b2kelloy
232280
4916
116
So last night I made a post showing Nuclear fuel rods glowing, people commenting wanted more so here we are.
This post will cover the basics of the life cycle of Uranium- most Power plants utilize Uranium-235. Are there other types- yes... but U-235 is by far the heavyweight.
So this is uranium. A block of stone- literally. Uranium is found all over the globe- it is found in small amounts in most rock.
This is a breakdown of the uranium deposits in the US. You will notice this is almost an overlay of the granite deposits. That's right- if your house has granite- you own some uranium already!
Yellow cake Uranium. Movies have made this form of Uranium well known. This is simply Uranium in powdered form. Pure in the sense that it is only Uranium. However, Uranium comes in several isotopes. U-235, U-236, U-238. U-235 is the one that is used to maintain a chain reaction in power plants.
These are centrifuges and Iranian scientists. These pictures became famous after the US destroyed their centrifuges via a cyber attack.
Centrifuges work by spinning the yellowcake and causing on a molecular level the isotopes of Uranium to stratify. Allowing U-235 to be isolated and collected in higher quantities, also known as enrichment.
So- most US plants utilize around 4% enriched Uranium- meaning 4% U-235. With that enrichment, the fuel can be used for approximately 6 years before being completely depleted.
While I have a soap box- this is the reason from a technical perspective why the Iranian deal was so poor. We limit them to 30% enrichment and their claim is "it's only for peaceful means". There is ZERO reason to need anything near that high... unless you want to make bombs!
But I digress...
Once fuel has reached the proper enrichment it is formed into fuel pellets.
The fuel pellets are then stacked inside a fuel pin, usually made of zirconium alloys. The pins are housed into a bundle- pictures on the right.
Once in the core, rods are aligned into assemblies. The red center X is a control rod- this can be removed and inserted as needed to control reactivity, which in turn can control reactor power.
Are there more things that are involved with controlling reactor power... yes... am I getting into them right now... no.
This is a fuel rod (already activated, not new) being moved into the fuel pool during refueling. As I said fuel lasts 6 years, refueling occurs every 2 (at my plant- cycles can vary). Fuel that is not totally spent gets repositioned in the core almost every outage.
This is a flooded reactor core. The "cattle shoot" is used to move fuel from the core to the fuel pool while keeping it under water- radiation purposes.
Fuel being put back into the core. The blue glow is called the Cherenkov effect. Note it is not green as shown in many movies.
Once the fuel is spent- it will stay in the fuel pool for several years until its radioactivity lowers a few half lives.
Then the dry fuel cask shown above is lowered into the fuel pool and filled with fuel bundles. It is then lifted out, drained and sealed.
Many sites have utilized a horizontal storage system to store full casks. They are designed to be air cooled and safe... forever.
So what is the long term storage plan. Well here in the USA we had one. We spent Billions to complete it. It is called Yucca Mountain- fully ready to store spent fuel under a mountain for the next 10,000 years. Designed with warnings in the top 10 most spoken languages of earth engraved everywhere.
Why aren't we using it you ask. Simple answer is political reasons. Unfortunately Nuclear power is not and has never been a bi-partisan issue. Dems don't like it, Republicans do. And when Obama was first starting to make his political debut, Harry Reid said he would back him (one of the first to do so) it he vowed to never let Yucca Mountain be used if he made it to office. The rest is history.
So about me- I am a mechanical engineer. I worked for the US navy right out of school and was qualified (via a multi-year training program) to operate the nuclear reactors of aircraft carriers (I was a civilian). After I left I took a job as a system engineer at a nuclear power plant. Then a few years later switched back to operations where I have a SRO license.
I am willing to post about anything people ask about- just need a high enough response- to gauge interest.
**edit: link to Nuclear power 102 - http://imgur.com/a/yaMw0
it answers the #1 comment from this post.
