Advanced Nuclear Technology Act Passes Introduced to House of Representatives

[RIPBILLYMAYS]

[QUOTE=American Nuclear Society]Today the House of Representatives passed the [URL="http://send.ans.org/link.cfm?r=hw3xdJyFu3Hn2PeCtPOYgw~~&pe=nCYaUrtsGztQfVeYpi2h3tFHYi2DelqdgEPglibaZP2F8uNQv30zWroQHn-JLLqVgDi6LcAQBa_5fYViIHuvGg~~"]Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act[/URL] by voice vote. Sponsored by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH), the bill is a replica of the version introduced in the 114th Congress, and will "foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licensing and commercial deployment of such technologies." The legislation requires DOE and NRC to "collaborate to provide certainty for the development of advanced nuclear technology."[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=2948561942&message_id=13877327&user_id=ANS_&group_id=3848559&jobid=36288044"]Source[/URL]

[QUOTE=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/590/text]
To foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licensing and commercial deployment of such technologies.

...[B][U][I]

[What the Act Does]::[/I][/U][/B]

(a) Plan required.—[U]Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the NRC shall transmit to Congress a plan for developing an efficient, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework for advanced reactor licensing. [/U]The plan shall evaluate the following subjects, consistent with the NRC’s role in protecting public health and safety and common defense and security:

(1) The unique aspects of advanced reactor licensing and any associated legal, regulatory, and policy issues the NRC will need to address to develop a framework for licensing advanced reactors.

(2) Options for licensing advanced reactors under existing NRC regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a proposed new regulatory framework, or a combination of these approaches.

(3) Options to expedite and streamline the licensing of advanced reactors, including opportunities to minimize the time from application submittal to final NRC licensing decision and minimize the delays that may result from any necessary amendments or supplements to applications.

...

[/QUOTE]

Note: "advanced" reactor in this bill refers to either new fission reactors (read: [U]thorium[/U], molten salt, breeder reactors) [B]OR[/B] fusion reactors.
[I]
[U][B]Please[/B][/U][/I] send an email to your state representatives and senators and link them to this bill. This bill will force Congress to discuss nuclear energy under the Trump administration and is aimed at streamlining the regulations needed to do R&D and construction on prototype advanced reactors.

[URL="http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/"]Find your state rep by zip[/URL]
[URL="https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/"]Find your senators by state[/URL].

[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

The congress website says it was introduced but the ANS wire says it was passed, so there might be a lag in the Congress Website. It should say passed.

[Bald & Beautiful]

at least there's a tiny bit of good news, with this and TPP getting shafted

[joshuadim]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51717271]
Note: "advanced" reactor in this bill refers to either new fission reactors (read: [U]thorium[/U], molten salt, breeder reactors) [B]OR[/B] fusion reactors.
.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how ironic would it be that we become energy sufficient by developing sustainable fusion reactors when there's all this rhetoric about "clean coal" nowadays :v:

Looking forward to seeing this pass!

[OmniConsUme]

And watch the greens shut this down because it can become a "nuclear bomb"

[RIPBILLYMAYS]

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51717348]And watch the greens shut this down because it can become a "nuclear bomb"[/QUOTE]

Not too many greens in a Republican-controlled Congress lol

[ScottyWired]

So at least something good is happening

[TurtleeyFP]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51717374]Not too many greens in a Republican-controlled Congress lol[/QUOTE]

However, it certainly intrudes on our Clean Coal™ revolution.

[RIPBILLYMAYS]

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51717407]However, it certainly intrudes on our Clean Coal™ revolution.[/QUOTE]

Clean coal will die simply because it can't compete with natural gas. A big problem with nuclear is that it never had a fair playing field; it struggles to compete with cheap natural gas and it doesn't get any of the same credits as solar and wind because its not 'renewable'. I would expect incentives for any energy source to be killed off in a Republican congress so nuclear may fare better (unless renewables no longer need government assistance to turn a profit [sp]I see you there Morgen[/sp]).

