WARNING: This web page provides convenient access to hundreds of highly technical files related to advanced nuclear power. These files are intended for nuclear engineers, not for the general public. In addition to technical complexity and jargon, some of these files may contain copyright material, use of which is restricted to education and private study.
Sustainable nuclear power can provide both the dependable clean electric power and the dependable clean heat flux required for mitigation of climate change. Reserve nuclear capacity, surplus to the dependable power load, can contribute to the supply of interruptible power.
Most of the value of an electricity system lies in its capacity to supply customer controlled amounts of clean, sustainable and dependable power when required by consumers. The main electricity generation sources that are clean, sustainable and dependable are large hydroelectric dams and fast neutron nuclear power plants.
Large hydroelectric dams can only be built in places that have both suitable geography and suitable politics. For example, damming the upper Niagara River would enable energy storage between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, but there are so many conflicting political parties and jurisdictions involved that obtaining consent for such a project is considered impossible.
Wind and solar energy are clean and may seem desirable due to their superficial simplicity and sustainability but they lack thermal capacity and they have common mode failures which make them intermittent and not dependable. The available net wind and solar electricity generation varies widely both daily and seasonally. The amounts of energy storage, electricity transmission and additional moment of inertia required to make wind and solar electricity generation stable and dependable are usually cost prohibitive.
As a result unconstrained wind and solar electricity generation can economically provide only interruptible power which is typically about 20% of the annual clean energy required by an electricity grid. The remaining 80% of the annual clean energy required by an electricity grid must come from dependable hydroelectric and nuclear power sources.
Nuclear thermal electricity generation generally requires the existence of an adjacent large heat sink. Hence many nuclear power plants are located in the proximity of a major river, lake or ocean. Other nuclear power plants rely on cooling towers for heat sinking.
FISSION NUCLEAR POWER:
A fission type nuclear power plant (NPP) operates by splitting large fissionable fuel nuclei into smaller fission product nuclei. The difference in rest mass between a fissionable nucleus and its fission product nuclei becomes thermal energy which is absorbed by the nuclear reactor coolant. This thermal energy is used to make high pressure steam which is expanded by a turbogenerator to produce electricity. The rate of electricity production is controlled by controlling the rate of nuclear heat production. The NPP turbogenerator discharges low pressure steam into a condenser which transfers the steam's latent heat to an external heat sink.
UNSUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR POWER:
Most nuclear power plants existing in 2023 obtain energy via fission of the naturally occurring rare fissile uranium isotope U-235. There is no practical upper limit to the rate at which U-235 can be fissioned to supply thermal power. However, the time integral of that thermal power, which is the total energy available from the U-235 resource, is limited by the amount of economically mineable uranium ore and the tiny fraction of that ore which is U-235. The economic U-235 resource is projected to be depleted within about 50 years. Thus U-235 fission is not a sustainable power source.
SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR POWER:
A fission type nuclear fuel cycle is considered sustainable if its fuel is naturally so abundant that on the time scale of a human life that fuel will last forever. In one sustainable nuclear fuel cycle surplus free neutrons convert abundant fertile U-238 nuclei into new fissionable TRU (Trans Uranic) nuclei at a rate sufficient to indefinitely sustain the power production process.
Over sufficient time in a Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR) the abundant fertile uranium isotope U-238 can potentially supply 100X more energy per unit of natural uranium than is available from fission of U-235, but realizing this energy from U-238 requires continuous breeding of TRU, which are atoms with atomic numbers greater than 92. The ultimate total energy obtainable from U-238 is so large that this energy supply process is considered sustainable, but the rate at which this energy can be harvested is limited by the FNR's TRU inventory.
In practise, because the FNR initial TRU inventory is produced at a level of a few grams / kg of U-238, the available dependable and sustainable thermal power output is less than the present rate at which world combustion of fossil fuels delivers heat in 2023. The world TRU inventory is further reduced by wasteful practices mostly associated with Light Water Reactor (LWR) operation.
Only dependable power sources can be used to black start a public electricity grid.