**edit: link to Nuclear Power 103 - Fun facts http://imgur.com/a/TOuHz
**edit: link to Nuclear Power 201 - PWR vs BWR http://imgur.com/a/mjIHJ
**edit: link to Nuclear power 202- chernobyl http://imgur.com/a/lGVxj
SavageHoax
So if you're not using the mountain what DO you do with spent fuel? Leave it in barrels? What's the plan here?
LuftMeister
I'm certain that pic #5 is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad getting a tour of the facility.
Phischstaebchen
"and safe forever" is a very questionable statement...
Patchs44
I love me some nuclear energy!
JamesProton
Quick comment on the yellowcake: it isn't "pure" uranium, but a name for a general compound containing uranium. (1/2)
JamesProton
And the centrifuges usually spin Uranium Hexaflouride in gas form, not the yellow cake itself.
InspacenoonecanhearPugetSound
IIRC, 30% U235 is useless for bombs but useful in breeder reactors, so I don't think that makes the Iran deal poor. Otherwise cool post.
corneliusgansevoort
My BRIEF googling suggests bombs could THEORETICALLY be possible with as low as 20% enriched but would require impractical amounts of it.
xHughJassx
eifohLae
There are other reasons to use highly enriched Uranium besides nuclear weapons. Some research reactors need it (1/2)
eifohLae
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forschungsreaktor_M%C3%BCnchen_II and IIRC the one at the ILL in Grenoble. (2/2)
WoodbroWilson
Is half life the correct terminology? I Googled uranium half life and it's on the scale of thousands if not millions of years.
b2kelloy
It's not Uranium that your waiting to decay- its its daughter products after fission- look up fission yield curve
xHughJassx
Honest question to someone in the industry... how do you feel about Thorium? I've read it's super safe.
trukkusan
I was going to ask the same thing.
b2kelloy
A lot of the other types of plants are only in their infancy- i.e. Thorium. I don't have much experience or knowledge on it.
blackmagic12345
The pic of the scientists is actually a pic of mahmoud ahmenjiad (or w/e), the ex president of Iran.
sh3nhu
"Iran's uranium stockpile will also be reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs) for 15 years. It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%."
sh3nhu
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655 @OP Why do you say that we are allowing 30% enrichment?
DocMartinL
#AlternativeFacts
bigdaddyfatpants
Neat!
thecatisodd
Can you please talk about the thorium alternative to traditional nuclear, the history there if possible? Love having science form opinions
Winterhathcome
I'm fairly left politically, and the fact that Bernie Sanders was anti-nuclear was my big issue with him/
rando84
Same here. He's not nearly as bad as Jill Stein on nuclear though.
boneh3ad
This would be a great post if it wasn't factually inaccurate on multiple topics. Jesus, do your research first. For example:
boneh3ad
I stopped reading after these. There may or may not be further issues here.
5primecap
He says uranium half life is a less than a few years... It's 25,000...
boneh3ad
Centrifuges do not use yellowcake. Yellowcake is reacted with fluorine to form UF6, which is what is actually enriched in a centrifuge.
boneh3ad
The Iran deal limits enrichment to 3.67%, not 30% as you claim.
boneh3ad
Yellow cake is not pure uranium. It is about 80% uranium oxide. Pure uranium is a metal.
Valaar
There are many errors in this post. Yellow cake is not pure uranium, It's uranate like (NH4)2U2O7. The centrifugation is not done on YC
Valaar
But on uranium hexafluoride UF6, which is a gas above 57°C. ( I teach this)
Valaar
Storage of nuclear wastes for 10000 years would be quite dangerous, since several highly radioactive wastes have half lives of million years
Valaar
The post is still interesting, don't get me wrong, but please, if you write it as a fact, please check it.
Morrigi
The thing about the Iranian nuclear deal is also bullshit, they're limited to 3.67% enrichment, not 30%.
AwwYissMothaFuckinProcrastination
my two cents as a matl scientist. the storage is great. if the gov listened to scientists about the corrosion resistance in storage.
AwwYissMothaFuckinProcrastination
they used the cheaper 314 stainless steel instead of a higher chromium content steel. now there's a bunch in Florida leaking.
