Senate panel passes bill to license advanced nuclear plants

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters



Wed Mar 22, 2017 | 12:06pm EDT

A U.S. Senate committee easily passed a bill on Wednesday to enable the nuclear regulator to license advanced nuclear reactors that backers say are safer than conventional plants and can help deal with a growing waste problem.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop a regulatory framework to enable the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors that could come into development in 10 or 15 years.

The bill passed 18-3 in the Environment and Public Works Committee. The committee's chairman, Republican Senator James Inhofe, said the bill is "critical for the revitalization and improvement of our nation's nuclear energy industry."

The bill has brought together some Republicans eager to prevent the United States from falling behind China and Russia in nuclear innovation and Democrats who want to foster technologies that do not emit gases blamed for climate change. But the legislation faces a cloudy future.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/senate-panel-passes-bill-to-license-advanced-nuclear-plants/

[cstanleytech]

1. Isnt long term waste disposal still a problem with nuclear plants in general?

[SkyDaddy7]

4. I'm about to see if these are the ones...

But the technology exist that can burn the waste we have now & what is left is not near as dangerous in terms of being radioactive & it only has to be stored for a few years if that. If I find I will share.

[FBaggins]

6. Not really

There's comparatively little waste even on current designs and (as is pointed out below), the newer designs often burn the waste of the prior designs.

Ever were that not so, waste management is primarily a political problem, not a technical one.

[cstanleytech]

8. How can they burn spent nuclear fuel exactly? I thought that there was still an issue

with the long term storage of it due to fears of it leaking and contaminating things like aquifers.

[FBaggins]

11. "Spent" fuel isn't really spent

Only a small percentage (usually about 3%) of the uranium has fissioned. It's just that for the most common reactor types, some of the daughter element "fission products" impair the ongoing reaction, so that fuel gets removed and replaced. It isn't particularly difficult to remove those elements and reuse the remaining uranium... it's just cheaper to mine new uranium.

More importantly, there are different reactor designs that can burn otherwise "spent" fuel and have far higher burnup rates - reducing the already-tiny amounts of waste per unit of electricity generated.

I thought that there was still an issue with the long term storage of it due to fears of it leaking and contaminating things like aquifers

That depends on what you consider to be "an issue". It's certainly a key factor in designing long-term storage designs, but it isn't a particularly challenging one. Those are usually artificial fears used to stoke NIMBYism's fires. Keep in mind that even were such leakage to occur, the vast bulk of nuclear waste is made up of natural elements that came out of the ground in the first place. They're already "contaminating" the water supply... it just isn't a big deal because we've been surrounded by it since the beginning of human history. If, for instance, you have radon in your home (as almost all homes do), it's because you're home is surrounded by uranium.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. Hey, I found it...

Sorry, I got tied up with something else...

The reactor I was thinking about is called a "Integral Fast Reactor". The technology has actually been around since the 80's maybe before but after Chernobyl & 3 Mile Island the funding for the only IFR pilot reactor was cut by Congress. However, the good thing is we know the technology works!

I don't agree fully with the other person's claim about waste...Waste is a HUGE PROBLEM right now! However, if we were to move away from the current technology then we could not only generate power for the next 1000yrs on the waste we have lying around before we would have to mine for more Uranium...The waste that is left using IFR is far less & only has to be stored a few hundred years vs 10,000yrs -100,000yrs!

The IFR can burn waste or "spent fuel" (which is not really "spent fuel" it is just LWR Light Water reactors (current technology) are not near as efficient at burning fuel as the IFE are...From light water reactors. Here is a link & a video that helps explain how it works.

EDIT: OH yeah...IFR are far safer too!! They shut themselves down!!! Very cool! Watch the both videos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Nuclear_waste

[cstanleytech]

10. If the tech has been around that long then why didnt they push to phase out the older less safe

reactors? Also is the AP1000 reactor the same thing because thats what wiki says they are building down at Vogtle which is a few miles away from me.

[Massacure]

13. There are two reasons -

The first is reason is that uranium is relatively cheap and once-through thermal reactors are a proven technology. Most if not all the reactor operators thought that they would have a repository they could send the spent fuel to. Harry Reid was a particularly powerful opponent of the Yucca Mountain repository though, and it's construction never panned out.

The second reason is that water serves too much as a moderator in reactors, which makes it not very suitable coolant for fast nuetron reactors. Liquid sodium has been used to cool several large scale fast neutron reactors with some success. It's biggest issue is that it burns when it comes into contact with oxygen and explodes when it comes into contact with water.

As for your question about Vogtle and the AP-1000 design, that is a essentially a new iteration of the pressurized water reactors already built in the United States. It improves upon the older designs, but it isn't radically different.

[SkyDaddy7]

15. Thanks for the info!!

I did not see your post prior to making mine...You obviously know what you're talking about! Thanks!!

[SkyDaddy7]

14. No, I was thinking the same thing...

That is a very good question!! I think it has something to do with AP1000 & all the previous reactors all being water cooled & the IFS being metal cooled (I think)...I KNOW they're not water cooled. So, I think the regulatory system prevents anything but water cooled reactors from being used.

[Jimbo101]

2. Biblical Flooding Is Coming to a Refinery (or Nuke) Near You

Mother Jones

[Hortensis]

3. Powerful Rump backer, billionaire Robert Mercer

is reportedly a great admirer of nuclear power. He also says the people of Japan, outside those who died in the immediate heavy contamination zone, of course, are made healthier by exposure to radiation.

Like the Kochs, Mercer is a hard-core libertarian who believes "government should be shrunk to the size of a pinhead." How would that be able to serve 230M people whose continued existence depends on highly interdependent societal systems? Not his problem. He's taking care of himself, and we each should also.

We MUST get money, and with it insanely powerful creepos, out of politics.

[FBaggins]

5. Good

Long overdue

[MicaelS]

7. Agreed, WAY overdue. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

12. surprised and pleased to see so many here agreeing with this

We need to go all in with renewables with huge tax breaks etc.

But the only reason humanity has achieved what we have is using our ability to create new technologies.

The old nuke plants had problems. And placements need to be well thought out. But they still offer amazing potential if we use sound science and proceed slowly.

Unfortunately, science seem to be getting short shrift right now.

[burrowowl]

16. K&R