With the exception of a few jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Quebec, Washington State and Norway, which have both plentiful rainfall and the geography required for seasonal hydraulic energy storage, most jurisdictions must rely on nuclear power for large scale supply of dependable clean electricity.
The electric power output from a fleet of nuclear power stations is much more dependable than the electric power output from a fleet of wind and solar generators of similar plate capacity because:
a) Nuclear generators have a capacity factor of over 90% as compared to an average combined wind and solar generator capacity factor of about 30%;
b) Fast neutron reactors can be made suitable for load following;
c) The failure modes of nuclear generators are statistically independent whereas renewable generators have solar exposure related common mode failures;
d) The cost of sufficient transmission and energy storage to make seasonally variable wind and solar electricity generation dependable is prohibitive.
A summary of world nuclear power reactors is A Review on the Development of Nuclear Power Reactors
Random shutdown of one nuclear generator in a fleet of nuclear generators does not diminish the electric power output of the remaining nuclear generators whereas all the solar panels in a fleet stop producing electricity at night and almost all the wind generators in a fleet stop producing electricity during low wind periods. Redundant clean generation and transmission sufficient to compensate for the large scale local fluctuations in wind generation are prohibitively expensive.
Natural gas fuelled generators, in addition to emitting CO2, have a common mode failure related to the natural gas pipeline pressure. This issue is a major problem in circumstances where electrically powered compressors are used to maintain natural gas pipeline pressure. A loss of natural gas pressure due to high home heating loads during a cold snap can cause an electricity generation failure which, due to lack of gas compression, causes a cascade failure of both the electricity and natural gas systems such as almost occurred in Texas in Februaty 2021. Then, absent liquid fuel backup for combustion turbines, it is impossible to use combustion turbines to immediately black start the electricity grid.
The issue of potential failure of electrically powered natural gas pipeline compressors is of national importance in the USA because much of US natural gas is sourced in Texas.
Due to absence of sufficient energy storage and absence of voltage source power inverters at existing distributed wind and solar generators it is impossible to black start the public electricity grid using wind and solar electricity generation.
Thus practical electricity grids require a substantial fraction of coal, oil, hydroelectric or nuclear generation to provide resiliency, which is ability to black start and operate for a significant period using only fuel available at the generator site. In jurisdictions which lack hydroelectric capacity closure of coal and oil fueled electricity generation triggers an immediate requirement for nuclear power plant capacity to provide electricity generation resiliency.
A large fraction of present fossil fuel energy consumption is for production of space heat. In circumpolar urban markets it is usually more economic to provide dependable district heat from urban sited nuclear reactors than to provide an equal amount of dependable electric heat from any form of remote clean electricity generation. The thermal electricity generation apparatus used with nuclear reactors rejects large amounts of low grade heat that can, in combination with in-building water source heat pumps, be used for urban district heating.
NUCLEAR POWER SOURCES:
There are two methods of producing nuclear energy, fission of high atomic weight elements and fusion of low atomic weight elements. Both methods are explored in this web site section.
However, from a practical economic public power perspective nuclear energy released via fission of unstable heavy isotopes, that are bred from abundant more stable fertile heavy isotopes, is the only dependable, sustainable and economic source of clean power that can fully displace fossil fuels. Much of the nuclear energy must come from fast neutron induced fission of long lived nuclear waste atoms. The nuclear fission process must emit enough free neutrons to sustain conversion of abundant fertile isotopes into fissionable isotopes.
Here is a link to a textbook on Nuclear Reactor Physics
A 2013 overview of the various nuclear reactor technologies is contained in the text New Technologies Associated to the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants.
Public misconceptions about nuclear power are concisely addressed in a PragerU Video.
The status of civilian nuclear power in 2019 is summarized in Ensuring the Future of Nuclear Power.
The design of conventional light water cooled nuclear power reactors is summarized in the:
Nuclear Engineering Handbook
FAST NEUTRON REACTOR (FNR) DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW:
Important advantages of fast neutron reactors include protection of the reactor coolant pond structure from neutron damage and conversion of almost all long lived heavy isotopes into fission products that have short half lives.