Regardless this bill needs to pass so that nuclear power gets a spot in Congressional discussions. I'm optimistic because nuclear development has historically been hit by overly-concerned Dems and President Trump may get to include it in his infrastructure projects.

[OvB]

[quote]and enhance the licensing and commercial deployment of such technologies.[/quote]
How commercial we talkin', here? Could someone make a nuclear powered container ship or something? (not that it would be cost effective at all)

[RIPBILLYMAYS]

[QUOTE=OvB;51717496]How commercial we talkin', here? Could someone make a nuclear powered container ship or something? (not that it would be cost effective at all)[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah"]We've done that before[/URL]. You don't see many nuclear powered sea vessels outside of the military, save for [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker"]Russian nuclear icebreakers[/URL] since they don't have warm-water ports and need to plow through the ice. Its very economical for them since it means they can have ports in places that would normally be impossible to navigate while frozen over.

Commercial deployment mostly refers to nuclear power plants but nuclear 'technology' also applies to research reactors at universities, using radiation to sterilize food, and medical imaging facilities. All of this stuff requires NRC supervision.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=OvB;51717496]How commercial we talkin', here? Could someone make a nuclear powered container ship or something? [b](not that it would be cost effective at all)[/b][/QUOTE]

You kiddin'? A nuclear powered container ship would likely never need refueled for its entire commercially viable lifespan. By the time the reactor did need a fresh charge of uranium the ship would be obsolete. It would effectively eliminate fueling costs from the equation.

It'd be more cost effective, not to mention six thousand orders of magnitude more green, to fuel our merchant navies off of the Atom rather than off of heavy oil as we currently do.

And it ain't like they're floating Chernobyls. Every country that's ever fielded nuclear powered warships has lost a couple and to date not one single reactor lost as such has caused any sort of environmental issue. The technology is proven, it is safe, it is blindingly effective(The slowboat from China would be able to run a steady 45 knots instead of 12-15 on nuclear power!)....there's really no logical reason not to start phasing in nuclear powered commercial vessels.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=joshuadim;51717346]I wonder how ironic would it be that we become energy sufficient by developing sustainable fusion reactors when there's all this rhetoric about "clean coal" nowadays :v:

Looking forward to seeing this pass![/QUOTE]

what will happen is that clean coal will still be massively subsidized because gotta keep them mines open

[OvB]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51717527][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah"]We've done that before[/URL]. You don't see many nuclear powered sea vessels outside of the military, save for [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker"]Russian nuclear icebreakers[/URL] since they don't have warm-water ports and need to plow through the ice. Its very economical for them since it means they can have ports in places that would normally be impossible to navigate while frozen over.

Commercial deployment mostly refers to nuclear power plants but nuclear 'technology' also applies to research reactors at universities, using radiation to sterilize food, and medical imaging facilities. All of this stuff requires NRC supervision.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know of those. But we've only had that one. If it was a superb thing to do and legally viable, we'd have a lot more because of what TestECull said.

[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=TestECull;51717651]You kiddin'? A nuclear powered container ship would likely never need refueled for its entire commercially viable lifespan. By the time the reactor did need a fresh charge of uranium the ship would be obsolete. It would effectively eliminate fueling costs from the equation.

It'd be more cost effective, not to mention six thousand orders of magnitude more green, to fuel our merchant navies off of the Atom rather than off of heavy oil as we currently do.

