Aslak Stubsgaard, CTO of Copenhagen Atomics provided an update to Nextbigfuture on their development of a Molten Salt nuclear fission reactor. They are a molten salt reactor company developing a 100MW(th) thorium molten salt reactors with an initial load plutonium from spent fuel. The reactors are designed to be roughly the size of a 40-foot shipping container and can be produced on an assembly line at low cost and scalable.

The goal is a walkaway safe reactor that is mass produced in a shipping container form factor.

They have chosen to validate a paper design through regulator pre-approval stages without building anything.

In 2019, they received two major danish grants. Copenhagen Atomics partnered with Alfa Laval who are one of the world’s leading heat exchanger producers and moved a majority of their lab facilities to Alfa Laval’s site in Copenhagen.

They are building pumped molten salt reactor loops, capable of pumping 700C fluoride/chloride salt. Copenhagen Atomics will soon open up for a public investment round.

Above, you see the molten salt loops currently under construction, in Alfa Laval’s production facility.

Let Brian Wang know if you have questions in the comments here. Aslak will be contacted and answers will be placed into follow up articles.

Walk-away Safe Shipping Container Reactor

The Copenhagen Atomics waste burner version 0.2.3 is a 50 MW(t) heavy water moderated, single fluid, fluoride salt-based, thermal spectrum, molten salt reactor. Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner 2.0 and above versions are expected to be breeder and converter type designs, breeding more fissile material than consumed while converting fissile transuranic from existing uranium cycle waste to start a thorium-based cycle. The core, fission product extraction and separation systems, dump tank, primary heat exchanger, pumps, valves, and compressors are all contained in a leak-tight 40-foot shipping container surrounded by a shielding blanket of frozen thorium salt.

Target Application
The following applications are foreseen:
– Addon units at existing nuclear sites, coupled with a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing unit.
– Ship or barge-based power systems.
– Biofuel production and desalination plants.
– Baseload power in Asia and Africa.
The reactor design effort is focussed on a small modular thorium breeder thermal spectrum fluoride molten salt reactor, made to fit inside a 40-foot shipping container and with an initial fissile inventory made up of spent nuclear fuel transuranic.

They have moved beyond the conceptual stage to building and testing key components. The IAEA 2018 SMR book has details on this and all other Small Modular Reactor projects.

SOURCES- Copenhagen Atomics CTO Aslak Stubsgaard
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

Brian Wang is a prolific business-oriented writer of emerging and disruptive technologies. He is known for insightful articles that combine business and technical analysis that catches the attention of the general public and is also useful for those in the industries. He is the sole author and writer of nextbigfuture.com, the top online science blog. He is also involved in angel investing and raising funds for breakthrough technology startup companies.

He gave the recent keynote presentation at Monte Jade event with a talk entitled the Future for You.  He gave an annual update on molecular nanotechnology at Singularity University on nanotechnology, gave a TEDX talk on energy, and advises USC ASTE 527 (advanced space projects program). He has been interviewed for radio, professional organizations. podcasts and corporate events. He was recently interviewed by the radio program Steel on Steel on satellites and high altitude balloons that will track all movement in many parts of the USA.

He fundraises for various high impact technology companies and has worked in computer technology, insurance, healthcare and with corporate finance.

He has substantial familiarity with a broad range of breakthrough technologies like age reversal and antiaging, quantum computers, artificial intelligence, ocean tech,  agtech, nuclear fission, advanced nuclear fission, space propulsion, satellites, imaging, molecular nanotechnology, biotechnology, medicine, blockchain, crypto and many other areas.

This is the fifth of a multi-part series on the state of the main sources of energy in the US and how they compare globally. The series will cover solar, wind, oil & gas, coal, nuclear, and geothermal (so far) and will answer the same four questions for each.

1.   How big is the U.S. nuclear industry, and what is its growth trajectory?

The US nuclear industry directly employs about 100,000 persons (indirectly about five times as many) and the sector generates about $40-50 billion in economic value per year. The US currently has just under 100 operating nuclear reactors for a total of about 100 GW of generation capacity. Nuclear plants have the highest capacity factors (percentage of time they are producing power over a year) of all power plant types and provide the most carbon-free electricity of any other source in the US, about 20% of annual production.  

The majority of US nuclear power plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and thus the average age of operating reactors is now pushing 40, which is about the length of their initial operating licenses. However, most have received extensions for at least 20 years. There is currently only one nuclear power facility under construction in the US state of Georgia, Plant Vogtle, but it is behind schedule and over budget.

