I think you must be referring to “active” systems that remove the decay heat after a shutdown. I think all reactors (after some very early accidents in the 1950s) have control rods that automatically spring down when the power is lost, thus shutting down the chain reaction.
Decay heat can be removed via “natural circulation” (hot water rises) as built into the S5G navy reactor from the mid 1960s and later the S8G.
Yeah, we used to be way ahead in reactor design
Mike
We all know that China is the leader in solar, wind and nuclear. Chinese have been working on this new SMR for many years. The real question about this and other SMRs for the rest of the world is economics.
How much did it cost to manufacture the components?
How much did it cost to construct the plant?
How much manufacturing was done at the factory versus in the field?
How many large piping and component modules were built in the factory?
How long did it take to manufacture the components and modules?
How long did it take to construct the plant with milestones?
Until we have these answers, we do not know that this SMR is economical? I have never believed any of the cost data from China media because China wants to keep that secret.
I worked at the first full-scale sodium cooled reactor in Hanford (FFTF). Was there when they did the heat removal using natural circulation. It worked!
Yes, I was at Bechtel when FFTF was being designed by Westinghouse and built by Bechtel. FFTF was a research facility, it never generated electricity, and it was a very expensive project.
Yep. 400 MW Thermal, no generators so no electricity. I was with Westinghouse there 1978-1982.
That is a lot of malarkey! Where is USA putting all their spent fuel. USA has temporary storage of spent fuel at existing nuclear reactors. There is no permanent spent fuel storage in USA.
Not for lack of trying!
(Though the article actually makes no claims about the US having permanent fuel storage. )
" In 2002, Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the nation’s sole current repository site for deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.**
At that time, the Secretary of Energy concluded that, “The amount and quality of research the DOE has invested… done by top-flight people…is nothing short of staggering…I am convinced that the product of over 20 years, millions of hours, and four billion dollars of this research provides a sound scientific basis for concluding the site can perform safely.”
Congress then directed DOE to file a license application for the Yucca Mountain site with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and thereby commence a formal evaluation and licensing process overseen by the NRC.’
And then politics got in on the act
So what else is new?
Nah - In 1986 DOE selected Hanford, Washington; Deaf County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain for further investigation. But politics got into the act when in 1987 when Yucca Mountain was selected by Congress with no basis over the other two sites being considered. Congress amends the 1982 legislation, stopping the selection process. Yucca Mountain becomes the selected site. Many believes it is because the speaker of the House of Representatives at the time was Jim Wright from Texas, and the House Majority Leader was Tom Foley from Washington state. Nevada did not have any clout.
1983: The U.S. Department of Energy identifies nine potentially acceptable sites for nuclear waste disposal, six in the West and three in the South. NRC issues high-level waste regulations, (10 CFR 60).
1984: The DOE issues its site selection guidelines for a geologic repository (10 CFR 960). DOE scientist Jerry Szymanski discovers calcium carbonate deposits in study trenches dug around Yucca Mountain that he believes are the result of upwelling water. Szymanski argues that his findings should disqualify Yucca Mountain from consideration based on the DOE’s site selection guidelines. The National Research Council later publishes an extensive study in 1992 refuting his claims, titled “Ground Water at Yucca Mountain: How High Can it Rise?”
1986: U.S. Department of Energy selects three sites as candidates for a geologic nuclear waste site, and indefinitely defers the search for a second site.
1987: Congress passes the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, directing the DOE to characterize only Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel disposal. The Western Shoshone National Council (WSNC) challenges the U.S. government by issuing WSNC Land Use Permits to anti-nuclear protesters at the Nevada Test Site.
1988: On March 12, more than 1,200 people are arrested near the Nevada Test Site as part of a demonstration against nuclear testing. In December, the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management publishes its Site Characterization Plan, and announces that Bechtel Systems will be awarded the contract for the management of the Yucca Mountain project. In 1991, ethics concerns oust Bechtel and establish TRW Safety Systems, Inc. as the new management and operating contractor for the project.
1989: The U.S. Department of Energy concludes that the technical and institutional complexities of site characterization make it unlikely that a repository would be available before 2010. Meanwhile, the State of Nevada passes a series of resolutions in an effort to block the Yucca Mountain Project.
1990: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is passed. Richard W. Stoffle et al. publishes Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which is prepared with funds from Yucca Mountain project contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
1992: In June, a 5.6 earthquake at Little Skull Mountain near the potential waste site damages a DOE field office. In September, Congress imposes a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. The following month, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is passed, directing for the national Academy of Sciences to make recommendations to the EPA on the scientific basis for the health and safety standards for Yucca Mountain.
