News US govt wants to talk to tech companies about AI electricity demands — eyes nuclear fusion and fission

[Admin]

President Joe Biden's administration wants to further talks with tech companies on how to meet electricity needs for computing. Nuclear power seems to be the front runner for meeting the increasing demands of AI.

US govt wants to talk to tech companies about AI electricity demands — eyes nuclear fusion and fission : Read more

 

[ThomasKinsley]

I just read an article today on fusion. South Korea plans to run a fusion reactor for 300 seconds at >100 million degrees by 2026. If that is where we stand, then I find it difficult to believe this will be ready as a viable energy source for the next decade, if not for the next five decades. That leaves fission energy, a.k.a. traditional nuclear energy. I'm not sure how I feel about dozens of micro-reactors. Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

 

[LolaGT]

There will not be a choice. Fortunately modern fission reactors are lightyears ahead of where they were when most of the ones we have running now were built.
We are going to need a lot of them, not just a handful, dozens and dozens.
The fusion guys say we are ten years away, but they have been saying that for at least five decades, it might not even happen for another five, and as far as practical usable fusion reactors on the grid, maybe twice that. I seem to recall we are three to five trillion dollars away, and no one has the political will to spend that much.
Wind and solar are a very small fraction of the grid, and in 20 years they will still be, they won't save us.
Fission it likely will be. Better hurry though, our needs are going to double if not triple in the next couple of decades.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

I just read an article today on fusion. South Korea plans to run a fusion reactor for 300 seconds at >100 million degrees by 2026. If that is where we stand, then I find it difficult to believe this will be ready as a viable energy source for the next decade, if not for the next five decades. That leaves fission energy, a.k.a. traditional nuclear energy. I'm not sure how I feel about dozens of micro-reactors. Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than previous generations. Fukushima was a mix of generation 2 and 2+ boiling water reactors. Generation 2 reactors were the first generation of civilian power designs built in large number in the 60’s and 70’s. Generation 1 reactors were direct copies of the first pressurized water naval reactor designs scaled up in size and output.

Unfortunately, reactors stopped being built in the U.S. starting around the 3 mile Island incident which was blown completely out of proportion at the time and continues to be dramatized by people who know nothing about the incident (aka Netflix). Chernobyl was a communist f’up at its finest. They saw nothing wrong with using a military plutonium breeding reactor design for civilian energy production. RBMK reactors are the most unsafe reactor designs ever invented, whether it be the positive void coefficient due to the decision to use graphite to moderate the neutrons (IE: the more coolant that turns into steam within the reactor vessel, the more potent the nuclear reaction becomes. This quickly runs away in a positive feedback loop), or the graphite tipped control rods (graphite moderates neutron energy allowing more effective absorption of neutrons into uranium which causes the atom to split, so the control rods actually increased the fission reaction further when the rod’s tips first lower into the reactor.).

American reactor designs were engineered to exhibit negative void coefficient due to using water to both cool and moderate the neutrons (IE the more coolant turns to steam, the less potent the nuclear reaction becomes. This can automatically shut down the reaction in a negative feedback loop if too much steam in the reactor vessel develops.)

Unfortunately, national protests after 3 mile and Chernobyl means that the newest reactors the USA has is generation 2. However, we continued to R&D newer designs and if we started building nuclear reactors here again, we would be building generation 4+ designs which are loaded with passive safety mechanisms and failsafes. (For example, the LiFThR [Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor] is a completely liquid design where molten lithium fluoride salt is both the coolant and the carrier fluid of diffuse uranium fluoride salt. [This is much safer than having hundreds of kilograms of uranium densely packed in the core ready to meltdown if conditions aren’t perfect. Also molten salt replacing water as coolant means there is no longer a way for hydrogen gas to be created due to neutrons destroying the bond between water’s hydrogen and oxygen, which means no Fukushima containment building explosions.] Only when the molten uranium fluoride salt is traveling through the graphite core are neutrons moderated to allow fission. The LiFThR design also has a failsafe where if the power to operate active safety equipment is lost, the freezer unit at the bottom of the molten salt loop can no longer keep the salt plug frozen, is quickly melted by the residual heat of fission, and opens allowing the entire salt coolant and uranium salt to drain out of the reactor into a tank purposefully designed to be able to passively cool the reaction mixture from decay heat indefinitely.