And it ain't like they're floating Chernobyls. Every country that's ever fielded nuclear powered warships has lost a couple and to date not one single reactor lost as such has caused any sort of environmental issue. The technology is proven, it is safe, it is blindingly effective(The slowboat from China would be able to run a steady 45 knots instead of 12-15 on nuclear power!)....there's really no logical reason not to start phasing in nuclear powered commercial vessels.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I'd be totally for it, but with the current way it's set up, any attempt at that would be prohibitively expensive operate a fleet of nuclear ship I would feel like. Maybe not for the big players like Maersk or MSC. The thing is, the upfront would be very high compared to what we're buying now. You can get a container ship for a few million. Albeit you'll be paying many millions in fuel over it's life. If the reactor costs 500M-1B it's going to be too expensive for a company to fleet.
[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

[quote] For a short period of time during the late 1970s she was stored in Galveston, Texas, and was a familiar sight to many travelers on State Highway 87 as they crossed Bolivar Roads on the free ferry service operated by the Texas Department of Highways.[/quote]
Neat, I didn't know this thing was at my city for a while.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=TestECull;51717651]You kiddin'? A nuclear powered container ship would likely never need refueled for its entire commercially viable lifespan. By the time the reactor did need a fresh charge of uranium the ship would be obsolete. It would effectively eliminate fueling costs from the equation.

It'd be more cost effective, not to mention six thousand orders of magnitude more green, to fuel our merchant navies off of the Atom rather than off of heavy oil as we currently do.

And it ain't like they're floating Chernobyls. Every country that's ever fielded nuclear powered warships has lost a couple and to date not one single reactor lost as such has caused any sort of environmental issue. The technology is proven, it is safe, it is blindingly effective(The slowboat from China would be able to run a steady 45 knots instead of 12-15 on nuclear power!)....there's really no logical reason not to start phasing in nuclear powered commercial vessels.[/QUOTE]

no nuclear ship has actually seen combat though, granted no ship period has seen combat today outside of the occasional patrol boat here and there so we dont really know what they are like under actual fire

the real issue though is that they're just expensive on anything under an aircraft carrier, not that new tech couldn't change that, especially if our regular ships are already costing 1B$ to build

another serious stumbling block is that we the US are pretty much the only one to be able to opperate something so advanced, if say most of nato started buying nuclear cruisers we could probably afford to start building them again

[Hollywood SN]

[QUOTE=Sableye;51717689]no nuclear ship has actually seen combat though, granted no ship period has seen combat today outside of the occasional patrol boat here and there so we dont really know what they are like under actual fire

the real issue though is that they're just expensive on anything under an aircraft carrier, not that new tech couldn't change that, especially if our regular ships are already costing 1B$ to build

another serious stumbling block is that we the US are pretty much the only one to be able to opperate something so advanced, if say most of nato started buying nuclear cruisers we could probably afford to start building them again[/QUOTE]

Correct me if im wrong since im not as informed on nuclear reactors as i should be, but if the ship were heavily damaged, couldnt they rush in water to drown it before it could pose a serious leakage risk?

I know even some of the deadliest radiation can be observed without barriers as long as its underwater.

[OvB]

You also got to consider since these are american laws, you would likely be building the ship in the United States, so you loose all the cost effect of building them in Asia. You have to actually pay workers decent here. The price would go up considerably. [I]Unless[/I] that reactor was dirt cheap, there's no way it would compete with a oil fueled ship.

[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51717711]Correct me if im wrong since im not as informed on nuclear reactors as i should be, but if the ship were heavily damaged, couldnt they rush in water to drown it before it could pose a serious leakage risk?

I know even some of the deadliest radiation can be observed without barriers as long as its underwater.[/QUOTE]

You could probably just dump it into the ocean and the ecological damage would be a lot less than if the ship was carrying heavy oil.

[LoneWolf_Recon]

Another big hurdle is the reactor vessel, you can't weld steel for that and it has to be nuclear grade to minimize radiation induced stress fractures.

Currently Japan Steel Works is the only foundry in the world that can manufacture these behemoths, but then again if we do low-pressure designs like LFTR/MSR/etc it'd open up more foundries thus lowering the cost.