AwwYissMothaFuckinProcrastination
nuclear power is the future. but it has to be done in a way that spares no expense. these things will effect us for thousands of lifetimes
SirusKing
Not really. The effects of the leaks do literally nothing, especially compared to any actual industrial pollution.
SirusKing
Infact, almost all of the radiation from nuclear disasters will be gone in a hundred or so years anyway since the dangerous stuff
SirusKing
Drinking vaguely contaminated water MIGHT increase your RISK of cancer by 10%, but pollution from fossil fuels *DOES* kill MILLIONS of
SirusKing
decays with a half life of only a decade or so.
SirusKing
people. Nuclear pollution is completely and utterly insignificant; fuck, nuclear disasters are insignificant!
Factcorrection
Enrichment capped at 3.67%, source: http://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1-15-Implementation-Day-Factsheet.pdf.
muhvitus
I remembered the same thing and checked, but you had this already handled! upvote!
Factcorrection
I love this post, never got to learn about this, but makes me sad when a falsehood is thrown in, makes me question everything else in it :(
5primecap
@WoodbroWilson pointed out OP got the half life wrong too.
MisterWoody
That top picture is Watts Bar nuclear plant in Spring City TN. I worked there for several years. Never seen this picture of it! Thanks :)
MisterWoody
This picture was before we finished Unit 2, which is why there's no steam coming out of the closest stack. It's one of 3 TVA nuclear plants
engShane
I work there now :)
MisterWoody
Have we met? I was a pipefitter/welder during Unit 2
engShane
Doubtful. I am an engineer that came in December of 2015. I didn't meet many Unit 2 folks. I spent most of the first year away training.
MisterWoody
Ahh, gotcha. How is life there? Any big projects going on?
engShane
No nothing out of ordinary. Just prepping for two outages this year.
narwhalhosting
Dem here, love Nuclear. It's gotten a bad rap from pop culture as being dangerous. Just needs better education.
Bunsen
And vigilant oversight, as underscored by events like the Davis-Besse corrosion incident. You can't let corner-cutting be profitable.
WaitForItTheMongols
As a nuke in the Navy I find the civilian plants really interesting.
DavidBrooker
In terms of nuclear history, the relationship between naval and civil reactor designs in the US has always interested me. Its analogous 1/2
DavidBrooker
to civilian spaceflight (to this day) just using adapted ICBM technology. Especially vis a vis totally civilian developments like CANDU. 2/2
WaitForItTheMongols
Read a biography on Admiral Rickover, and the relation between the navy and civilian reactors will become more clear
DavidBrooker
I am quite familiar with him already; I was referencing that in my previous post, in fact.
DownvotesMakeMeMoist
Nobody actually knows who committed the cyber attack. But speculation suggests the Israel or the US. https://youtu.be/7g0pi4J8auQ enjoy
alexanderthegreater
Well whoever did it was in the right. Theres no reason Iran needs weapons grade enrichment.
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
Or Israel with US backing. I think that's the most probable.
DownvotesMakeMeMoist
Yeah. Agreed. Though I don't know the ins and outs of the virus. :/
SirMcbacon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
DownvotesMakeMeMoist
What's your point?
SirMcbacon
Did you look at the article? That's the virus you're talking about.
sweetpotato21
Would higher enrichment % increase power output? If yes why limited to 4%?
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
Power output is limited by the amount of heat you can remove from the core. Because if you can't, the fuel gets too hot and melts.
DavidBrooker
Fun fact: the largest nuclear power plant in the world uses 'natural' uranium, 0.7%. Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Canada, 6.3 GW.
HairytheSheep
6.3GW?? I didnt know they made plants with that kind of output!
DavidBrooker
Eight reactors, each between 700 and 850MW. There are on-and-off talks of adding two more ACRs at 1000-1200 MW each.
KevynDietz
That's the CANDU's selling point. While you can fuel it with richer fuel, it can be used with natural fuel, reducing proliferation concerns.