A technical overview of current nuclear power issues is presented in the text: A Nuclear Green New Deal by Darryl Siemer. This text provides the perspective of a retired senior Idaho National Laboratory scientist on the future of nuclear power.
A March 2021 report titled: "Advanced" Isn't Always Better by Edwin Lyman raises a number of issues which must be addressed by the various advanced reactor technologies. An important responding document is a Letter from Dr. Alex Cannara.
NUCLEAR FUEL SUSTAINABILITY:
Advances in Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR) technology have rendered obsolete past concerns about nuclear reactor safety and disposal of long half life nuclear fuel waste. However, the present unsustainable fissioning of the limited supplies of Pu-239 in thermal neutron power reactors is of enormous concern. As fossil fuels are phased out the amount of available dependable power will be limited by the remaining Trans Uranic Actinide (TRU) supplies. Reference: Long Term Sustainability of Nuclear Fuel
A major problem today is that existing electricity markets reward nuclear reactor owners for low cost per kWht thermal energy output without rewarding maintenance of the TRU supply or prevention of formation of long half life low atomic number nuclear waste.
The existing light water moderated fission reactor technology is not fuel sustainable, is rapidly depleting the natural U-235 fissile isotope resource and wastes TRU. Heavy water moderated CANDU reactors are much more natural uranium fuel efficient. Fast Neutron Reactors with TRU based core fuel and breeding blankets are required to sustainably meet the future power load.
LIQUID SODIUM COOLED REACTORS:
Another concern is squandering of limited public resources on development of new thermal neutron reactor types that are not TRU sustainable and do not address disposal of long half live low atomic number nuclear waste. It is imperative to apply the limited public resouces to deployment of liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs), because only that reactor type provides a proven sustainable nuclear fuel cycle that can fully displace fossil fuels and that recycles 99.9% of the solid nuclear fuel waste.
Major benefits of liquid sodium cooled FNRs are:
1) They are conceptually simple;
2) Low pressure operation permitting urban siting with no public exclusion zone;
3) Operation in a temperature range compatible with readily available sealing gaskets, chrome steel and stainless steel components;
4) There are no FNR life limiting chemical corrosion issues;
5) Sodium is chemically compatible with the other base metals (Fe, Ni, Cr, U, Pu, Zr, Mo) that are used for economic FNR and heat exchange bundle fabrication;
6) The sodium cooled FNR fuel cycle is 100X more efficient in use of natural uranium than is the existing water cooled reactor fuel cycle;
7) The sodium cooled FNR fuel cycle with fuel reprocessing can be operated to reduce long lived nuclear waste production by more than 1000 fold as compared to existing water moderated reactors.
8) Sodium cooled FNRs can be designed to totally avoid production of decommissioning waste;
9) The FNR use of sealed fuel tubes with plenums for inert gas storage permits the fuel reprocessing to be carried out at a remote facility instead of at each reactor site;
10) Sodium internal to fuel tubes improves heat transport and aids in safe fuel disassembly in a prompt neutron critical condition;
11) Sodium internal to fuel tubes prevents fuel tube inside wall corrosion by chemical capture of the corrosive fission product elements;
12) Metallic blanket fuel rods which slide inside the fuel tubes enable simple radiation scanning and mechanical sorting of irradiated blanket fuel rods which simplifies electrolytic and/or chemical fuel reprocessing.
13) The dominant core fuel fissile component should be TRU to ensure a decrease in reactor reactivity with increasing fuel temperature.
A major safety issue with sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) is ensuring that the reactor reactivity decreases with increasing temperature. The practical way to achieve this goal is to use TRU fissile which is about 2 / 3 plutonium. Plutonium has the required large Thermal Coefficient of Expansion (TCE). TRU is obtained by reprocessing used power reactor fuel or by formation using neutron spallation equipment. The thermal power capacity of a FNR is limited by its TRU inventory.
A major issue in the design of liquid sodium cooled reactors is ensuring that the sodium never contacts air or water and that any NaK combustion is inconsequential. To achieve this objective The FNR has a robust enclosure and each FNR has multiple independent NaK heat transport loops. Each NaK loop is isolated from its companion steam generator by atmospheric pressure nitrate salt and Heat Transport Fluid (HTF) loops. Each NaK circuit is pressurized with argon to prevent other fluids from entering the NaK circuit on the occurrence of a heat exchange tube failure.