The last nuclear plant to come online in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016, 20 years after the next youngest one. Other plants have had more trouble — after spending $9 billion and completing less then 40% of construction, V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 have been abandoned, although recently there has been a talk of a new buyer for the units. Currently, more nuclear plants are retiring than coming online in the US.  

2.   Which US states lead in nuclear?

Most nuclear power plants are located in the eastern half of the country. The US state of Illinois has the most nuclear power plants with 11 units totaling about 12,400 MW of capacity. Illinois also produces more electricity from nuclear than any other state. Three states get over half of their power from nuclear; South Carolina at 58%, New Hampshire at 57%, and Illinois at about 53%.  

Most uranium mines in the US are located in the western part of the country. However, as prices have fallen, US uranium production in 2018 was the lowest it has been since the 1950s, with the bulk of our uranium supply now being imported.

3.   What are the biggest challenges faced by the nuclear sector today?

One of the biggest challenges facing the nuclear power sector is the cost (overruns) and size of nuclear power plants. Like coal, nuclear plants have typically been built very large to capture economies of scale and provide cheap energy. However, we are generally not building large power plants of any type anymore. Instead we are focusing on smaller and easier to build and finance power plants, like renewables and natural gas.

The move away from vertically-integrated monopoly electric utilities towards deregulation and competition in electricity markets in the US has also been difficult for nuclear plant construction. Under the old monopoly system, the risk and costs could be spread over many ratepayers, but in deregulated areas the risk is borne by far fewer investors. The size and risk of traditional nuclear power plants has proven to be more than many wish to accept and the only nuclear power plants under construction in the US are in areas that are still regulated monopolies, thus able to rate-base the assets.   

Nuclear power plants, with a few exceptions, have mostly been one-off designs, each requiring extensive engineering analysis to make sure they were safe. If the car you drove were a hand built one-off instead of a mass produced clone of, it would cost millions of dollars to make sure that it was functional and safe for US roads as well. Also, when we stopped building them, we also lost the needed supply chains, only further increasing their costs.

The nuclear industry has responded to both of these issues by pushing for smaller and more standardized designs. These units are one-half to one-third (or smaller) in size and the core is assembled in a controlled factory setting, not on-site like the larger plants we built in the past. NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor is currently working its way through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s permit process, with hopes of deploying a dozen units in Idaho in the mid 2020s.

Although the total amount of nuclear waste generated by power plants is relatively small for all the electricity it has produced, the fight over what to (or not to) do with it is quite large. Yucca Mountain was probably the most politically possible waste storage site, until last week when President Trump reversed his stance on the controversial project. Perhaps the silver lining of the decision is that the site isn’t great for hosting the waste in the first place.

The best location to store the waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), cannot currently take commercial nuclear waste. The WIPP site is better than sites like Yucca Mountain because overtime, the WIPP’s salt formation actually engulfs and seals off the waste. The rock only allows water to move about one inch in 270 million years, which would likely work for our purposes, whereas Yucca Mountain is much more permeable.

Also, the US nuclear industry workforce is aging and having trouble finding replacements as competition from other sectors is high. Retiring plants and a shrinking workforce also have national security implications as weapons inspectors also come from this sector.

4.   How does the US nuclear sector compare globally?

The US is the number one producer of electricity (over 800 TWh, 30% of the world’s total) from nuclear power plants, more than twice as much as second-place France. However, France is first in terms of percentage of electricity from nuclear at over 70%, giving them one of the lowest carbon intensities of electricity of large nations.

China currently leads with world in nuclear power plant construction with 11 units, totaling just over 11,000 MW, coming online by 2024, followed by South Korea, UAE, and India with over 5,000 MW each. The US currently has two reactors under construction totaling about 2,500 MW.

While nuclear power is growing in some parts of the world, such investments are seen as quite radioactive in the US. Time will tell if small modular reactors are able to provide a new nuclear renaissance, but it appears that the days of building the large plants are over. Other nuclear technologies, such as thorium and fusion need more R&D before they are ready to make their mark, if they ever do. However, if we do decide that we want to fully decarbonize the grid, firm low-carbon sources of electricity, like nuclear, are helpful in keeping the lights on for a reasonable cost.

” readability=”133.782753565″>

This is the fifth of a multi-part series on the state of the main sources of energy in the US and how they compare globally. The series will cover solar, wind, oil & gas, coal, nuclear, and geothermal (so far) and will answer the same four questions for each.

1.   How big is the U.S. nuclear industry, and what is its growth trajectory?

The US nuclear industry directly employs about 100,000 persons (indirectly about five times as many) and the sector generates about $40-50 billion in economic value per year. The US currently has just under 100 operating nuclear reactors for a total of about 100 GW of generation capacity. Nuclear plants have the highest capacity factors (percentage of time they are producing power over a year) of all power plant types and provide the most carbon-free electricity of any other source in the US, about 20% of annual production.  