DavidBrooker
(Obviously not straight-from-the-ground 'natural', but not enriched beyond naturally-occurring deposits)
b2kelloy
Not power output, length of fuel life. Naval reactors utilize more- they last 25 years before refueling.
[deleted]
[deleted]
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
Higher fuel life is always desirable but there are complications with long term fuels. High heat and radiation does shit to the fuel casing.
b2kelloy
$... higher enrichment means more life- but also more fission product poisons, longer storage after use times etc
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sk3l3t0r
Plus the decay chain creates more plutonium at higher enrichments, so it's a non proliferation thing.
Nalroth
Does it affect the containment vessel? Erode the concrete faster?
Sk3l3t0r
No, any erosion to steel or concrete would be due to chemical reactions or drastic thermal changes. Damn BFPL.
b2kelloy
Not sure- that's getting more theoretical than my knowledge base.
FreeFloatingFullTorsoVaporousApparition
People think the cooling towers are polluting. It's the miseducation that hurts nuclear power.
rando84
That people who live near coal and natural gas plants are afraid of pollution from nuclear power always struck me as amusing/disappointing.
techknowledgey
iPickedThisNameSoYouCouldnt
I knew Adam was on imgur. Now we have Jamie too?!
b2kelloy
Flattered to be even slightly considered in their league... but no.
IATTM
So... how is this answered in 102?
xheroth
DrEhrfurchtgebietend
Could you talk more about what modern reactors we could build? CanDu with auto shut off for safety, thorium, ect. Is it safe now?
Callito
Are reactors also safe against attacks from lets say terrorists ?
DavidBrooker
Candu's existing, operational reactors are actually already suitable for thorium cycles. They wouldn't be as efficient as a clean-sheet 1/2
DavidBrooker
thorium design, but it's a cool factoid anyway. Canada's marketing them to China for that purpose, due to China's thorium deposits. 2/2
markymark40
Google Gen IV reactors. Safety depends on design, but some concepts are intrinsically safe. I.e. a spike in heat will cause power reduction.
DrEhrfurchtgebietend
I realize i can google. I was just hoping @op would do a summary
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
There are only a handful of companies in the US that are researching new reactor design atm. NuScale, TerraPower, X-Energy, and Transatomic
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
They are researching about 5-6 different designs between them. Sodium cooled, pebble bed, liquid salt to name a few.
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
That's a hard question to answer though. The safety of a reactor depends on how much money you invest in it, not which technology you choose
DrEhrfurchtgebietend
But they can be quite safe if the investment is made?
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
Yeah, the NRC has tightened up safety requirements for new reactor designs a lot since Fukushima. They will be way safer, but expensive.
DrEhrfurchtgebietend
Well over their life time likely not more expensive that other options when the environment is considered
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
True, I meant mostly upfront costs in the way of research and development. Designing new reactors is EXPENSIVE.
pdxenburg
Its a bit too simple to say Dems blocked it, and GOP likes it. Specifically, Nevada dislikes it, and Harry Reid was from Nevada.
GreaterDog
Well considering the Yucca Mountain program was dubbed "Screw Nevada", there's a reason.
vanquishthee
Sure he was happy to get all the funding and jobs for his state but when it's time to use it "no we never wanted it here!" No take backs!
udonomefoo
NV dweller here, I believe our biggest resistance isn't even the storage, it's the transport across rail lines or highways to get there.
solidshark91493
Another NV dweller here, Most people here hate Harry Reid with a fiery passion.
pdxenburg
They didn't want to store everyone elses waste, while not producing any of it
ASmitty56
But yet they probably use some nuclear energy from other states.
LvAllen
Not really. We had coal plants and the fucking Hoover Dam.
NotAPervert
Like they never even played new Vegas or something
HoytVolker
I destroyed Hoover dam
wtfwhereami
Well how about we store it in your state or county.... See if you'll like that idea..
pdxenburg
I live in a county with 1M people. You're welcome to the edge of the state were nobody lives though. Either way, I wasnt criticizing NV
RufusTheAardvark
Pennsylvania here. Not overly concerned.