MOLTEN SALT COOLED REACTORS:
Another class of potentially fuel sustainable nuclear reactors is molten salt cooled reactors fuelled by thorium, which is naturally at least 3X more abundant than is uranium. Thorium fuelled reactors operating with a sustainable fuel cycle require continuous chemical processing of their blanket fuel salt to selectively remove protactinium. This protactinium removal is enabled by dissolving thorium in a molten salt coolant that can be continuously circulated for chemical processing and heat removal.
The molten salt reactors can be further divided into:
a) Chloride salt cooled fast neutron reactors with rigid fuel tubes which maintain a fixed core fuel geometry;
b) Fluoride salt cooled thermal neutron reactors that use a rigid moderator (graphite) to maintain a flowing liquid fuel core geometry and hence can operate without fuel tubes.
The practical molten salt cooled reactor intermediate heat exchanger and enclosure alloys that can withstand the required high operating temperatures all contain a substantial fraction of nickel. In a neutron flux over time nickel alloys become brittle. To avoid this problem it is necessary to design the reactor so that the neutron flux is localized near the center of the reactor and there is a wide molten salt guard band protecting the intermediate heat exchangers and the molten salt enclosure from neutron impingement. This neutron impingement prevention is very difficult to achieve with flowing fuel.
Fuel sustainable chloride salt cooled fast neutron reactors localize the neutron flux near the center of the enclosure by use of fuel tubes. However, there are unresolved developmental issues related to the required fuel tube material. The most suitable fuel tube material is believed to be Mo depleted in Mo-95, which is both extremely difficult to obtain and fabricate. The chloride salt needs to be monoisotopic Cl-37. If lithium is used in the blanket salt it needs to be monoisotopic Li-7.
An important issue with molten salt Fast Neutron Reactors is that for control safety the fuel must have a high Thermal Coefficient of Expansion (TCE).
One way to achieve a high TCE is to dissolve the uranium or thorium in a molten salt. However, uranium is multivalent. It is necessary to prevent the uranium changing from a high valence state to a lower valence state. Such a change of valence state will release active chlorine from the molten fuel salt inside the fuel tube that will corrode the fuel tubes from the inside.
A simple solution to the corosion problem is to use metallic fuel inside the fuel tubes. To achieve good thermal contact sodium is required inside the fuel tube. To allow for the sodium thermal expansion a fuel tube plenum is required. Hence the sealed fuel tubes likely must be upright. Other provisions must be made to effectively raise the fuel TCE.
Fuel sustainable fluoride salt cooled thermal neutron reactors have flowing fuel and localize the neutron flux near the center of the enclosure by use of a rigid moderator. The experimentally demonstrated moderator material is graphite, but after about four years of continuous operation graphite swells too much and must be replaced. The problem with hydrogen based moderator compounds is that they spontaneously decompose at the required operating temperatures. Use of Be as a moderator is prohibitively expensive for bulk power generation.
Another problem with flowing liquid fuel reactors is that for heat transport the fuel is in continuous rapid motion. That motion quickly moves the recently made fission products which supply delayed neutrons out of the moderator established reactor core zone. That issue leads to reactor power control instability at high liquid fuel flow rates.
Thus while molten salt reactors superficially seem simple they have multiple practical implementation problems.
ADVANCED REACTOR DEPLOYMENT:
As of 2020 there were over 100 reactor-years of liquid sodium cooled nuclear power reactor operating experience in several countries. The Russians have had a large size liquid sodium cooled power reactor program for many years. Their top of the line unit with a five year operating history is the BN-800.The Chinese with Russian assistance have two liquid sodium cooled power reactors under construction with scheduled completion in 2023. There are no known scientific or engineering problems that could prevent immediate large scale deployment of liquid sodium cooled reactors operating with sustainable fuel cycles to meet the challenge of climate change.