[RIPBILLYMAYS]

I believe the main issue the US Savannah had with commercial operation was that a lot of countries didn't want a nuclear reactor sitting in their port. Russia can use the icebreakers to ship stuff within its own country since its so large. US Navy vessels have bases all over the world that they can port at. The Navy prides itself on having 0 major reactor accidents in its history, because if the US public lost trust in the operation skills of the navy, they probably wouldn't allow the vessels to port in their state.

OvB, owning a nuclear reactor is completely legal, you just have to be extremely transparent with it. Working with this transparency while trying to managing the costs of operating the reactor is a very refined skill that even the current nuclear power fleet is struggling with due to competition from other energy sources. If you want a nuclear boat go for it, just know you will likely be turned away from non-US ports.

[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51717711]Correct me if im wrong since im not as informed on nuclear reactors as i should be, but if the ship were heavily damaged, couldnt they rush in water to drown it before it could pose a serious leakage risk?

I know even some of the deadliest radiation can be observed without barriers as long as its underwater.[/QUOTE]

The ocean does a pretty good job of shielding radiation. The advantage of floating/submerged power reactor designs is that if there is a catastrophic accident, the whole thing gets submerged underwater and can be recovered later (or sunk so deep and covered up by the ocean floor that it doesn't significantly affect the ecology) without causing land contamination. People forgive energy and transportation accidents but they get really pissed when their land or property is rendered unusable. See Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9/11, old wars where castles and farms would be burned, ect.

We would probably be using more nuclear weapons for their explosive yield if there wasn't the issue of fallout/contamination. I believe the reason people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because soon after the bombs were dropped, strong storms carried the fallout to the ocean and rinsed the ruins off. The bombs also went off in the air so the ground was severely contaminated.

[Smoot]

All I have to say is: [B]EXCELLENT![/B]

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=OvB;51717666]
Yeah I'd be totally for it, but with the current way it's set up, any attempt at that would be prohibitively expensive operate a fleet of nuclear ship I would feel like. Maybe not for the big players like Maersk or MSC. The thing is, the upfront would be very high compared to what we're buying now. You can get a container ship for a few million. Albeit you'll be paying many millions in fuel over it's life. If the reactor costs 500M-1B it's going to be too expensive for a company to fleet.
[/QUOTE]

Those big megacorps are the ones who'd benefit most from running nuclear powered cargo vessels, as they're the ones running the supermassive ships totalling six figures of tonnage where a reactor's benefits shine most brightly. And with the near trifold increase in sustained sailing speeds the ships would easily pay for their extra cost over a diesel powered vessel by being able to run double the routes in the same time frame while allotting more time in port for inspections and data collection.

If nothing else, it should be done as a trial program in cohoots with the US Navy. I'm sure they've got some nuclear powered warships sitting mothballed waiting for the scrapper's torch. Pull those reactors, refurbish them, refit them to some ships put forward in the name of science, and evaluate the plausibility in the best possible way.[QUOTE=Sableye;51717689]no nuclear ship has actually seen combat though, granted no ship period has seen combat today outside of the occasional patrol boat here and there so we dont really know what they are like under actual fire[/quote] While true, this is entirely irrelevant in the context of whether or not these things are safe to use in oil tankers and container ships.

Honestly, the biggest hurdle is the same one that's stifling nuclear power plant construction on dry land: Politicians. Nobody wants to greenlight naval reactors in maritime vessels any more than they want to greenlight more NPPs.

[quote]the real issue though is that they're just expensive on anything under an aircraft carrier, not that new tech couldn't change that, especially if our regular ships are already costing 1B$ to build[/quote]

Economies of scale may start to play in as the program takes off. There would be a higher up-front cost compared to a diesel powerplant, but I honestly think between the nearly eliminated fuel costs(Instead you're paying the salaries of some highly trained USN sailors to work the reactor, which is several orders of magnitude cheaper than the fuel bill for a container ship engine), the increased productivity(A ship that can sail at 40 knots sustained will be able to do nearly three times the work of one that sails at 12-15 knots, likely they'd run twice the routes and balance it out with increased time in port) they'd turn at least the same profit, if not more.