SaintMaceToTheFace
Store it in Ohio. I know the risks it's not the end of the world
ballpeenX
WA has Hanford already. Just sayin.....
flavinbagel
Have you ever been to Nevada? It ain't exactly teeming with life as it is.
wtfwhereami
I was born here.. And it's obvious you haven't spent time here.. It's a very beautiful place.. "With a diversity of life.."
HairytheSheep
Everyone wants a thing. Nobody wants it next to them. Someone has to get the short straw in the end. Might as well be a logical place
ionlyregisteredtosavelinks
Well, your reasoning requires common sense. That shit doesn't grow on trees.
b2kelloy
Any place where modern medicine is practiced already stores nuclear waste. But plants store it on site. I live 1mile from my plant. No worry
PeteHogwollop
Most people would be terrified if they realized or had knowledge of everything that put off radiation, mainly because of bad press
MadsBen
Some places you need radon mitigation.
HairytheSheep
If nothing bad happens, there are no ill effects. As opposed to all the factories and mines an whatnot we have that harm us on a normal day
ionlyregisteredtosavelinks
Because of lack of education*. ftfy.
PeteHogwollop
Don't those go hand in hand
Fahargo
I would love that idea because "nuclear fuel" isn't scary to me because I'm not a pansy ass
NINJACOCK
Solid reasoning
Fahargo
It really is. Fear of Nuclear energy is irrational and not creating a permanent storage for the entire country in a location that 1/2
Fahargo
has zero chance of exposure to the population is straight idiotic
wtfwhereami
Easy to say when it's not your state they want to dump their garbage... And why don't you ask Fukushima if they want another plant?
Fahargo
It's in a controlled facility in mountain. what's gonna happen? secret volcano??
illmissyou
Nice post, but looks like your politics are wrong. Just scanned the Iran agreement and they are barred from producing highly enriched U
boneh3ad
He made several factual errors. I honestly doubt his credentials as a result.
boneh3ad
Further, I know a number of scientists who are involved with the nonproliferation side of the deal and they are unanimously in favor of it.
illmissyou
Correct me if I'm wrong.
b2kelloy
You may have been right- 30% may have been the peer paper I saw when it was out for review.
illmissyou
"Iran will not produce, seek, or acquire separated plutonium, highly enriched uranium (defined as 20% or greater uranium235), or uranium233,
sh3nhu
After reading the agreement itself, this part seems to be referring only to small amounts for as it says "laboratory standards." Not 1/2
sh3nhu
large amounts for energy production 2/2
3point141592653589793238462643383279502884197
A quote from the actual deal: " “Iran will reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by nearly 98 percent from 12,000 kilograms to
3point141592653589793238462643383279502884197
only 300 kilograms, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent or below.”
sh3nhu
"It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Factcorrection
3,67%, source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf pg. 7, pg. 27, pg. 35 and pg. 48
Factcorrection
Search word: Enrichment. Why ya gotta lie, man? :(
illmissyou
or neptunium-237 (except for use as laboratory standards or in instruments using neptunium-237) for 15 years."
sh3nhu
What's your source?
illmissyou
The actual text of the agreement
JohnSmithterms
Discuss global warming and which energy solution you think is the cleanest as well as the best solution for the planet going forward.
DownVoteBecauseYourContentSucks
And ad a source please
ZanneelMixmaster
Nuclear seems pretty potent. Geothermal's a good option as well, and Hydro-electric has promise.
PainWright
Google Thorium Reactor
Plaaant
It's Nuclear. It's fucking Nuclear.
b2kelloy
Posted : nuclear power 102
ForgivingCat
Tartex
JPre35
fusion nearly limitless game changer
JohnSmithterms
It's been a potential game changer for the last 20 years .... so yea lets keep investing in it but I won't expect anything any time soon.
Spaceframe
Thorium molten salt reactors?