 

[Notton]

Asia is still dealing with the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Did you mean Japan (Singular)? No other country is close enough to feel the effects. And that is accounting for the heavy water they have to purge once in a while.

Fukushima was extremely poorly managed. They kept hoarding the spent fuel rods, when they weren't supposed to. The tsunami that flooded the electronic safeties was also a once in a 1000 years type of disaster.

Micro/Portable fission reactors are also newer technology, but they are feasible. The entire assembly fits on a few flatbed semi-truck trailers, so they are easy to deploy almost anywhere.
The main problem with them is security and public perception. There are always going to be a bunch of NIMBYs.

Wind and solar are a very small fraction of the grid, and in 20 years they will still be, they won't save us.

But the good thing about wind and solar are that they don't take 20yrs to build, unlike a full scale fission reactor.
Solar is now cheaper than Coal to build and operate.
Wind turbines can now be fully recycled, thanks to a new invention that can break down resin used in the glass fiber blades.

One big ticket item missing entirely is the Thorium fission reactor, AKA Breeder reactor. Thorium is a better material to use if you want a completely clean nuclear reaction with no waste that needs special containers to dispose of.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Did you mean Japan (Singular)? No other country is close enough to feel the effects. And that is accounting for the heavy water they have to purge once in a while.

Fukushima was extremely poorly managed. They kept hoarding the spent fuel rods, when they weren't supposed to. The tsunami that flooded the electronic safeties was also a once in a 1000 years type of disaster.

Micro/Portable fission reactors are also newer technology, but they are feasible. The entire assembly fits on a few flatbed semi-truck trailers, so they are easy to deploy almost anywhere.
The main problem with them is security and public perception. There are always going to be a bunch of NIMBYs.


But the good thing about wind and solar are that they don't take 20yrs to build, unlike a full scale fission reactor.
Solar is now cheaper than Coal to build and operate.
Wind turbines can now be fully recycled, thanks to a new invention that can break down resin used in the glass fiber blades.

One big ticket item missing entirely is the Thorium fission reactor, AKA Breeder reactor. Thorium is a better material to use if you want a completely clean nuclear reaction with no waste that needs special containers to dispose of.

See my post on the Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor above your comment. Really neat design!

 

[Eximo]

Here in Indiana they actually passed a bill allowing old power plants to be retrofitted with micro nuclear reactors. IE replacing Coal/Oil/Natural Gas heat sources with a nuclear one, more or less recycling the turbines and generators.

Rather progressive for a formerly no-nuke state. I don't think anyone has actually taken up the task to do one, but it is currently allowable.

Been a long time since anyone has actually built a molten salt reactor, and they didn't work super well when they were tested by the UK and US.

They have better tools now, though. Computers and the ability to simulate every practical aspect before actually trying to build one. I suspect China will probably beat everyone to it, they have built up an enormous stockpile of Thorium from their rare earth metal mining.

 

[vanadiel007]

I think it comes down to what is a higher risk for humanity? Climate change, or nuclear disaster?

I am thinking climate change is the lesser evil.

The idea of fusion is great. However, how do you prevent a reactor that reaches 100 million C from melting the containment and everything it touches?
It works for the sun because it's located in space and the fusion reaction is self sustaining without the temperature being an issue.

Here on earth that is a different issue though, as it will instantly vaporize anything around it.
I don't even know how they managed to keep it at 100 million C for 48 seconds. That's pretty impressive.

 

[Eximo]

Magnetic confinement is the most popular method. Couple of different ideas out there though.