1994: The Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations is formed by a variety of Native groups as a way to defend their resources and lands from Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain repository activities. Also in 1994, the DOE is sued by several utilities companies and state and public utility commissioners, which is filed in anticipation of the DOE’s failure to receive nuclear waste by the 1998 deadline.
1995: A paper published by Los Alamos National Laboratory describes water flow through Yucca Mountain at potentially a much faster rate than previously thought. This report begins the shift of focus from a dry repository to a potentially porous one, initiating the search for new waste package and drip shield designs to prevent water corrosion. In August, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards is published by the National Academy of Science, recommending a risk-based standard over a dose-based standard for radiation exposure. Also in 1995, House Bill 1020 is announced, which would authorize interim storage for nuclear waste at the Nevada Test Site. The bill never passes, due to conflicts with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
1996: In an effort to control spending, the Energy and Waste Development Appropriations Act reduces Yucca Mountain funding by 40%. Additionally, the Senate passes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996, which revises the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The new Act sets a requirement to open an interim nuclear waste facility, along with a list of other directives.
1997: Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska introduces bill S 104, to build an interim above-ground storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The bill is eventually vetoed by President Clinton. Also in 1997, work on the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain is completed.
1998: The DOE completes a viability assessment of Yucca Mountain, concluding that it remains a promising site for a high-level nuclear waste repository.
2000: President Clinton vetoes a bill that would allow storage at Yucca Mountain.
2001: In February, Bechtel SAIC Corp. is hired as the chief management contractor for Yucca Mountain. Later in the year, the EPA presents its Yucca Mountain high-level waste standard (40 CFR 197). The group Public Citizen along with the State of Nevada file several lawsuits against the EPA, the DOE, and the NRC in an effort to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project.
2002: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca Mountain site is published. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham recommends the Yucca Mountain site to President Bush as suitable for further development. President Bush recommends the site to Congress, who then votes to overrule Nevada’s objections and approve the site.
2003: In May, COGEMA, Inc. is awarded a contract to design material-handling systems for the Yucca Mountain Project. In November, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board releases a report detailing corrosion concerns related to high temperature and humidity in the proposed repository. They recommend further research and tests to determine the risks related to their concerns.
2004: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejects all challenges to the Yucca Mountain site recommendation. The court also upholds contention that the EPA did not follow the advice of the National Academy of Science concerning the time period for assessing compliance with safety standards, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result, the EPA must reevaluate its compliance rules, and the NRC also has to reissue its licensing rules.
2005: The DOE discovers emails that indicate the U.S. Geological Survey may have falsified quality assurance work on Yucca Mountain. Later that year, the Western Shoshone file a federal lawsuit against the Yucca Mountain Project. They cite the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley in an attempt to prove the Shoshone never actually intended for their lands to be given to the U.S. Government.
2006: In January, Sandia National Laboratories is awarded the lead position in the scientific work for Yucca Mountain. A month later, the Bush administration announces the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, designed to encourage nuclear energy production and address waste concerns, while simultaneously mitigating risks associated with weapons proliferation and other sensitive nuclear technology.
2007: In April, the Walker River Paiute Tribe withdraws access to its land for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste shipments. Also in 2007, Congress cuts President Bush’s Yucca Mountain budget to $390 million dollars, several million dollars less than the amount originally requested for the project.
2008: DOE submits Yucca Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Later in 2008, Bechtel SAIC Corp. loses their contract to work on the Yucca Mountain project; USA Repository Services takes over the work.
2009: Energy Secretary Steven Chu announces in a Senate hearing that Yucca Mountain is effectively off the table as an option for nuclear waste storage.
2010: In January, The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future is formed by the Obama administration to review processes and recommend new strategies for nuclear waste management. Later in the year, funding is eliminated for the Yucca Mountain Project in President Obama’s budget for 2011, and the DOE notifies the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intention to withdraw Yucca Mountain’s license application.
2012: The Blue Ribbon Commission submits its final report, recommending that Congress create a new organization to manage the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and suggests a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities.
2013: The DOE issues Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which is a response to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. The report suggests storage at an interim facility by 2021. In May, the fee imposed on nuclear energy customers that supported the nuclear waste fund is terminated.
2014: The NRC releases a report that deems Yucca Mountain a suitable location for the storage of nuclear waste.
2017: U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry announces plans to reopen work on Yucca Mountain, with a proposed $120 million slated for the project in President Trump’s 2018 budget. Nevada Senators Dean Heller and Catherine Cortez-Masto author a bill that would prohibit placement of a nuclear repository in a state without its consent.
2018: In May, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on a bill to revive Yucca Mountain, which includes a separate plan for interim storage in New Mexico or Texas. In July, $30 million dollars from the Armed Services Committee and another $120 million in a separate spending bill to revive the licensing process for Yucca Mountain are rejected by the U.S. Senate, again stalling the Yucca Mountain Project.
