This is really well done, Alex. The major issue I have with renewed interest in Nuclear Fission is the lack of discussion around spent fuel storage. We (humanity) do not have a strong track record of multi-generational planning.
This is a phenomenal site , science / tech and more popularization at its finest… and broad, not just biology , not just chemistry, etc…. and not completely dumbed down either…. So grateful to you for putting it together.
Readers might be interested in China's nuclear power efforts:
A HTR-PM (Generation IV High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor) reached full power in December 2023 after 11 years of construction, with extensive testing since first criticality in 2021.
A TMSR-LF1 (Generation IV Molten Salt Reactor) reached full power (2 MWth) in June 2024, and operated for 10 days with thorium breeding (Protactinium-233 detected) by October 2024.
An ACP100, Small Modular Reactor is under construction, not yet operational but a key pilot for SMR deployment.
DHR-400 (District Heating Reactor): A 400 MWth reactor designed by CNNC for nuclear heating, is part of the Baishan Nuclear Energy Heating Demonstration Project in Jilin.
Very nice article. I wouldn't call U-235 unstable, it has a half-life of 700 million years! Nuclear engineers would call it fissile (versus fissionable) which means that it can absorb free neutrons at a wide band of energies and can maintain a chain reaction.
Many thanks Alex for an excellent summary. It is clear that we have along way to go to engage nuclear as a base supplier, but it is inevitable. I don't believe in a centalised grid, rather I favour a distributed system of SMRs with local economy controls and resilience by distribution. https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-localisation?s=w
Excellent synopsis! I shall use it in my courses (and for my own review). I do wish we could all be a little less lazy and just spell out what we are talking about instead or resorting to acronyms. Every possible 3-letter acronym has multiple meanings, even in the same context! Extra keystrokes are cheap, and not much effort for their clarifying effect; acronyms are too often used as a barrier to keep the uninitiated out, like every kind of jargon.
It's also worth mentioning the long-term sustainability of each reactor design in terms of prospective fuel availability. The IAEA and NEA recently released their latest issue of The Red Book.
The Red Book states that if projected nuclear energy output is reached by 2050 and remains constant, we could exhaust our feasibly available sources of uranium 235 between 2080 and 2110. That could mean uranium-based nuclear is a short footnote in human history, and conventional uranium-based thermal reactors (PWR, AGR, BWR, etc.) could go extinct. There are some solutions, including:
(1) Recycling spent fuel into MOX, which doesn't add much sustainability;
(2) Fast reactors, which could add a couple of thousand years, but the technology likely needs further development;
(3) Thorium reactors, which would need further development;
(4) Uranium extraction from seawater, which hasn't been accomplished at scale as far as I'm aware.
I'm sure there are other avenues people are looking at.
While I may be optimistic about the nuclear sector in the short to medium term, that doesn't mean further challenges don't lie ahead.
I think the trouble with the Oak Ridge experiment is that the molten salt would corrode the heat exchanger and other parts. They found that running the system cooler would make it last longer, but be much less efficient.
Very nice summary for those with little time but a great deal of interest in the topic! If anyone wants to dig a bit deeper, especially in the topics of radiation, waste removal (unless Alex is going to address that in subsequent, buy the book Earth is a Nuclear Planet (it is inexpensive), and if you want to get more involved, consider joining the grass roots organization generationatomic.org
This is really well done, Alex. The major issue I have with renewed interest in Nuclear Fission is the lack of discussion around spent fuel storage. We (humanity) do not have a strong track record of multi-generational planning.
This is a phenomenal site , science / tech and more popularization at its finest… and broad, not just biology , not just chemistry, etc…. and not completely dumbed down either…. So grateful to you for putting it together.
Readers might be interested in China's nuclear power efforts:
A HTR-PM (Generation IV High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor) reached full power in December 2023 after 11 years of construction, with extensive testing since first criticality in 2021.
A TMSR-LF1 (Generation IV Molten Salt Reactor) reached full power (2 MWth) in June 2024, and operated for 10 days with thorium breeding (Protactinium-233 detected) by October 2024.
An ACP100, Small Modular Reactor is under construction, not yet operational but a key pilot for SMR deployment.
DHR-400 (District Heating Reactor): A 400 MWth reactor designed by CNNC for nuclear heating, is part of the Baishan Nuclear Energy Heating Demonstration Project in Jilin.
Very nice article. I wouldn't call U-235 unstable, it has a half-life of 700 million years! Nuclear engineers would call it fissile (versus fissionable) which means that it can absorb free neutrons at a wide band of energies and can maintain a chain reaction.
Many thanks Alex for an excellent summary. It is clear that we have along way to go to engage nuclear as a base supplier, but it is inevitable. I don't believe in a centalised grid, rather I favour a distributed system of SMRs with local economy controls and resilience by distribution. https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-localisation?s=w
Excellent synopsis! I shall use it in my courses (and for my own review). I do wish we could all be a little less lazy and just spell out what we are talking about instead or resorting to acronyms. Every possible 3-letter acronym has multiple meanings, even in the same context! Extra keystrokes are cheap, and not much effort for their clarifying effect; acronyms are too often used as a barrier to keep the uninitiated out, like every kind of jargon.
It's also worth mentioning the long-term sustainability of each reactor design in terms of prospective fuel availability. The IAEA and NEA recently released their latest issue of The Red Book.
The Red Book states that if projected nuclear energy output is reached by 2050 and remains constant, we could exhaust our feasibly available sources of uranium 235 between 2080 and 2110. That could mean uranium-based nuclear is a short footnote in human history, and conventional uranium-based thermal reactors (PWR, AGR, BWR, etc.) could go extinct. There are some solutions, including:
(1) Recycling spent fuel into MOX, which doesn't add much sustainability;
(2) Fast reactors, which could add a couple of thousand years, but the technology likely needs further development;
(3) Thorium reactors, which would need further development;
(4) Uranium extraction from seawater, which hasn't been accomplished at scale as far as I'm aware.
I'm sure there are other avenues people are looking at.
While I may be optimistic about the nuclear sector in the short to medium term, that doesn't mean further challenges don't lie ahead.
I can't help but notice that molten salt is the only one that doesn't mention any disadvantages.
I think the trouble with the Oak Ridge experiment is that the molten salt would corrode the heat exchanger and other parts. They found that running the system cooler would make it last longer, but be much less efficient.
Very nice summary for those with little time but a great deal of interest in the topic! If anyone wants to dig a bit deeper, especially in the topics of radiation, waste removal (unless Alex is going to address that in subsequent, buy the book Earth is a Nuclear Planet (it is inexpensive), and if you want to get more involved, consider joining the grass roots organization generationatomic.org
Thanks guys - I have a Nuclear Engineering exam next tuesday and this resource is more useful than my lecture notes!