 2050; the WA LNG industry as a whole about 18-20%.
At a global level, the Burrup Hub alone would contribute about 1% of the total global energy and
industry carbon budget calculated on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways. This is about
the same as the share of the entire carbon budget for Australia’s energy and industry emissions to
2050.

Cumulative total (Scope 1 and Scope 3) emissions for 2025 to 2070 for the Burrup Hub alone (until the
end of planned lifetime) of 6.1 Gt CO2e are equal to about 1% of the total global energy and industry
carbon budget calculated based on Paris Agreement consistent mitigation pathways and about the
same as the share of the global carbon budget estimated for Australia’s energy and industry emissions.
The Burrup Hub project as proposed would not be consistent with Australia achieving the necessary
reductions in the range of 44-61% by 2030 are needed for the level of action Australia needs to take in
global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
These emission reductions are needed by 2030 to put the country on a cost-efficient pathway to
achieve zero net GHG emissions by around 2050. The Hub’s projected emissions by 2030 are likely to
be in the range of 4.6-6.5% of Australia’s 1.5°C compatible pathway and, if unabated, this would mean
other sectors would need to reduce by some 3% more (about 47-64% by 2030)11.

https://climateanalytics.org/media/climateanalytics-burruphubwacarbonbudget-report-feb2020.pdf
Over its proposed 50-year lifetime the Burrup Hub project would release over 6 billion tons
(gigatons) of carbon pollution, equivalent to 11x Australia’s annual emissions.

Each year the Burrup Hub project would result in 139 million tonnes of carbon pollution
(including scope 3 emissions), equivalent to:
• over 4x the emissions of the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine4
• 35 of the largest, dirtiest coal-fired power stations5
• the entire national emissions of New Zealand, Ireland, Norway and Bolivia6
• over a quarter of Australia’s entire national emissions

Each year, the direct emissions (scope 1) from the Burrup Hub project generated here in WA
(16mtpa) would be equivalent to:
• almost 8x more than the annual emissions reduction delivered by Australia’s 2.1 million
solar rooftops
• 4 coal fired power stations the size and age of WA’s Muja power station
• half the emissions abatement already delivered under the Morrison government’s
$4.5 bn Emissions Reduction Fund (RET)

The reason for the very high emissions
from the Browse Basin development is
three-fold: *1 Very high CO2 contained in the gas
field, which Woodside plans to vent into
the atmosphere*

2 The considerable amount of energy
required to extract the gas from the
low-pressure field and pump it 900km
to the onshore processing plant

3 Australia’s oldest and least efficient LNG
facility utilised to process the gas

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccwa/pages/11680/attachments/original/1586154175/CCWA_Clean-State_Burrup-Hub_Report_WEB-READER.pdf?1586154175

And some may have noted that you didn’t address the point at all.

Only to point that what you were saying about the reduction of co2 emissions from gas was wrong.

My point was that gas is cleaner than coal. Not something that you got anywhere near covering.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:30:00
From: party_pants
ID: 1752007
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Peak Warming Man said:

There are, from what I read some time ago, already small nuclear plants available based on submarine nuclear plants designs and the like

Yeah, but we don’t want irresponsible nations getting hold of that.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:31:15
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 1752010
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Bloody awesome. I’ve been waiting for LFTR to go commercial for years.
The Chinese & Indians are also working on full-sized thorium plants as well.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:32:44
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1752011
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

sibeen said:


PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

And some may have noted that you didn’t address the point at all.

Only to point that what you were saying about the reduction of co2 emissions from gas was wrong.

My point was that gas is cleaner than coal. Not something that you got anywhere near covering.

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:43:16
From: sibeen
ID: 1752015
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

PermeateFree said:


sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Only to point that what you were saying about the reduction of co2 emissions from gas was wrong.

My point was that gas is cleaner than coal. Not something that you got anywhere near covering.

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 17:54:48
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1752022
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

sibeen said:


PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

My point was that gas is cleaner than coal. Not something that you got anywhere near covering.