By comparison there are only about 2 reactor years (17,000 running hours) of liquid fuel fluoride salt cooled laboratory size thermal reactor operating experience in North America and there is zero operating experience with chloride salt cooled fast reactors. There remain challenging unresolved moderator, fuel tube material and chemistry issues with molten salt cooled reactors.
The Chinese have had hundreds of engineers working on molten salt reactor issues for over a decade. In spite of best intentions there is almost no possibility that fuel sustainable molten salt reactors can be deployed sufficiently quickly to significantly impact climate change during the next few decades.
A major problem with reactor development in Canada and the USA is governmental corruption by the fossil fuel industry. The US Democratic party is unwilling to face the reality that in 1994, at a time when the USA led the world in liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactor technology, then Democratic president Bill Clinton cancelled the entire multi-billion dollar program in favor of cheaper fossil fuels. The US Republican party has long been dominated by fossil fuel interests. Both parties have embraced a rigid nuclear regulatory regime that is focused on obsolete light water cooled reactors. The result is that China, Russia, India and South Korea are now dominating the world nuclear power industry and in North America US companies are doing new reactor demonstrations in Canada due to Canada's more flexible nuclear regulatory regime. Unlike the new Chinese and Russian sodium cooled power reactors, no existing US power reactor technology is capable of sustained displacement of fossil fuels. However, the US companies Terrapower (Natrium Reactor) and ARC Nuclear both claim to be working on development of sodium cooled power reactors. Unfortuately there are irrational governmental obstacles to reprocessing of used reactor fuel to obtain fast neutron reactor fuel.
Other than via renewable energy, fusion based electricity generation is difficult and expensive to realize on Earth. For fundamental thermodynamic efficiency reasons, as long as low cost fission fuels are available, the cost per kWhe of Earth based fusion energy production will always remain much higher than the cost per kWhe of Earth based fission energy production. The fundamental difficulty is that over half of the electricity generated by a fusion power plant must be used to sustain the fusion reaction. Hence fusion based electricity generation requires more than twice as much capital equipment per net kWh produced as does fission based electricity generation.
A possible avenue of future nuclear fusion fuel cost mitigation is mining He-3 from the surface of the moon. In theory it is possible to breed H-3 and hence He-3 in fusion reactors but sustaining the required controlled fusion reactions on Earth is extremely difficult. The problems include a low plasma density, a small fusion reaction cross section, large ongoing plasma energy loses via energetic neutron emission, heat removal and cumulative fast neutron damage to the reaction chamber inner wall. The fusion reactor size required for a self sustaining fusion chain reaction with a reasonable net electric power output is believed to be too large for economic construction with present superconducting electromagnet materials.
FOCUS OF THIS WEB SITE:
This web site section primarily focuses on liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) fueled by U-238 bred into TRU because this technology in combination with renewable energy generation provides the only viable way of sustainably displacing fossil fuels in the near term while avoiding production of significant amounts of long half life low atomic number nuclear waste. At a future date, after development of suitable molybdenum isotope fuel tubes and preparation of monoisotopic Cl-37 and Li-7, liquid sodium cooled reactor technology will likely be supplemented by breeding Th-232 into Pa-233 in molten chloride salt reactors. The Pa-233 must be continuously selectively extracted and then safely stored until it naturally decays into U-233.
|1. Beautiful Nuclear
|2. Pandora's Promise (1hr 26min) A movie in which leading enviromentalists conclude that humanity cannot survive without sustainable nuclear power.
|3. Nuclear Motivation
|4. Nuclear Technologies
|5. Sustainable Nuclear Power
|6. Modular Reactors
|7. Electricity Generation Reactors
|8. Reactor Design Constraints
|9. Integrated Zero Emission Energy Plan
|10. A Fresh Look at Nuclear Energy
|11. Nuclear Now by Will Davis
|12. We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power
|13. Shellenberger Testimony Relating to Building More US
Civilian Nuclear Power Capacity, January 15, 2020
|14. Nuclear Now film by Oliver Stone
|15. Conference Presentation (30 minute)
|16. Conference Short Presentation (20 minute)
|17. Conference Short Presentation Slides
|18. NOBODY'S FUEL video.
