RULES

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-reactor-using-full-core-of-recycled-uranium

Somehow missed it. Repu used in french reactors

A few weeks ago I was asked by someone to see if I can explain to him what this "embrittlement" fuss regarding Diablo Canyon unit 1 is about. I tried two approaches. First one, not so successful; the second, more or less alleviate the concerns.

https://preview.redd.it/c97zieagk10e1.png?width=959&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9274eeea3e565f1fecdf2b4888e40b5d53ce579

First approach: the most laborious one

I searched through more than 1,000 pages of class notes I have taken during those days as a nuclear engineering student to look for relevant equations, and I did find those equations for determining pressuirsed thermal shock for embrittlement: mainly RTpts= RTndt(u)+M+🔼RTpts. However, I immediately ran into troubles with RTndt(u), which is the reference temperature for a RPV material in the pre-service or unirradiated condition.

I couldn't find this "reference temperature" for Diablo Canyon unit 1 RPV after several days and was afraid to put in a generic value as a backup. Without RTndt(u), I was reluctant to proceed to calculate for M, which is the margin added to account for uncertainties in the values of RTndt(u), copper and nickel contents, EOL fluence and the calculating procedures. Standard deviation of RTudt(u) is required for calculating M. Plus, in other equation that demand actual surveillance data for calculating CF(chem factor for nickel and cooper contents within the RPV), PG&E is also lacking that data, especially from "Capsule B" within unit 1.

A dead end. Plus, ten years after I graduated, I quickly realised that those skills and knowledge were becoming rusty for me.

Second Approach: the Prof. lecture regarding fuel loading pattern to reduce neutron flux on RPV

The second breakthrough, albeit not the one I was searching for, was the class notes I have taken earlier when my professor did state that the In-Out Loading Pattern was indeed utilised widely by placing high burnup fuel assemblies at the periphery of the core to reduce neutron flux on the RPV to add some protection against irradiation embrittlement.

Personal Opinion: if the irradiation embrittlement goes beyond the acceptance level of the NRC, the NRC will never allow Diablo Canyon to seek a 20-year extension in the first place. The NRC holds reactor safety to the highest stringent standard that needs to be kept raising, which they dutifully and rightfully executed since 1975.

Welcome to the r/nuclear weekly discussion post! Here you can comment on anything r/nuclear related, including but not limited to concerns about how the subreddit is run, thoughts about nuclear power discussion on the rest of reddit, etc.

Both of us know that Trump is a proponent of coal and gas, and he has explicitly stated in September that he wants to “terminate” the Inflation Reduction Act. I asked him two questions:

1. In the event the IRA is annulled by the federal legislature, then the loans finalised before its cancellation will be rescinded or not, especially regarding Diablo Canyon and Palisades.

The reply: maybe. However, it’s still unlikely. He has no idea regarding the exact and detailed legislative at Washington.

2. Will the restart of TMI 1 and Duane Arnold be affected.

The answer: most likely. TMI’s operator already started talks with the DOE regarding the loans, and so did NextEra. In the event the IRA is cancelled, TMI 1 is still SOMEWHAT possible for a restart given its backing from Microsoft. Duane Arnold? My prof. simply says it’s “almost certainly bye-bye”.

“Loan guarantee is one thing that takes time but finalizing it takes even more time. Time is not on the side of TMI and Duane Arnold.”

It’s the decision by the citizens of the U.S. to elect Trump, and in the event if the IRA is cancelled. I silently respect that decision.

By “pure nuclear transmutation” I mean reactors built to efficiently convert atoms into one another instead of chasing energy production. Such as a ‘nuclear processor’ that functions in a way a chemical plant would. Instead of converting chemicals however, it would be at a nuclear scale. It seems like it would be useful for rare metals such as cobalt and lithium or to solve short term supply chain issues.

I’m guessing the answer is cost and energy, however it seems like we might reach a point where it becomes economically viable.

Could be answered as “most important” research too. If you can’t think of anything, what do you think should be being researched?

Germany's governing coalition has collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired a key minister and said he would call a vote of confidence in his government early next year. I really am not that much into European politics since I am not european, but I do know that Germany's shutdown of nuclear energy led them to suffer a lot in the 2022 energy crisis and having sky high energy costs.

Since then, they seem to not have recoverd yet. My question is then, How much is their nuclear shutdown to blame for their recent economic and political struggles? A lot? Is it overblown? I'd like to know your opinions.

Does anyone know how an American can get a job in Canada? Looking at Bruce Power or others. Already licensed at an American plant with engineering experience as well. Just looking for opportunities outside of the states.

https://www.lalibre.be/economie/conjoncture/2024/11/05/engie-entame-la-decontamination-chimique-de-tihange-2-le-fait-que-larizona-soit-a-larret-tombe-a-pic-les-politiques-sont-a-cote-de-la-plaque-HGBBMDIYC5H4TL3OYDWB2FUFJM/

According to La Libre, Engie has begun the chemical decontamination process for Tihange 2 and soon will proceed to dismantling of major components. The point of no return has been reached for Tihange unit 2. Once chemical decontamination takes place, the reactor is forever a loss.

The government formation is still on-going, there is talk that one of the energy goals pursued by the negotiating parties is to extend both Doel 4 and Tihange 3 by another ten years until 2045. As a personal request, I beg the next gov. to make that as a top priority for both Doel 4 and Tihange 3.

Regarding Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1, there's not enough time to prepare for an extension. Usually, an operator needs a minimum of two years to prepare for one. Unless there's a strong concerted effort to persuade Engie to restart just one of the three reactors(preferably Tihange 1) post-2025 shutdown date (much € needed of course), all three will be sent to decommissioning. Then again, the chance for this to happen is 1%... Engie has set their eyes on natural gas and wants CCG gas plants to replace the lost nuclear generation.

Im writing an argumentative essay, and Im a bit stuck on the financial bit of the Nuclear Power plants. Im wondering how I can spin its heavy upfront cost as not being so bad down the line. I understand that its cheaper to run the plant because the fuel is so cheap and abundant while also only needing to be refilled every 2 years or something. But I, a layman, with little understanding of the math behind all of it- and no patience to dedicate time to understand it before i need to turn this assignment in.
What I need to know is how, and when does the facilities production start turning a profit. When i look it up, I cant really find anything substantial. Just a lot of articles about how expensive it is up front.

Im basically stunlocked on this point and Im kind of playing it by ear because I have a vague understanding how Nuclear is better, especially in the easier to understand parts like the no emissions/environmentally friendly stuff and fuel efficiency as well as how long these places can last.

Please and thank you :)

A lot of "environmentalists" say that nuclear is bad because it isn't flexible enough to decrease output while renewables have their peak generation. Even Bill Gates' Terra Power prides itself with being able to complement renewables. I don't get why this is even an argument. Can't the NPPs just produce hydrogen while renewables have their peak supply period instead of decreasing output? If we want to decarbonize completely, we will need a fuckton of clean hydrogen so why not let NPPs produce it? And shouldn't intermittency be a downside for renewables rather than nuclear?

I´m curious to see the opinions here.

Seriously, how can they achieve their goal as much as possible?

What challenges they face besides the protracted construction period and the increase in the price for construction, the lack of qualified workers, rather the anti-nuclear attitude of the incoming European Commission?

And what measures are absolutely neccesary to take to overcome them? Just the example of the need to recruit thousands of people seems unlikely to be solved out soon.

(Sorry, did a post with picture only, not including the text. Relatively new here.)