But even the best results so far are from NIF but they are just doing quick pulses with laser induction. More testing out the physics.

I don't recall any news about a Tokamak getting close to positive power ratio. That is what ITER is supposed to do, and even it isn't a production reactor and is a decade away from even being turned on. Other issues with that design too that will require a lot of extra work to solve. Fuel and material supply simply don't exist for more than a handful of them. Beryllium being one and Tritium production at other reactors being another.

Helios has the better idea for solving the fueling problems with a two stage reactor setup one that operates at a deficit to produce fuel for the more efficient main reactor. They use more like a magnetic piston design of pulsed plasma fusion with direct energy capture (That second part they always seem a little non-specific on, mostly theoretical I think, or way less efficient then they would like) They are still scaling up prototypes, so they are ways off as well.

 

[Leptir]

Fusion is a pipe dream, ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. So, forget about it. As for fission reactors, I’m all for it under two conditions:

1. Have operators buy insurance for any potential accident instead of relying on the government to clean up the mess.

2. Have operators pay upfront for the safe storage of the radioactive waste for the next hundreds of thousands of years instead of relying on the government.

Because, as it stands now, nuclear energy is a giant scam – they profit now, but governments (the people) will pay for it into the very far future. And a scam for what, to replace jobs with Artificial Stupidity? But giant scams that redistribute wealth from the people to the rich is what modern-day capitalism is all about; this braindead idea doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Eximo]

I think people tend to forget how well managed commercial radioactive waste is handled today. Most of the terrible disasters happened because the government itself (and globally) had no oversight in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. It was new, they were all rushing to create enrichment programs and dumping waste was considered normal practice by all sorts of industries.

Most reactors today store the waste on site until it has cooled down enough for handling. It is then processed at facilities where various useful isotopes are chemically separated, then the actual scrap/waste is melted down into a glass substrate and put in a containment vessel. Generally safer to be around than background radiation.

 

[Leptir]

Most reactors today store the waste on site until it has cooled down enough for handling. It is then processed at facilities where various useful isotopes are chemically separated, then the actual scrap/waste is melted down into a glass substrate and put in a containment vessel. Generally safer to be around than background radiation.

Nice try, Eximo. And where is this supposedly "safe" waste going to be stored for the next 200,000 years? Who guarantees that it will remain safe for the next 200,000 years? Who pays for it now and for the next 200,000 years?

Please enlighten me, what technology do we have that is guaranteed to lasts 200,000 years?

The only reason we have nuclear reactors is because the government wanted to build bombs and subsidized the whole thing. If operators had to pay the actual cost of running a reactor and storing the waste long term, nobody sane would ever build such a thing.

 

[Eximo]

The stuff you are worried about is converted into a ceramic that is stable over geologic times. Most of the other other stuff has a relatively short half life so no one has to look after it for 200,000 years, only a few decades before it is safe enough to dispose of more permanently.

Wikipedia:

In nuclear reprocessing plants about 96% of spent nuclear fuel is recycled back into uranium-based and mixed-oxide (MOX) fuels. The residual 4% is minor actinides and fission products the latter of which are a mixture of stable and quickly decaying (most likely already having decayed in the spent fuel pool) elements, medium lived fission products such as strontium-90 and caesium-137 and finally seven long-lived fission products with half lives in the hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The minor actinides meanwhile are heavy elements other than uranium and plutonium which are created by neutron capture. Their half lives range from years to millions of years and as alpha emitters they are particularly radiotoxic. While there are proposed - and to a much lesser extent current - uses of all those elements, commercial scale reprocessing using the PUREX-process disposes of them as waste together with the fission products. The waste is subsequently converted into a glass-like ceramic for storage in a deep geological repository.

