China started building AP1000 and EPR reactors years after Europe and America started projects. China just completed the first AP1000 and the first EPR reactors.
Nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe’s say the problems with commercial nuclear construction is a problem military nuclear programs.
Nuclear weapons and naval propulsion depends on a robust civilian nuclear industry.
Without civilian nuclear reactors the US and Europe would depend upon China for enriched uranium.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
The navy reactors have 4 years of full power capability. They “last long” – 30 years often quoted, which would be 4/30 capacity factor or 13.3% power for 30 years. They are probably only out at sea less than half the time and under full steam just a small fraction of that time. Getting to the point – their core average exposure (isotopic depletion) at end of life is basically the same as commercial LWRs – maybe 35 GWd/T. That is based on hearsay – I’ll admit, but here is a sanity check: 70MW reactor x 1460 days full power = 102.2GW-day. 102.2GW-d/35GWd/T = 3 tons of uranium. Checkmark – that is reasonable. Upper limit of average exposure would be 100 GWd/T where all the fuel rods/plates are shot to heck from neutron bombardment, then that is about 1 ton of uranium.
The navy reactors have 4 years of full power capability. They last long”” – 30 years often quoted”” which would be 4/30 capacity factor or 13.3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} power for 30 years. They are probably only out at sea less than half the time and under full steam just a small fraction of that time. Getting to the point – their core average exposure (isotopic depletion) at end of life is basically the same as commercial LWRs – maybe 35 GWd/T. That is based on hearsay – I’ll admit but here is a sanity check: 70MW reactor x 1460 days full power = 102.2GW-day. 102.2GW-d/35GWd/T = 3 tons of uranium. Checkmark – that is reasonable. Upper limit of average exposure would be 100 GWd/T where all the fuel rods/plates are shot to heck from neutron bombardment”” then that is about 1 ton of uranium.”””
‘Is there some nuclear physics reason why you couldn’t build a fluid-fueled reactor that lasts as long as those in the US submarines?’ Submarine reactors have to be compact and quiet – compact to minimise the hull cross-section, and quiet so the Russians can’t track them. Water is a much better neutron moderator than carbon – hydrogen has a scattering cross-section of 82 barns, with two per molecule, versus carbon12’s 5.5 barns, so you don’t need 90 percent of the core to be graphite. Water is also a better coolant than salt in terms of specific heat, so less pumping means less noise. They could go to fast reactors, but the Russians tried that and had problems. China’s the new kid on the block, and might try something else, but the Russians and Americans will stick with tried and true.
‘Is there some nuclear physics reason why you couldn’t build a fluid-fueled reactor that lasts as long as those in the US submarines?’Submarine reactors have to be compact and quiet – compact to minimise the hull cross-section and quiet so the Russians can’t track them. Water is a much better neutron moderator than carbon – hydrogen has a scattering cross-section of 82 barns with two per molecule versus carbon12’s 5.5 barns so you don’t need 90 percent of the core to be graphite. Water is also a better coolant than salt in terms of specific heat so less pumping means less noise. They could go to fast reactors but the Russians tried that and had problems. China’s the new kid on the block and might try something else but the Russians and Americans will stick with tried and true.
The navy reactors have 4 years of full power capability. They “last long” – 30 years often quoted, which would be 4/30 capacity factor or 13.3% power for 30 years. They are probably only out at sea less than half the time and under full steam just a small fraction of that time. Getting to the point – their core average exposure (isotopic depletion) at end of life is basically the same as commercial LWRs – maybe 35 GWd/T. That is based on hearsay – I’ll admit, but here is a sanity check: 70MW reactor x 1460 days full power = 102.2GW-day. 102.2GW-d/35GWd/T = 3 tons of uranium. Checkmark – that is reasonable. Upper limit of average exposure would be 100 GWd/T where all the fuel rods/plates are shot to heck from neutron bombardment, then that is about 1 ton of uranium.
‘Is there some nuclear physics reason why you couldn’t build a fluid-fueled reactor that lasts as long as those in the US submarines?’
Submarine reactors have to be compact and quiet – compact to minimise the hull cross-section, and quiet so the Russians can’t track them. Water is a much better neutron moderator than carbon – hydrogen has a scattering cross-section of 82 barns, with two per molecule, versus carbon12’s 5.5 barns, so you don’t need 90 percent of the core to be graphite. Water is also a better coolant than salt in terms of specific heat, so less pumping means less noise. They could go to fast reactors, but the Russians tried that and had problems. China’s the new kid on the block, and might try something else, but the Russians and Americans will stick with tried and true.