Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#321

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

cartoonfoxes wrote: post #216

StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

> But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I don't understand it either. My best guess is that nuclear is scary, and most "green energy" advocates would prefer to believe that panacea eco-friendly alternatives exist. I live in northern Canada. I've witnessed a plent…

It's probably a smallish power plant. Small nuclear power plants wouldn't be competitive even with oil, due to diseconomies of scale in staffing and operation.

If you want a baseload source in Alaska I'd look at geothermal. Even moderate temperature (below boiling) hot water there can be used, due to the moderate or low ambient temperature. And Alaska has many areas with good geothermal resources.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#322

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #96

StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

Everyone was saying "yes" to fission 40 years ago. It was not until Chernobyl that global backlash against nuclear really started. The pace wasn't however particularly impressive back then already as technology, safety and waste management limitations became clear.

No, the backlash against nuclear long predates Chernobyl. And it was driven by economics, not safety. In the US, new nuclear construction collapsed after the first big nuclear building spree, when promises collided with reality. This was even before TMI.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#323

Post by xorfish » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 8:11 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #317

xorfish wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the full implication of it. What exactly is the problem when a sealed used core starts to have some small quantities of UF6?

There are two implications. First, the free fluorine will cause corrosion of the structure in which the spent salt is stored. Second, this UF6 will be enriched, possibly mostly 233U if this is a thorium cycle reactor. If that condenses out somewhere you can achieve a critical mass. Unintentional nuclear chain reactions in spent fuel are a total no-no.

I mean it happens very slowly and only if the spent fuel is kept below 80° C. The vast majority of the waste decays in the first few years. This seems to be such a non-issue.

Furthermore the IMSR isn't a thorium cycle reactor.