The time radioactive waste must be stored for depends on the type of waste and radioactive isotopes it contains. Short-term approaches to radioactive waste storage have been segregation and storage on the surface or near-surface. Burial in a deep geological repository is a favored solution for long-term storage of high-level waste, while re-use and transmutation are favored solutions for reducing the HLW inventory. Boundaries to recycling of spent nuclear fuel are regulatory and economic as well as the issue of radioactive contamination if chemical separation processes cannot achieve a very high purity. Furthermore, elements may be present in both useful and troublesome isotopes, which would require costly and energy intensive isotope separation for their use - a currently uneconomic prospect.

Some of those intermediates can also be fed into the earlier mentioned Thorium cycle and transmuted into still safer isotopes.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

Did you mean Japan (Singular)? No other country is close enough to feel the effects. And that is accounting for the heavy water they have to purge once in a while.

Asia. Japan recently announced they intend to dump more water from Fukushima into the ocean, sparking concerns about the safety of South Korean fisheries and Chinese health. Both countries still have a ban on Japanese products. Taiwan kept such a ban until 2022. It had wide effects in the broader region.

Fukushima was extremely poorly managed. They kept hoarding the spent fuel rods, when they weren't supposed to. The tsunami that flooded the electronic safeties was also a once in a 1000 years type of disaster.

The question is how to overcome this. Poor management still exists, but even excellent management could not stop a tsunami from devastating the reactor. Tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods are all real threats just as human error is. In just a span of 32 years, we've experienced the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. And that doesn't count the dozens of minor accidents or disasters around the world in that same timeframe.

Micro/Portable fission reactors are also newer technology, but they are feasible. The entire assembly fits on a few flatbed semi-truck trailers, so they are easy to deploy almost anywhere.
The main problem with them is security and public perception. There are always going to be a bunch of NIMBYs.

NIMBYs exist for a reason. Catastrophic disasters are often downplayed to prevent panic. The biggest risk I see is a slew of new, smaller reactors being run for corporations will significantly increase demand for nuclear staff and the stringent standards might become lax, allowing for even more accidents to take place.

 

[Leptir]

The stuff you are worried about is converted into a ceramic that is stable over geologic times. Most of the other other stuff has a relatively short half life so no one has to look after it for 200,000 years, only a few decades before it is safe enough to dispose of more permanently.

You are still evading the question and obfuscating. What exactly is this "more permanent" storage? Who guarantees it is safe, who pays for it permanently? Certainly not the operators. We the people will be paying for it for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Leptir]

The biggest risk I see is a slew of new, smaller reactors being run for corporations will significantly increase demand for nuclear staff and the stringent standards might become lax, allowing for even more accidents to take place.

Which is exactly why absolutely nobody would ever insure a commercial nuclear power plant, much less those new smaller reactors. Every nuclear power plant in existence relies on the government to pay the cost of any potential accident. Without this enormous government subsidy, the whole enterprise would be financial suicide.

In fact, never mind paying for cleanup, we simply do not have the technology to begin a meaningful cleanup - as we've discovered in Chernobyl and Fukushima. In Chernobyl we simply built a sarcophagus, we didn't clean up anything. In Fukushima we still don't have a clue what to do with the melted cores. Robotics simply does not work in a highly radioactive environment.

 

[Eximo]

I'm not avoiding it. You seem to think it is a huge problem, I disagree. Such systems are already in place and we are paying for it. Just like we do any other infrastructure.

If I have to pay an inspection team to go into an underground facility every once in a while to take a look at sealed containers with an inert glass substrate, I am fine with it.

The multitude of power generation insurance companies would disagree with you.

Micro Nuclear would be more like a leasing program. You would pay the company that manufactures the reactor to operate it. And they would be pretty self sufficient based on all the designs I have seen. Remote monitoring with minimal onsite staff would probably be the norm.

 

[Leptir]

You seem to think it is a huge problem.

Oh, it's not? Wow, I'm so relieved to hear that. I take it that now you will prove your point by flying to Fukushima and personally cleaning up the three melted cores with your own bare hands.. because it's not a huge problem. Right?

We can't even clean up the mess we currently have on our hands, and you want to convince me that storing highly radioactive waste for 200,000 years is no huge problem. Boy, you really are a Pollyanna on steroids.