You spend a little more now, but you save a lot later, and you get more in return for the investment. It's more expensive short term but long term it should be significantly cheaper.

[quote]another serious stumbling block is that we the US are pretty much the only one to be able to opperate something so advanced, if say most of nato started buying nuclear cruisers we could probably afford to start building them again[/QUOTE]Not much of a stumbling block, though. Ostensibly it'd be American corporations that'd be using these things, they just hire on some USN sailors to run the reactors and they're golden. Also opens up more jobs and gets people in our colleges paying into our economy while learning the ins and outs of operating a naval reactor. Far easier problem to work out than the politics of allowing the reactors to be used in the first place.

[Missing User]

Kill this bill. No one wants a fast tracked nuclear reactor near them

[Seris]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51719963]Kill this bill. No one wants a fast tracked nuclear reactor near them[/QUOTE]

i'd prefer a nuclear plant over a coal plant spewing plumes of smoke into the sky any day

[Da Space Core]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51719963]Kill this bill. No one wants a fast tracked nuclear reactor near them[/QUOTE]

You can't be serious.

Just like you dont have power plants next to your house today, you wont see reactors placed in the smack middle of a suburb either

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=da space core;51720126]You can't be serious.

Just like you dont have power plants next to your house today, you wont see reactors placed in the smack middle of a suburb either[/QUOTE]

Except the ones today have gone through rigorous vetting. Fast tracking something like this is not a good idea.

[editline]24th January 2017[/editline]

But yet again, Rick Perry is going to be in the DoE, so I guess it all really doesnt matter. Fast track all energy.

[Da Space Core]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51720238]Except the ones today have gone through rigorous vetting. Fast tracking something like this is not a good idea.[/QUOTE]

I mean ill take the one that will be safe unless the laws of physics change over the plant that spits out pollution all the time.

None of us are suggesting we don't vet nuclear reactors, at all. We are just sick of the forever long hiatus that these plants were stuck in and are glad to see some progress finally

[Seris]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51720238]Except the ones today have gone through rigorous vetting. Fast tracking something like this is not a good idea.

[editline]24th January 2017[/editline]

But yet again, Rick Perry is going to be in the DoE, so I guess it all really doesnt matter. Fast track all energy.[/QUOTE]

Fusion reactors cant melt down, and new fission designs are safer and cleaner than our current reactors in use. Even our current reactors produce a fraction of the background radiation generated by a coal or natural gas plant

[OvB]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51719963]Kill this bill. No one wants a fast tracked nuclear reactor near them[/QUOTE]

I live between one of the biggest oil refineries in the world and an uncovered sulfur port. I wish I could replace one of them with a nuclear power plant that won't damage my lungs in 20 years.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51717711]Correct me if im wrong since im not as informed on nuclear reactors as i should be, but if the ship were heavily damaged, couldnt they rush in water to drown it before it could pose a serious leakage risk?

I know even some of the deadliest radiation can be observed without barriers as long as its underwater.[/QUOTE]

I would assume that since reactors are built into the toughest sections of ships that you'd be dealing with a sinking ship before you have to deal with a core breach, even then navy reactors are extremely efficient and much smaller than their land based counterparts. its entirely possible to leak radioactive coolant though

[Cobbart]

This is really good fucking news.

I'd [i]love[/i] to see what they can do with Thorium reactors.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=AJ10017;51720254]Fusion reactors cant melt down, and new fission designs are safer and cleaner than our current reactors in use. Even our current reactors produce a fraction of the background radiation generated by a coal or natural gas plant[/QUOTE]

fusion reactor meltdown would cause it to shutdown immedietly since loss of confinement and magnet damage would end the reaction, the radioactive fallout would be non existent outside of the reactor cladding since its just very hot dense plasma