The majority of US nuclear power plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and thus the average age of operating reactors is now pushing 40, which is about the length of their initial operating licenses. However, most have received extensions for at least 20 years. There is currently only one nuclear power facility under construction in the US state of Georgia, Plant Vogtle, but it is behind schedule and over budget.

The last nuclear plant to come online in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016, 20 years after the next youngest one. Other plants have had more trouble — after spending $9 billion and completing less then 40% of construction, V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 have been abandoned, although recently there has been a talk of a new buyer for the units. Currently, more nuclear plants are retiring than coming online in the US.  

2.   Which US states lead in nuclear?

Most nuclear power plants are located in the eastern half of the country. The US state of Illinois has the most nuclear power plants with 11 units totaling about 12,400 MW of capacity. Illinois also produces more electricity from nuclear than any other state. Three states get over half of their power from nuclear; South Carolina at 58%, New Hampshire at 57%, and Illinois at about 53%.  

Most uranium mines in the US are located in the western part of the country. However, as prices have fallen, US uranium production in 2018 was the lowest it has been since the 1950s, with the bulk of our uranium supply now being imported.

3.   What are the biggest challenges faced by the nuclear sector today?

One of the biggest challenges facing the nuclear power sector is the cost (overruns) and size of nuclear power plants. Like coal, nuclear plants have typically been built very large to capture economies of scale and provide cheap energy. However, we are generally not building large power plants of any type anymore. Instead we are focusing on smaller and easier to build and finance power plants, like renewables and natural gas.

The move away from vertically-integrated monopoly electric utilities towards deregulation and competition in electricity markets in the US has also been difficult for nuclear plant construction. Under the old monopoly system, the risk and costs could be spread over many ratepayers, but in deregulated areas the risk is borne by far fewer investors. The size and risk of traditional nuclear power plants has proven to be more than many wish to accept and the only nuclear power plants under construction in the US are in areas that are still regulated monopolies, thus able to rate-base the assets.   

Nuclear power plants, with a few exceptions, have mostly been one-off designs, each requiring extensive engineering analysis to make sure they were safe. If the car you drove were a hand built one-off instead of a mass produced clone of, it would cost millions of dollars to make sure that it was functional and safe for US roads as well. Also, when we stopped building them, we also lost the needed supply chains, only further increasing their costs.

The nuclear industry has responded to both of these issues by pushing for smaller and more standardized designs. These units are one-half to one-third (or smaller) in size and the core is assembled in a controlled factory setting, not on-site like the larger plants we built in the past. NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor is currently working its way through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s permit process, with hopes of deploying a dozen units in Idaho in the mid 2020s.

Although the total amount of nuclear waste generated by power plants is relatively small for all the electricity it has produced, the fight over what to (or not to) do with it is quite large. Yucca Mountain was probably the most politically possible waste storage site, until last week when President Trump reversed his stance on the controversial project. Perhaps the silver lining of the decision is that the site isn’t great for hosting the waste in the first place.

The best location to store the waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), cannot currently take commercial nuclear waste. The WIPP site is better than sites like Yucca Mountain because overtime, the WIPP’s salt formation actually engulfs and seals off the waste. The rock only allows water to move about one inch in 270 million years, which would likely work for our purposes, whereas Yucca Mountain is much more permeable.

Also, the US nuclear industry workforce is aging and having trouble finding replacements as competition from other sectors is high. Retiring plants and a shrinking workforce also have national security implications as weapons inspectors also come from this sector.

4.   How does the US nuclear sector compare globally?

The US is the number one producer of electricity (over 800 TWh, 30% of the world’s total) from nuclear power plants, more than twice as much as second-place France. However, France is first in terms of percentage of electricity from nuclear at over 70%, giving them one of the lowest carbon intensities of electricity of large nations.

China currently leads with world in nuclear power plant construction with 11 units, totaling just over 11,000 MW, coming online by 2024, followed by South Korea, UAE, and India with over 5,000 MW each. The US currently has two reactors under construction totaling about 2,500 MW.

While nuclear power is growing in some parts of the world, such investments are seen as quite radioactive in the US. Time will tell if small modular reactors are able to provide a new nuclear renaissance, but it appears that the days of building the large plants are over. Other nuclear technologies, such as thorium and fusion need more R&D before they are ready to make their mark, if they ever do. However, if we do decide that we want to fully decarbonize the grid, firm low-carbon sources of electricity, like nuclear, are helpful in keeping the lights on for a reasonable cost.