 

[Eximo]

Oh, it's not? Wow, I'm so relieved to hear that. I take it that now you will prove your point by flying to Fukushima and personally cleaning up the three melted cores with your own bare hands.. because it's not a huge problem. Right?

We can't even clean up the mess we currently have on our hands, and you want to convince me that storing highly radioactive waste for 200,000 years is no huge problem. Boy, you really are a Pollyanna on steroids.

Conflating nuclear disasters with nuclear waste disposal isn't a good comparison. They are fundamentally different problems. And the topic is referring to a type of reactor where this scenario basically can't happen. Not to say something couldn't go wrong, but a 3-mile/Fukushima/Chernobyl type disaster is ruled out.

We've had nuclear technology for all of 80 years. You think zero progress will be made in 200,000? Cleanup via tailored bacteria, practical robots, any number of solutions may exist.

The type of long term storage being discussed is formed into a material that is basically inert. And yes, there are plenty of nuclear waste sites before those processes existed. Again those early times were unregulated and a lot done for the sake of military applications. There are even a few that need immediate intervention.

 

[Leptir]

Not to say something couldn't go wrong, but a 3-mile/Fukushima/Chernobyl type disaster is ruled out.

I'm so glad to hear that. No, really I am. Then why is it that the proponents of such reactors are counting, in fact, demanding that the government pays (at taxpayer expense!) for any accident that may happen? Why don't they obtain commercial insurance at their own expense for their safe reactors? Why not, if they are so safe? The truth is that safe nuclear technology does not exist and no insurance company would ever issue a policy for a nuclear reactor. Those things are commercially feasible only with government subsidy, i.e. the taxpayers footing the bill.

We've had nuclear technology for all of 80 years. You think zero progress will be made in 200,000? Cleanup via tailored bacteria, practical robots, any number of solutions may exist.

So... you admit that you are counting on somebody else to develop the technology to keep the waste safe? The operators profit now and tomorrow somebody else pays to deal with the waste. You admitted it. Thank you.

Now would be a good time for you to stop digging your hole.

 

[palladin9479]

Nice try, Eximo. And where is this supposedly "safe" waste going to be stored for the next 200,000 years? Who guarantees that it will remain safe for the next 200,000 years? Who pays for it now and for the next 200,000 years?

Please enlighten me, what technology do we have that is guaranteed to lasts 200,000 years?

The only reason we have nuclear reactors is because the government wanted to build bombs and subsidized the whole thing. If operators had to pay the actual cost of running a reactor and storing the waste long term, nobody sane would ever build such a thing.

Ok a few things really need clearing up because there is so much FUD out there regarding radiation...

Right now, at this very moment, every last one of you is being bathed in radiation. Every cell in your entire body is interacting with electromagnetic radiation, the most common type being 30–100 μm wavelengths, aka infrared radiation, aka heat. Every cell on the outside of your body is being bathed in 380 ~ 750 nm wavelength radiation, also known as the visible spectrum, aka light. If you are afraid of "eviilll radiation" then you better turn off every screen, close every window and hide in a dark room.

Now "Radiation" is just emitted energy, which can take many forms. Above are examples of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) which is everything from infrared, to visible, ultraviolet then microwave, X-ray and gamma ray. The last three can be dangerous as each photon can possess enough energy to break the chemical bonds inside molecules. Energy can also be emitted as particle radiation, alpha particles, beta particles and neutrons, and each of those works differently. Alpha radiation is just chunks of atomic nucleus, usually hydrogen, moving at high speed. They are heavy and can be blocked by any barrier, even paper. Beta are electrons moving at high speed and can be blocked with a little more shielding, like your skin. A CRT TV is a good example of a beta emitter, though there is no radiological decay. Particles that do decay by beta emission are super useful for medical technology, you drink a chalk tasting milkshake and the doctors can then watch what's going on inside your body. And like I said before its the Microwave / X-Ray / Gamma Ray stuff that is dangerous, though getting lots of alpha emitters inside your body is probably not a good idea. Note, Bananas and many fruit naturally contain trace amounts of alpha emitters that every last one of you current has in your body.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/images/radiation-penetration-differences.jpg]]

