Bill Gates-Backed 345 MWe Advanced Nuclear Reactor Secures Crucial US Approval (interestingengineering.com)
- Reference: 0179877852
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/10/26/1814233/bill-gates-backed-345-mwe-advanced-nuclear-reactor-secures-crucial-us-approval
- Source link: https://interestingengineering.com/energy/terrapower-nuclear-reactor-gets-us-approval
> Bill Gates-backed TerraPower's innovative Natrium reactor project in Wyoming has cleared a critical federal regulatory hurdle. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has successfully completed its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, known as Kemmerer Unit 1, and found no adverse impacts that would block its construction.
>
> The commission officially recommended that a construction permit be issued to TerraPower subsidiary USO for the facility in Lincoln County.
>
> This announcement marks a significant milestone, making the Natrium project the first-ever advanced commercial nuclear power plant in the country to successfully complete this rigorous environmental review process... The first-of-a-kind design utilizes an 840 MW (thermal) pool-type reactor connected to a molten salt-based energy storage system. This storage technology is the plant's most unique feature. It is designed to keep the base output steady, ensuring constant reliability, but it also allows the plant to function like a massive battery. The system can store heat and boost the plant's output to 500 MWe when demand peaks, allowing it to ramp up power quickly to support the grid. TerraPower says it is the only advanced reactor design with this unique capability. The Natrium plant is strategically designed to replace electricity generation capacity following the planned retirement of existing coal-fired facilities in the region.
>
> While the regulatory process for the nuclear components continues, construction on the non-nuclear portions of the site already began in June 2024. When completed, the Natrium plant is poised to be the first utility-scale advanced nuclear power plant in the United States.
The next step for the construction permit application is a final safety evaluation, which is anticipated by December 31, 2025, [3]according to announcement from TerraPower , which notes that the project is being developed through a public-private partnership with the U.S. Energy Department.
"When completed, the Natrium plant will be the first utility-scale advanced nuclear power plant in the United States."
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://interestingengineering.com/energy/terrapower-nuclear-reactor-gets-us-approval
[3] https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-project-receives-first-nrc-issued-environmental-impact-statement-for-a-commercial-advanced-nuclear-power-plant
Where there is money to be made ... (Score:2)
You will find Bill Gates.
This is good (Score:2)
The Natrium is a sodium-cooled fast reactor. This is one of the few next gen nuclear projects that has the potential to scale. [1]Check out this video on the integral fast reactor. [youtube.com] The Natrium reactor was heavily influenced by the Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 shown in that video.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU
Re: (Score:2)
They also have the proven propensity to have expensive leaks and fires.
Russians finally just made the steam generating circuit redundant and managed to keep one plant running okay for a few years. All the sodium lovers praise that one outlier as the proof of reliability ... meanwhile the Russians are moving on to lead.
Re: (Score:1)
Natrium is basing their work on tbe Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 instead of anything Russia is doing.
Been touting nuclear for 50 years, but... (Score:2)
My copy of Petr Beckmann's "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" is at least that old, and dog-eared. For decades, I arm-waved about the possibilities of nuclear, the incredible costs of coal and carbon. That goes back before CO2 was a villain. Ash and particulates were bad enough.
But. I just don't see the money, any more. For a long time, I thought "If only they'd build them right, stamp them out like cookies, only a few designs" or "The next generation will be completely walk-away safe, that'l
Re: (Score:1)
> In 5 years, we'll know.
Yes, Ontario should have one, possibly two SMRs online by then. Happily everything is on budget and on time so far, and there is no reason to expect otherwise going forward. These folks have a great track record of success.
[1]https://www.opg.com/projects-s... [opg.com]
[1] https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem very small or modular.
Re: (Score:2)
> Doesn't seem very small or modular.
I think 300MWe is pretty standard SMR size. They are prepping the site for 4 of them. That does not mean everybody needs 4 of them. The plan is to use these first four to bootstrap a supply chain to be able to construct them in around 5 years.
80% Agreement (Score:3)
> My job was always to get 'er done, cheaply as possible with every quality and standard met, and now I see that coming with just renewables and storage...cheaper
It depends on how far "net zero" you want to go. There are still a lot of people who live in places where the sun doesn't shine much for a good chunk of the year. It also gets dangerously cold. Heating a home uses an enormous amount of electricity. If you still plan on supplementing with natural gas, it's less of a problem. If you want to go all-electric, you are going to have to figure out how to generate a lot of power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't come out much so people don't freeze to
Re: (Score:2)
> China is going to prove it before Bill Gates does
This is partly (or mostly I would say) due to the fact that in China the state [1]owns [wikipedia.org] [2]both [wikipedia.org] of it's primary nuclear power construction and operation companies. Those things like standard designs, quality standards are more controlled since the project goal can be to build the plant and just stay on budget, not necessarily turn a "profit" or have to go seek investment.
If and when China wants to build their own sodium fast reactor (they may already be) they'll declare it a project, fund it and just start doing
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_General_Nuclear_Power_Group
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Nuclear_Corporation
Nuclear reactors being approved (Score:3)
By a regime famous for its lack of oversight? All the while being rapidly built to meet short-term AI Data center demand?
What could possibly go wrong?
Fukushima says hi. Remember they blamed the engineers not the CEOs.
Re: (Score:3)
This was designed and sent for approval before Trump won the election. Bill Gates is known to be careful, at least outside of software.
It is NOT being rapidly built to meet short term AI Data Center demand, but instead being tested to replace the old coal power plants.
Does that mean it is definitely safe? No. Does it mean it won't be used to meet AI demand? Almost certainly it will be used for AI demand.
But you are misrepresenting the actual situation.