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

I think you ought to read my post because that particular proposal would eventually account for at least 1% of global co2 emissions, which is a hell of a lot of co2 being vented directly into the atmosphere, then you have the fracking where gas leaks are notorious, not even considering all the other gas wells where the co2 content is not that much less than coal fired emissions. Co2 emissions differ little from coal and should not thought as an intermediary, because it is not.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 18:27:29
From: party_pants
ID: 1752035
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

sibeen said:


PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

My point was that gas is cleaner than coal. Not something that you got anywhere near covering.

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

The problem is not gas per se, it is question of whether the new gas project is replacing coal or is it just another new source of GHG emissions in addition to what we have already. Sure gas produces less GHG emissions than coal, we all get that, but is it removing coal emissions, that is a harder question answer.

The second problem is one of timescale. Is the interval long enough to go to gas as an interim fuel, or is the matter so urgent (because we have delayed so long) that we have to make the jump to renewables at just about the same time as we are switching to gas. What is the point of switching to gas over the next 15-20 years if the time frame for a switch to renewables is 20-30 years (i.e. by 2050)?

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 18:28:33
From: roughbarked
ID: 1752037
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

party_pants said:


sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

The problem is not gas per se, it is question of whether the new gas project is replacing coal or is it just another new source of GHG emissions in addition to what we have already. Sure gas produces less GHG emissions than coal, we all get that, but is it removing coal emissions, that is a harder question answer.

The second problem is one of timescale. Is the interval long enough to go to gas as an interim fuel, or is the matter so urgent (because we have delayed so long) that we have to make the jump to renewables at just about the same time as we are switching to gas. What is the point of switching to gas over the next 15-20 years if the time frame for a switch to renewables is 20-30 years (i.e. by 2050)?

Sitting on hands has left the renewables lagging.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 18:31:07
From: party_pants
ID: 1752039
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

roughbarked said:


party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

The problem is not gas per se, it is question of whether the new gas project is replacing coal or is it just another new source of GHG emissions in addition to what we have already. Sure gas produces less GHG emissions than coal, we all get that, but is it removing coal emissions, that is a harder question answer.

The second problem is one of timescale. Is the interval long enough to go to gas as an interim fuel, or is the matter so urgent (because we have delayed so long) that we have to make the jump to renewables at just about the same time as we are switching to gas. What is the point of switching to gas over the next 15-20 years if the time frame for a switch to renewables is 20-30 years (i.e. by 2050)?

Sitting on hands has left the renewables lagging.

Sitting on hands has left everything lagging. We now have to make sudden structural economic shifts over a short timeframe. It is going to be inconvenient.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 18:32:37
From: roughbarked
ID: 1752040
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

party_pants said:


roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

The problem is not gas per se, it is question of whether the new gas project is replacing coal or is it just another new source of GHG emissions in addition to what we have already. Sure gas produces less GHG emissions than coal, we all get that, but is it removing coal emissions, that is a harder question answer.

The second problem is one of timescale. Is the interval long enough to go to gas as an interim fuel, or is the matter so urgent (because we have delayed so long) that we have to make the jump to renewables at just about the same time as we are switching to gas. What is the point of switching to gas over the next 15-20 years if the time frame for a switch to renewables is 20-30 years (i.e. by 2050)?

Sitting on hands has left the renewables lagging.

Sitting on hands has left everything lagging. We now have to make sudden structural economic shifts over a short timeframe. It is going to be inconvenient.

True.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 18:36:05
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1752041
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

party_pants said:


sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Gas can be as bad depending on the co2 content of the gas in the ground, which is released directly into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can point out a bad gas reservoir, as you did; but in general gas is far less polluting than coal, especially some of the really dirty crap we use in Australia. I fail to see how building a gas fires plant to get a coal plant of the grid is somehow evil. It’s not ideal but not much ever is.