Now what does this all have to do with nuclear waste? Because it's radioactive, meaning it's emitting energy. The more energy it emits, the more dangerous it is and the faster it becomes safe. The lower the energy it emits, the safer it is to handle and the longer it'll take to decay. That's right guys, long half lives means safer to handle. The entire "200,000 years of dangerous material" saying is an oxymoron. Dangerous nuclear particles, the ones that really mess you up quick, have half lives measured in seconds. They dump so much energy so quick that you are going to be quite dead if you are near them, but after all that energy is gone they are safe (note below). The really multi-thousand year half life particles dump very little energy, so little that it takes them thousands of years to get rid of it. These are safe to be around, just do not eat it. The only thing we really have to worry about are the medium duration stuff, stuff that's dumping enough energy to be dangerous but not fast enough to burn itself out. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 are two good examples of this, both have half lives of 30 years.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

Fission plants use on-site pools of water to hold the spent rods while they get rid of all the short lived high energetic particles, the really dangerous stuff. After about ten years they are either reprocessed (if possible) or covered in silicon dioxide (glass) and stored in concrete casks. Those casks are incredibly safe to be around, and no there is no "leakage" as there nothing liquid to leak.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&ab_channel=KyleHill

 

[Eximo]

I just have a different perspective on what tax payers should be expected to cover. You think private enterprise for public utility should be 100% handled by the private enterprise. If it weren't government regulated and subsidized they could charge whatever they wanted and electricity would be very expensive. Same with food and other subsidies. They exist to keep everything working.

If we have to foot the bill for cleaner air I am all for it.

 

[Eximo]

Thus my mentions of decades not hundreds of thousands of years.

And wouldn't you know it, those people we pay to do those jobs are taxpayers too. And they buy stuff, which creates wealth for other people.

Every energy production solution has problems and I see the alternatives as far worse.

 

[palladin9479]

The question is how to overcome this. Poor management still exists, but even excellent management could not stop a tsunami from devastating the reactor. Tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods are all real threats just as human error is. In just a span of 32 years, we've experienced the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. And that doesn't count the dozens of minor accidents or disasters around the world in that same timeframe.

Rarely known fact, Fukushima was in the process of shutting down it's reactors when the Tsunami happened. The units on site were a very old design that had been declared below safety standards. Believe it or not it was actually a success story that the media twisted into a disaster. There was a catastrophic failure of all the safety systems, notably the backup generators for the cooling system at the bottom of the site and got flooded when the Tsunami went over the seawall. With all safety systems offline the reactors did exactly what they were designed to do. That hydrogen explosion was not an accident, hydrogen build up inside a primary reaction chamber can result in core material being released into the atmosphere, this is very bad. Instead you want the hydrogen to be vented into the secondary containment building where it gathers at the top, if it reaches an unsafe mass then the top is designed to blow off to prevent any damage to the reactor vessel. That hydrogen explosion that everyone freaked out about, that was a safety system engaging.

What was leaked came from the spent fuel ponds that had cracked as a result of the Tsunami. This is bad, those rods were still outputting high energy, short lived products when the cracks occurred. Most of the long term efforts are centered at managing the waste water since you can't repair a pool while it's filled with nasty stuff. What Japan has been doing is once a pool's radioactivity is low enough to be safe, they'll release the water into the ocean and replace it with fresh water, this is a normal process that the usual suspects are blowing out of proportion.

 

[Leptir]

Every energy production solution has problems and I see the alternatives as far worse.

Of course every form of energy production has problems. But that's not a reason to adopt the most dangerous one. Like I said, the only reason we ever went down that road is bombs. And profit.