|19. Wide Area Nuclear District Heating in Haiyang City, China
|20. Fukushima Disinformation
|21. Nuclear Driven Production of Oil at Pulp and Paper Plants
|22. MIT 2021 Future NP Slides
|NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS
|1. THE US Nuclear Industry as described by Michael Shellenberger and others in testimony to the US government and in a January 15, 2020 letter to US President Donald J. Trump.
|2. World Wide Nuclear Power Summary, November 2018, by Prof. Igor Pioro
|3.Fast Breeder Reactor Programs History
|4. US Nuclear Program January 2019
|5. Russian Nuclear Power Program 2018
|6. Russian Sodium Cooled Reactors
|7. Chinese Reactor Construction Program in 2023
|8. The Need For Testing Advanced Nuclear Power
|9. Powering Ontario
|10. Indian Nuclear Energy Program
|11. Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing at ORANO LA HAGUE
|12. Current Status and Future Developments in Nuclear-Power Industry of the World
|13. Current Status of Reactor Deployment and Small Modular Reactor Development in the World
|14. Nuclear Energy Development in Ireland Dec. 2020
|15. Presentation Slides From NEANH Workshop Oct. 3, 2022
|1. How the LNT Model was Born and Sustained
|2. Nuclear Power Plant Safety by Herschel Specter
|3. Ed Calabrese lecture: On the effects of low-dose radiation and linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis (55 minutes)
|4. Unintended Consequences (of the Linear No Threshold Model) - The Lie That Killed Millions and Accelerated Climate Change
|5. Radiation Safety
|6. 600 year old nuclear spent fuel is just another poison
|7. Radiation Therapy
1. Market Regulation of Nuclear Power by Jack Devanney, Dec 15, 2022
|2. US New Reactor Safety Regulations (2023)
|3. FNR CNSC Regulations
|4.Proposed Reactor Certification by Underwriters
|5. Argument for Simplification of NPP Regulation
|FAST NEUTRON REACTOR FUEL
|2. TRU Story
|3. FNR Fissile Dilema
|4. U-233 Production
|5. FNR Fuel - Overview
|6. FNR Fuel Cycle - Overview
|7. FNR Material Recycling
|9. Ottensmeyer Plan
|10. Ottensmeyer Plan Detail
|11. Ottensmeyer Plan Implementation
|13. TRU Concentration
|14. Feasibility Studies on Pyro SFR Closed Fuel Cycle
|15. Apparatus for Growing Uranyl Nitrate Hexahydrate Crystals
|17. FNR Intense Neutron Generator
|19. FNR Fuel Fiasco and Centrus Fuel Fiasco
|1. CANDU Reactors
|2. Light Water Reactors
|3. Small Modular Reactors
|4. Advanced Reactor Evolution
|5. Molten Salt Reactors
|6. Fast Neutron Reactors - Overview
|7. FNR Introduction
|8. FNR Motivation
|9. FNR Politics - Overview
|10. FNR Realities
|11. FNR Concept - Overview
|12. FNR Description - Overview
|13. FNR Features - Overview
|14. FNR Operation - Overview
|15. FNR Sodium Void Instability
|16. FNR Axial Disassembly
|17. FNR Sodium
|18. FNR Cover Gas
|19. FNR Geometry
|20. FNR Design
|21. FNR Fuel Rods
|22. FNR Fuel Tubes
|23. FNR Fuel Tube Wear
|24. FNR Fuel Bundles
|25. FNR Actuator
|26. FNR Open Steel Lattice
|27. FNR Core Zone Geometry
|28. FNR Indicator Tubes
|29. FNR Core
|30. FNR Blanket
|31. FNR Reactivity
|32. FNR Uniformity
|33. FNR Temperature Setpoint
|34. FNR Temperature Profile
|35. FNR Mathematical Model
|36. Liquid Sodium Guard Band
|37. FNR Skirt
|38. FNR Primary Sodium Pool
|39. FNR ASME Code Issues
|40. FNR Natural Sodium Flow
|42. FNR Air Locks