The problem is not gas per se, it is question of whether the new gas project is replacing coal or is it just another new source of GHG emissions in addition to what we have already. Sure gas produces less GHG emissions than coal, we all get that, but is it removing coal emissions, that is a harder question answer.

The second problem is one of timescale. Is the interval long enough to go to gas as an interim fuel, or is the matter so urgent (because we have delayed so long) that we have to make the jump to renewables at just about the same time as we are switching to gas. What is the point of switching to gas over the next 15-20 years if the time frame for a switch to renewables is 20-30 years (i.e. by 2050)?

If you are comparing co2 emissions of coal and refined gas (mostly methane) then the emissions from gas is up to 45% less. However that excludes the venting of co2 from underground gas at the well site. This unfair comparison is just fossil fuel propaganda and supported by the government to justify the private arrangements they have with them.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 19:35:18
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1752069
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:
Peak Warming Man said:

There are, from what I read some time ago, already small nuclear plants available based on submarine nuclear plants designs and the like

Yeah, but we don’t want irresponsible nations getting hold of that.

Bloody awesome. I’ve been waiting for LFTR to go commercial for years.
The Chinese & Indians are also working on full-sized thorium plants as well.

Does make sense, after all, responsible nations probably have governments that actually care what their people do ¡

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 21:39:33
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1752105
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Quite a lot of things here.

Molten salt – the main danger is corrosion, particularly for fluoride salts. After it does set solid, the risk of groundwater penetration into the molten is non-negligible. And even, ignoring the radiactivity, the fluoride component in groundwater can lead to serious environmental pollution problems on its own. As they say, molten salt reactors have been around since the 1950s.

Nuclear reactor in a colllection of shipping containers. Now this makes really good sense, from a cost perspective. I’ve seen strategies like this proposed and like them.

Nuclear power reactor at sea. Not a good idea. Small reactors for powering large ships and submarines makes perfect sense. But not power reactors for generating electric power use on land. Too much trouble with capsizing, particularly in shallow water.

Reply Quote

Date: 16/06/2021 22:11:33
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1752112
Subject: re: Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

mollwollfumble said:


Quite a lot of things here.

Molten salt – the main danger is corrosion, particularly for fluoride salts. After it does set solid, the risk of groundwater penetration into the molten is non-negligible. And even, ignoring the radiactivity, the fluoride component in groundwater can lead to serious environmental pollution problems on its own. As they say, molten salt reactors have been around since the 1950s.

Nuclear reactor in a colllection of shipping containers. Now this makes really good sense, from a cost perspective. I’ve seen strategies like this proposed and like them.

Nuclear power reactor at sea. Not a good idea. Small reactors for powering large ships and submarines makes perfect sense. But not power reactors for generating electric power use on land. Too much trouble with capsizing, particularly in shallow water.

> This liquid salt functions as a coolant for the nuclear fuel, replacing the high-pressure water cooling in older reactor designs. But if this fuel is exposed to air, instead of venting explosively as steam, it acts like lava and solidifies into rock.

More to the point, if exposed to water, the water reactors behave safely and cool down.

But if a molten salt reactor is exposed to water then it immediately explodes violently (look at youtube videos of pouring molten salt into water). And the possibility also exists because of the very high temperature operation of dissociating the water into hydrogen and oxygen resulting in a Chernobyl-type hydrogen explosion.

Yes there can be good reasons for going the molten salt route. Possibly compactness? But safety is not one of them.

> Other molten salt reactors use graphite as a moderator.

Yes. Graphite isn’t a great moderator, water is better, but keep water away from molten salt.

> Seaborg’s solution is to use another molten salt – sodium hydroxide – as a liquid moderator.

Corrrosion again.

> leading to embrittlement of the metals at their weakest points

Metal embrittlement is a problem with every reactor type. It’s not unique to molten salt reactors.

> Next-generation advanced nuclear power is a hot topic at the moment.

Is it? It was a hot topic between the 1960s and 2000, but I haven’t tracked it since then.

Typical molten salt explosion on youtube. https://youtu.be/PDRWQUUUCF0

Reply Quote