Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,574 posts)
Sun Apr 21, 2024, 09:39 PM Apr 21

Formal "Justification" for a Fast Lead Cooled Nuclear Reactor Sought in the UK.

Justification sought for use of Newcleo reactor in the UK

Subtitle:

The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) has applied to the UK government for a justification decision for Newcleo's lead-cooled fast reactor, the LFR-AS-200. Such a decision is required for the operation of a new nuclear technology in the country.


Excerpts:

"Our application makes the case that the benefits of clean, firm, flexible power from the LFR-AS-200 would far outweigh any potential risks, which are in any event rigorously controlled by robust safety features, including passive safety systems, built into the design and incorporated into the operating arrangements, in line with the UK’s regulatory requirements," the NIA said. "The application also demonstrates that the reactor design would support nuclear energy's contribution to a stable and well-balanced electricity grid, which is essential to reduce consumer bills and maintain economic competitiveness..."

...The NIA noted that a justification decision is one of the required steps for the operation of a new nuclear technology in the UK, but it is not a permit or licence that allows a specific project to go ahead. "Instead, it is a generic decision based on a high-level evaluation of the potential benefits and detriments of the proposed new nuclear practice as a pre-cursor to future regulatory processes," it added...

..."Advanced reactors like Newcleo's lead-cooled fast reactor design have enormous potential to support the UK's energy security and net-zero transition, so we were delighted to apply for this decision," said NIA Chief Executive Tom Greatrex. "This is an opportunity for the UK government to demonstrate that it backs advanced nuclear technologies to support a robust clean power mix and to reinvigorate the UK's proud tradition of nuclear innovation. We look forward to engaging with the government and the public throughout this process and to further applications for new nuclear designs in the future..."

..."We continue to progress our UK plans at pace - aiming to deliver our first of a kind commercial reactor in the UK by 2033. We are but one player in the new nuclear renaissance and we look forward to working with government and the rest of the sector to develop the robust supply chain that can deliver the UK's ambition of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050..."


24 GWe of nuclear power in Britain definitely falls into the category of "too little, too late." Hopefully the goals will morph into something more aggressive.

Things are pretty dire as I write. I routinely calculate from the data at Weekly average data for CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa], setting the second derivative d2C/dt2 equal to the difference between the running 52 week average for the rate of CO2 at the current date (as of this writing 24.87 ppm/10 years) with that of the value in the first week of 2000 (15.36 ppm/10 years). I then integrate twice and substitute the boundary conditions, the concentration of CO2 reported this week, and the current running average for 10 year increases to obtain a quadratic. If the fossil fuel indulgent antinuke rhetoric continues to triumph, the resulting quadratic (as of this week) works out to a concentration of around 519 ppm "by 2050." I expect that 24 GW of additional nuclear power in Britain would barely cover the growth in electricity demand, especially if the very dubious "electrify everything" scheme is allowed to proceed on the dubious basis driven by the difficult to break but very dangerous belief that so called "renewable energy" will be something other than useless, which won't happen.

Britain, I should note, has the world's largest supply of isolated reactor grade plutonium, and thus a lead cooled fast reactor would allow for the use of this plutonium to create more plutonium which will certainly be needed if there is to remain any slim hope of avoiding even worse climate change than we are already experiencing as the result of antinukism's grand propaganda success that has left the planet in flames.

Lead coolants are very attractive to my mind for a number of reasons connected with process intensification - providing high temperatures to meet a number of missions not merely connected to producing electricity. Historically, these types of reactors have actually operated on LBE, lead bismuth eutectics, but I note that the use of pure lead will lead to the transmutation of some lead into the far less toxic element bismuth (an ingredient in the OTC product "Pepto-Bismol" ), thus generating LBE in situ. This would involve certain technical challenges, but I believe they might well be possible to address.

Have a pleasant work week.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Formal "Justification" fo...