I could care less about the design (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a nuclear reactor that can safely be built and operated without incredibly heavy-handed government regulation and oversight.
France does it because they still have a functioning government unlike the Trump regime. Meanwhile Trump is illegally starting a war with Venezuela and we're all just not even talking about it or doing anything about it. It shows that America is now a failed state which is why I bring it up.
There is no way corners don't get cut in the building of that
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong on several factors. First, the worst nuclear reactors we have built are FAR safer than coal power plants. Every single coal power plant has indirectly killed more people than the worst nuclear reactor.
By any reasonable standard, quick and dirty cheap nuclear reactors are safer than coal. Which is what this is designed to replace. There is no information about this reactor cutting corners. The US has not done that in 30 years. The Soviet Union did, but we are not them.
But more importantl
Re: (Score:2)
> The only reason to go nuclear is that you can slap it up faster than a large solar farm because you don't have to source the batteries.
No, you can't. The biggest part of the reason that nuclear power is the most expensive power technology around is the fact that it takes so long to build a plant.
The small modular reactor advocates claim that this will change with small reactors. We'll see.
--
> ...voting for a politician with 28 credible right back occasions eight of which are against children was a bad idea...
I have no idea what this sentence says. Could you translate it into English?
On the small side, but not super-small (Score:2)
Average Nuclear reactors are 1 GW, so this is about 35% size of existing plants, with a heat bank to temporarily boost it up to 85% output when needed.
Most people consider Small Modular Reactors to be no larger than about 300 MW, so this is a bit to large to count as a modular one, especially considering the heat bank.
But it is a wonderful NEW design that has been properly tested by a man I think cares more about the environment than making money on nuclear power.
Sounds like a good idea to me, I hope it wo
NIMBY waste (Score:2)
And im sure the nuclear waste will go into .
Sodium-cooled fast reactor* (Score:3)
> Natrium is an older term for sodium, a chemical element with the symbol Na
So really, this is a sodium-cooled fast reactor which means they are using molten salt for thermal energy storage. If I understand correctly, development has been held back material science problems since sodium is chemically reactive.
Why sodium? The benefit of sodium is that you reduce the risk of a meltdown since water has a relatively low boiling point. This allows the reactor to be "hot" run which is called a "fast reactor" Water-based fast reactors have to be run under high pressure so there is more risk involved.
Why makes fast reactors desirable? Per Wikipedia:
> All fast reactors have several advantages over the current fleet of water based reactors in that the waste streams are significantly reduced. Crucially, when a reactor runs on fast neutrons, the plutonium isotopes are far more likely to fission upon absorbing a neutron. Thus, fast neutrons have a smaller chance of being captured by the uranium and plutonium, but when they are captured, have a much bigger chance of causing a fission. This means that the inventory of transuranic waste is non existent from fast reactors.
Re: (Score:3)
The drawbacks of sodium include making a restart much harder and also every time it's been tried there's been show-stopper corrosion which they thought they had solved in their design already. That doesn't guarantee that it will happen again, but...
Re: (Score:2)
> every time it's been tried there's been show-stopper corrosion which they thought they had solved in their design already.
Understood but I think you should keep in mind that [1]Molten-salt batteries [wikipedia.org] have become a thing.
> That doesn't guarantee that it will happen again, but...
If you never try then you can never succeed. Science is full of repeated failures... and then someone gets it right.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_battery
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose at such high temperatures sodium is highly corrosive, but my cars from the 1970's had sodium cooled valves, and those lasted quite a long time, intact. The sodium contained within did not interact with air or water, so was effectively inert. Of course it was fun to take a grinder to a removed valve and then drop it in a bucket of water.
Its all bullshit (Score:2)
This thing may go online in 10 years. It then needs to run for at the very least another 10 years to prove the concept. And than, if everything goes well (it never does), we may see more of these in about 30 years.
Wait until (Score:5, Funny)
A nuclear reactor BSODs
slowdown cowboy
Re: (Score:1)
> I'm glad this thing is nowhere near me. Wyoming is probably far enough away that when this thing goes supercritical, it won't take out a large chunk of population with it.
When a nuclear reactor goes "supercritical" that just means it is increasing in power. This is a routine process and so hardly something that will damage the reactor. Perhaps you mean "prompt critical" which is what happened at Chernobyl and caused a flash boil of the water in the core. We can look at the Natrium reactor to see why we will not get another Chernobyl from it: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The first and perhaps most important distinction between Natrium and the RBMK used at Chernobyl is
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower#Sodium_fast_reactor_(Natrium)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be more like in about 15 or 20 years they will stop doing maintenance because it's too expensive and there will be a disaster.
It'll probably clear out a small City for a 10 years or so like it did with the Fukushima.
They will probably be a few dead engineers and just like Fukushima we will blame those dead engineers and not the CEOs that ignore the engineers when they were warned about the coming disaster.
What's funny is there's some people here right now and they don't know it but
Re: (Score:2)
> in about 15 or 20 years they will stop doing maintenance because it's too expensive and there will be a disaster.
The management system won't support the new version of Windows...
Re: (Score:2)
> A nuclear reactor BSODs
Or the sitting president decides he didn't like something Gates said.
Maybe we'll get lucky, and the president will BSOD soon.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe we'll get lucky, and the president will BSOD soon.
Betting it will be while rage-tweeting on the toilet.
I'll feel bad for the Secret Service agents on duty...
Re: (Score:2)
Insert meme of Zapp Branigan saying CYANOTIC! here
Re: (Score:2)
> A nuclear reactor BSODs slowdown cowboy
That’s just Cherenkov radiation, it’s supposed to be a blue deathy thing.