|43. FNR Two Independent Shutdown Systems
|44. FNR Fuel Bundle Repositioning and Exchange
|45. FNR Fuel Fiasco and Centrus Fuel Fiasco
|46. FNR Regulatory Fiasco In the USA
|47.FNR Remote Manipulator
|48.FNR Ultrasonic Imaging System
|49. FNR Enclosure
|50. FNR Dome
|51.FNR Gantry Crane
|52. FNR Earthquake Protection
|53. FNR Heat Transport System
|54. FNR Intermediate Heat Exchanger
|55. FNR Induction Pump
|56. FNR NaK-Salt Heat Exchanger
|57. FNR NaK Loop
|58. FNR Nitrate Salt Loop
|59. FNR NaK-HTF Heat Exchanger
|60 . FNR HTF Loop
|61. FNR Steam Generator
|62. FNR Steam Turbine
|63.FNR Electricity Generator
|64. FNR Cooling Towers
|65. FNR Turbo Generator Hall
|66. Reactor Siting Considerations
|67. FNR Facility
|68. FNR Siting
|69. FNR Prompt Neutron Pulse
|70. FNR Control
|71. FNR Power Control
|72. FNR Monitoring System
|73. FNR Safety
|74. FNR Fire Suppression
|75. FNR District Heating
|76. FNR FINANCING
|77. FNR Specification Summary
|78. CO2, ENERGY AND POWER REALITIES
|79. Design Formulae
|80. FNR Development and Deployment
|81. Energy Policy
|82. Open Letter to G-20 Government Leaders
|83. Ontario FNR Policy
|84. Energy Ministry Priorities
|85. Email to Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Seamus ORegan March 9, 2020
| 86. Reply from Canadian Minister of Natural Resources
Seamus ORegan to March 9, 2020 email
|87. Federal 2021 Budget Input
|96. FNR Power Limited
|NUCLEAR FUEL INTERIM STORAGE:
|1. Nuclear Waste Categories
|2. Used CANDU Fuel Bundle Handling
|3. Fuel Flow
|4.High Fidelity Nuclear Energy System Optimization
|5. Used Nuclear Fuel Disposal
|6. Helium-3 Recovery
|7. NWMO / OPG
|8. Radio Isotope Dry Storage
|9.Studies On Ceramics and Glass Ceramics for Immobilization of High Level Nuclear Waste
|10. Membrane Purification in Radioactive Waste
|11. Radio Isotope Containers
|13. Radio Isotope Container Seals
|15. DGR Ventilation
|16. Jersey Emerald
|17. DGR Closing Remarks
|18. Nuclear Waste Disposal Press Release
|19. Nuclear Education
|20. Presentation Notes
|21. Pickering Advanced
Recycle Complex (PARC)
|22. Letter To Federal Political Leaders
|23. Letter to Minister of Environment
and Climate Change, Ontario
|24. Letter to Mininster of Environment
and Climate Change, Canada
|25. U of T 17-02-09 Slide Presentation
|26. U of T Presentation
|Fusion section is currently being reconstructed.
Please examine this section at a later date.
|1. PIF Glossary
|2. Nuclear Fusion Prospect
|3. Plasma Impact Fusion
|4. Nuclear Fusion Engineering Considerations
|5. D-T Fusion Fuel
|6. Spherical Compression Part A
|7. Adiabatic Compression
|8. Fusion Output
|9. Liquid Lead Constraints
|10. Spherical Compression Part B
|11. Random Plasma Properties
|12. PIF Process
|13. Liquid Lead Shell Formation
|14. Pressure Vessel
|15. Port Valves
|16. Process Timing
|17. Tritium Breeding
|19. Spheromak Compression
|20. Real Plasma Spheromaks
|21. Spheromak Generator
|22. Plasma Spheromak Lifetime
|23. Vacuum Pumping Constraints
|24. Liquid Lead Pumping
|1. Micro Fusion Introduction
|2. Micro Fusion FAQ
|3. Micro Fusion Energy Flows
|4. Micro Fusion Economics
|5. Micro Fusion Regulatory Hurdles
|6. Alumina Cylinder
It is the intent of this author to eventually produce web pages addressing all of the above mentioned topics.
This web page last updated February 16, 2024.