Researchers at Tomsk Polytechnic University found a method to increase fuel lifetime by 75%. According to the research team, it will significantly increase safety and reduce the operating cost of nuclear power plants in hard-to-reach areas. The study results were published in Nuclear Engineering and Design.

Previously, a team of researchers from the Russian Federal Nuclear Center – All-Russian Research Institute of Technical Physics, Tomsk Polytechnic University, and the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics proposed the concept of a thorium hybrid reactor, where high-temperature plasma confined in a long magnetic trap is used to obtain additional neutrons. Unlike operating reactors, the proposed thorium hybrid reactor has moderate power, relatively small size, high operational safety, and low level of radioactive waste.

One of the biggest challenges for the development of remote areas, such as the Far North, is a stable energy supply. According to Tomsk researchers, often the only solution is to use low-power nuclear plants.

However, the reactor refueling, one of the most hazardous and time-consuming procedures in nuclear energy, is a significant problem. “Reduction of refuel frequency will drastically improve operational safety. Furthermore, it reduces transportation costs of fresh fuel or a nuclear power plant to a transshipment site.” Vladimir Nesterov, associate professor of the TPU Division for Nuclear-Fuel Cycle, says.

The scientists carried out theoretical calculations proving the possibility of creating a thorium-based nuclear fuel cycle. Thorium is four times as abundant as uranium. Additionally, thorium fuel has a significantly higher regeneration intensity of fissile isotopes necessary for energy production.

“The achieved results can draw the attention of the scientific community to the potential of the thorium nuclear fuel cycle. We demonstrated that the implementation of this cycle in a low-power reactor installation results in increasing of fuel lifetime by 75%,” the expert says.

In the future, researchers want to continue experiments in the verified software and carry out thermophysical calculations of low-power reactors operating in the thorium-uranium fuel cycle with subsequent implementation of the developed calculation methods in the educational process.

###

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Russian scientists have proposed a idea of a thorium hybrid reactor in that acquires extra neutrons utilizing high-temperature plasma held in a long magnetic trap. This job was applied in close partnership between Tomsk Polytechnic University, All-Russian Scientific Research Study Institute Of Technical Physics (VNIITF), and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics of SB RAS. The proposed thorium hybrid reactor is distinguished from today’s nuclear reactors by moderate power, fairly compact size, high operational security, and a low level of radioactive waste.

“At the preliminary phase, we get relatively cold plasma utilizing special plasma weapons. We retain the quantity by deuterium gas injection. The injected neutral beams with particle energy of 100 keV into this plasma generate the high-energy deuterium and tritium ions and maintain the needed temperature level. Colliding with each other, deuterium and tritium ions are integrated into a helium nucleus so high-energy neutrons are launched. These neutrons can freely pass through the walls of the vacuum chamber, where the plasma is held by a magnetic field, and going into the location with nuclear fuel. After slowing down down, they support the fission of heavy nuclei, which serves as the main source of energy launched in the hybrid reactor, ” states professor Andrei Arzhannikov, a chief researcher of Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics of SB RAS.

The main advantage of a hybrid nuclear combination reactor is the simultaneous use of the fission response of heavy nuclei and synthesis of light ones. It lessens the disadvantages of using these nuclear responses independently.

Also, this type of reactor has lower requirements for plasma quality and makes it possible to change up to 95 percent of fissile uranium with thorium, which ensures the impossibility of an uncontrollable nuclear response. Moreover, hybrid reactors are reasonably compact, have high power, and produce a small amount of radioactive waste.

“The hybrid reactor consists of 2 aspects. The main part is the energy-generating blanket as the active zone of a nuclear reactor. It distributes nuclear fissile material that is part of nuclear fuel. Due to this, a fission chain response of heavy nuclei is possible. The 2nd part is placed inside the blanket to produce neutrons that fall into the energy-generating blanket. The atomic combination responses are produced inside this part filled with deterium plasma, launching the neutrons. A feature of the hybrid reactor is that the operating blanket, where the fission responses take location, is in the subcritical state (near-critical). Operating at a consistent power level, a standard reactor is in a critical condition, supported by a control and security system, ” says Igor Shamanin, the head of the TPU D ivision of Natural Sciences and the TPU I sotope Analysis and Innovation Laboratory.

According to Dr. Shamanin, the blanket was based on a principle of a multi-purpose high-temperature gas-cooled low-power reactor sustained by thorium. This principle was developed at Tomsk Polytechnic University and now it is commonly represented in numerous scientific publications.

Currently, the job individuals are considering the alternative to establish an speculative stand based on the TPU reactor, which will consist of a thorium fuel assembly and a neutron source.

The results of current studies on this task are published in the journal Plasma and Fusion Research.