ZanneelMixmaster
Nuclear seems pretty potent. Geothermal's a good option as well, and Hydro-electric has promise.
cvnnibal
It's the only reliable, safe, and viable option for clean renewable energy. And no one wants to talk about it because of"nuclear"oh so scary
cvnnibal
My stepdad is the director of a nuclear power plant and from my limited knowledge i can assure its what we need to fulfill our energy needs
PeteTusk
Or don't. Enough corporate advocates posting pro-fission-plant views as condescending edicts on Imgur. +1 for just giving interesting info.
theobstruction
I've encountered almost no one who is pro-fission power. Most people are all "Nucyalr power is SCARY!" and stop thinking right there.
PeteTusk
Usually we get some on Imgur when nuclear power is brought up, talking about how clean it is and we shouldn't worry about rads or waste...
PeteTusk
... or the possibility of any kind of accidents or people making dirty bombs and/or how short half-lifes are.
Tbones85
It would have to be a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas. Coal is still very cheap power, it will be around still a while.
MnemonicMonkeys
And natural gas
b2kelloy
An excellent documentary on this subject is Pandoras Promise. CNN film on Netflix.
ThisIsJustMySecondNSFWAccountMoveAlongOrPMmeIDontCare
Such a great documentary.
justaredhead69
Dot
JohnSmithterms
I have already see it .. it's good.
Iusethisgifforeverything
.
ClockworkRepairDroid
Or I can rematch it's always sunny
Pervation
.
whispering
Another great documentary on why renewable's aren't enough alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE
mattbazzz
.
PeteHogwollop
.
DasAu
.
kamosey
It's a rather one-sided pro-nuclear, anti-renewable advocacy.
JohnSmithterms
No, it was not anti renewable at all. It's a shame they didn't cover using nuclear to create solar panels though.
Ellimem
I feel like that is the case because it is the best way to cut down on emissions at a cost effective rate.
Badgerlord
That's because renewables are old technology that only get pushed by rich people who make them. Like Boon Pickens. Fusion is the future.
JohnSmithterms
Also - James Hansen features in the movie. You know he was anti nuclear for years right? His books are great if you want references.
FortunateHive
In short the only real clean, long-term energy source that we could use forever would be helium-3, but that requires mining from the moon
[deleted]
[deleted]
FortunateHive
Watched what video? Sorry I mainly just learned about this through classes
Nessuss
I believe the dense plasma focus technology, and LPPFusion would interest you.
IreallyMGur
Thorium - can't be used for bombs and could work in very small reactors which could be much safer. Needs more research.
FortunateHive
The main appeal of fusing helium-3 over thorium is no radioactive waste to deal with
raynre
It doesn't need more research. It just requires money and political will. (Nuclear is scaaaary.) We had working Thorium reactors in the 60s.
IreallyMGur
Yeah but they went with Uranium & Plutonium back then specifically because they were easier to make bombs with. Decades of lost research.
kamosey
Harness the hot air from political debates.
Tamaska
Woah, do you think we'll need that much power?
BenLawrenceBroadbent
Haha. Wit. Good.
kaovalin
Harness the zero point energy of popular website comment sections
Tamaska
Woah, do you think we'll need that much power?
b2kelloy
I can make a post about this, but it would require a lot of research into things that are not my expertise.
jesting
Thorium ftw?
robbo03712
Could you make a post on the ecological impacts other than just radiation caused by nuclear energy
PrincessDonaldTrumpBANNED
Mass genocide is probably the most effective
NKato
What would happen if we disposed of the nuclear waste via rockets on a one-way ticket to the Sun?
JayEnfield
We'd need so much rocket fuel for that, nuclear power would drop to 0 economic feasibility, methinks.
NKato
Story changes if we can use metallic hydrogen as rocket fuel, though. :)
JayEnfield
Unfortunately, like every other new wonder-material, the hype is writing cheques that the science can't cash.
Shiviaira
Probably be wiser using it instead of nuke stations and yes they do use nuke grade fuels at power plants.
Romale
the real issue with that is rocket failure, imagine one exploding
gwrgt
They can house the waste in a container resistant to the explosion - so that's not an issue.
Romale
now you're to heavy to lift.