2019: In January, the U.S. Department of Energy discloses that it already has shipped 1/2 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium from South Carolina to the Nevada National Security Site. After pushback from the state of Nevada, the Trump administration promises to discontinue shipping plutonium from the Savannah River Site to Nevada, but asserts that there is no way to remove the plutonium that has already been shipped to the state. In March, President Trump requests $116 million in his FY2020 budget for restarting construction at Yucca Mountain. Nevada senators continue to fight the proposal.
2020: President Trump announces via tweet that he will support Nevada voters and find “innovative approaches” to storing nuclear waste.
https://guides.library.unr.edu/yuccamountain/timeline2017-present
The article needed to mention what the largest nuclear power country in the world is doing with its spent fuel. But that would have not sounded very good for the sales pitch in the article. Besides the US, most other nuclear power countries have no long term repositories for their spent fuel.
This is true for commercial nuclear reactors. But the US has been building, refueling and retiring nuclear reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers for almost 7 decades. Are where is this spent fuel stored – certainly not on the submarines and carriers.
Mike
These military spent fuel is stored and reprocessed at Department of Energy facilities.
Unfortunately it started off with politics and never got better. In what became known as the “Screw Nevada” bill, congressmen from other states did an end run around the technical selection process and made Yucca Mountain the sole candidate for nuclear waste storage. Young Sen. Harry Reid didn’t forget, and served his revenge cold.
“This was raw, naked politics.”
That’s how Richard Bryan remembers his time as Nevada governor in 1987 when Congress acted to designate Yucca Mountain as the only place scientists would study as a burial site for the nation’s deadliest nuclear waste.
But how and where are these? And why are they as safe (or unsafe) as Yucca?
Mike
Military spent fuel is stored in buildings and spent fuel pools on DOE sites.
Yucca does not store anything. It was never built.
Hi jaagu - thanks for the chronology of political pickleball being played on US nuclear waste repositories 
Here’s how France, India and UK handle their nuclear plant waste
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/
UK is doing the same thing as the US:
I have been to Sellafield many times when I worked with the UK government on transferring their experience to US facilities in Hanford. UK does not have a long term spent fuel repository. They are still working on what to do.
I will comment on France and India later.
I looked at the India document you provided and found that the Indians still do not have any permanent high level waste (HLW) storage/repository. They are using vitrification for some of the HLW just like the US and UK, but they only discuss interim storage for HLW just like the US and UK.
I looked at the French document you provided an found that the French still do not have any permanent high level waste (HLW) storage/repository. However, the French have just come up with a plan for a HLW storage/repository:
"“Meanwhile, France’s national agency for managing nuclear waste last month requested approval for a project to store permanently high-level radioactive waste. The plan, called Cigéo, would involve placing the waste 500 metres (1,640 ft) below ground in a clay formation in eastern France. Construction is expected in 2027 if it gets approval. Among those opposed to it are residents of the nearby village of Bure and anti-nuclear campaigners.”
Therefore, as I said before the most nuclear power countries do not have any permanent HLW storage or repository. They are all in the same position as the US in trying to develop a permanent HLW storage/repository.
Summary:
High-level waste is very radioactive and, therefore, requires special shielding during handling and transport. Initially it also needs cooling, because it generates a great deal of heat. Most of the heat, at least after short-lived nuclides have decayed, is from the medium-lived fission products caesium-137 and strontium-90, which have half-lives on the order of 30 years.
A typical large 1000 MWe nuclear reactor produces 25–30 tons of spent fuel per year.(High-level waste - Wikipedia) If the fuel were reprocessed and vitrified, the waste volume would be only about three cubic meters per year, but the decay heat would be almost the same.
It is generally accepted that the final waste (HLW) will be disposed of in a deep geological repository, and many countries have developed plans for such a site, including Finland, France, Japan, United States and Sweden.
It looks like Bill Gates will be in Kemmerer next month for a groundbreaking ceremony.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/05/08/bill-gates-to-be-in-kemmerer-for-groundbreaking-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant/
Thanks😄 Hopefully we will start to see some progress soon😄
They may have some sort of ceremony where the bigwigs all line up, each with a shovel, and then they all turn over some dirt and smile for the cameras. But they aren’t going to actually start building the power plant now, at least for several months.
The following link shows the current NRC schedule for the Kemmerer plant. Apart from receiving the construction permit application, everything shows TBD. That means they don’t even have a schedule for when the NRC will approve the project.
Still, having some sort of ceremony now is better than nothing. It shows that TerraPower executives are still committed to producing this first demonstration plant.
The work they plan on starting this year might involve some simple site preparation. Perhaps they will begin constructing some support buildings, such as engineering and construction offices. But I wouldn’t expect much more than that at this time.