U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Idaho Falls
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2016, 10:55 PM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theotherdude View Post
A little bit of research and thoughts spurred by it;

I learned that NuScale's first small reactor would supply Idaho Falls with power.
Being the first site to deploy such technology has limited benefits. The reactors will be constructed at a facility then shipped to its operating site. Near the operating site, a switchyard would be built to step up the generated power enough to be transmitted on transmission lines (also would be required) to connect to an existing or new substation.

This process also would require plutonium for fuels. Given how these reactors are significantly smaller than conventional facilities, the fuel also needs a smaller version than the conventional rods. I researched and found that last month, NuScale awarded a contract for the fuel to none other than Areva. Areva's plant in Richmond, WA will develop the fuels. I also found a couple other larger sized contracts including a large utility in the Midwest
have also been awarded to Areva for fuel production.

This doesnt necessarily give Areva the funding to build its eagle rock facility, but definitely provides a new list of potential partners that could invest in it. After all, the first reactor wouldnt be producing commercial power until 2023.

The potential behind what we already know for sure is there but I've leaned to not grow over excited about things that haven't happened. The waiting game.
I'm glad you started this discussion, Theotherdude, as there is a lot of confusion about NuScale vs. Fluor, the GAIN program and the announcement Senator Capo made last week. Is there any overlap? I suspect so but we'll have to review documents for clarity.

NuScale is a joint venture and came about after the Western Governor's meeting in 2012. Before getting ahead of myself, let me post some links. NuScale was failing as a start up in Corvallis, Ore (OSU). Having exhausted all other funding, NuScale started laying off employees. Fluor came to the rescue. I believe Fluor owns 20 or 40% of NuScale. In Idaho, they are basically the same company.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuSc...porate_history

Meanwhile, Fluor had been working with Hartford National Lab in Richland, WA for decades. PNNL is also in Richland. Hanover wanted this project, but the voting states from the Western Governor's meeting voted against it. WA's governor was the only pro Hanford vote.

Fluor, in Richland, laid 180 of 200 employees off. Fluor to trim Richland staff by 90 percent | Tri-City Herald

I knew Hanover had made the request to build parts or complete the fuels. So it sounds like Areva/NuScale will be hiring some when it is time at a lab they'very worked with a long time. I understand them wanting to give Hanford something. Perhaps that is another reason Seattle is where IFRA wants a daily flight.

One part that confuses me all the time is if NuScale will build a new building at INL or not. It seemed like they were, but plans may have changed.

NuScale does not yet have an Idaho Falls office, but Fluor has one at TC. I seriously doubt that office will be adequate when construction/production starts.

As for Fluor and the Enrichment plant, between the bi-partisan backing Sen. Capo got with the bill he introduced last week, the great recession and the worst January ever on the NYSE along with the headline today that France was out of money. I'm not planning on the enrichment project as originally proposed. Maybe those other companies do have the big bucks, but I suspect Sen. Crapo's bill will change where Areva builds, if they do.

Then Paul Menser in Bizmojo Idaho posted today about the joint project between INL, The IF City Power and UMAC for a couple of years.

Lots to sort out, but that's good in my book. Diversification at INL only creates more jobs

Last edited by Mtn. States Resident; 01-18-2016 at 11:09 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2016, 06:42 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Oops! I made an error in the ^^^^ post. I woke up in the night realizing my mistake. I apologize.

This is so inter-related due to the companies basically being limited and essentially the same companies at the same at any of the U.S. 17 national labs that wor wit nuclear. Nonetheless, this discussion, I hope, will help to sort out the different players, and their respective roles, at INL.

My error was writing Fluor instead of Areva as pertaining to the previously proposed Uranium Enrichment facility. Both Fluor and Areva are French companies, although it appears that Fluor has been involved with various US and Canadian labs and other sites longer. My thoughts about what Areva proposed pre-recession aren't different. Areva probably can't find the financial sponsors they need for a separate facility in today's economy and stock market. However, Areva may be a target company for both GAIN and the bill Sen. Crapo's introduced last week.

Areva has an office/semi-storage facility on Broadway. Could Fluor and Areva work together in Idaho? They already are, as NuScale turned their NRC work for a nuclear license over to Areva about three years ago.

Here's another link which is what Theotherdude wrote about earlier. I disagree with the article about Hanford being the primary site instead of INL. I think it helps to understand Fluor's multi-decade work with Hanford when understanding NuScale and the Small Reactors work. The other states still have votes, should they be needed, of where this western states project will be located.

The fact Hanford is still trying to persuade Fluor, NuScale and Areva to locate everything at Hanford is just further proof, at least to me, how important this project is to various municipalties, the future of small nuclear reactors and the Natonal Labs involved.

What do you think of this article?

Richland Areva gets contract for small reactor fuel | Tri-City Herald
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:48 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Lightbulb X-Energy -

Interesting news today. This may shed more light on how come Areva awarded fuels from NuScale to Hanford. INL is partnering with Maryland based X- Energy and Oakridge NL and others, to design and construct a different type of Small Nuclear Reactor and the appropriate fuels. This project works a bit differently than NuScale 's. But interesting to me is the fact INL and Oregon State University are involved in both NuScale and what X-Energy ultimately creates.

This will add about $5 million to INL's budget.

Essentially, this is exactly what Sen. Crapo's bill is about. Encouraging private industry to team with natonal labs so R and D for many needs, far beyond nuclear for energy, can be done in the US. Given the expertese of scientists, engineers, and others at the national labs, it would be a plus to keep US businesses paying US workers/researchers/ and US Intellectual Property all in the US. A business could partner at any point in development of a new product with those who have experience working out complex design and/implementation difficulties. This could lead to lots of possibilities. A similar version of the bill is close to a vote in the House. No difficulties are anticipated with bi-partisan backing of the bills passing.

I saw where GE is going abroad to get help with a design. Those jobs need to stay in the U.S. INL will be part of the answer of who can help with many things.

The X-Energy has been awarded, it's not a waiting game to see what gets funding. Watch the news for more on this. For now, here's a link from a former IF resident who even has posted here at CDF. Feds Award Cost Sharing Grants for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs | The Energy Collective
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2016, 12:21 PM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
This might make understanding some of the INL's current work easier.

Idaho National Laboratory to oversee 15 new projects | News - Home

Also, I saw about three construction type jobs for the New Navy facility. I'll cross post with Development. I don't know who the Navy or INL uses as a contractor or construction crew. I know workers must pass an Extended, Federal Background check. I'm clueless what all is checked.

Scott, Mike, F5F, as current members of the service or retired veterans, can you add anything to clarify what an Extended, Federal Background check adds? Thanks in advance.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2016, 04:14 PM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Default Crapo's Bill Passes

Glad to see this pass easily with 87+ bi-partisan Yes votes. If I understand this correctly it is an amendment Sen. Crapo added to the Energy Policy Reform the Senate is working on.

The House passed a similar bill on 1/19.

Senate approves Crapo nuclear energy legislation amendment | News - Home


Good for INL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 09:26 PM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Fluor swarmed the INL contract. I feel that Fluor hasn't been as honest with us as they could have been. Yes, they are the majority shareholder of NuScale, but they have been the major contractor for Hanford's cleanup for about 20-30 years. And they work hand-in-hand with their French peers at Areva. So that explains why Fluor/NuScale awarded Areva the fuel rods for the small nuclear reactors.

It will be interesting to see what Fluor does at INL.

Nuclear waste cleanup contract given to Fluor Idaho, LLC | News - Home
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 07:43 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Is it time to split the clean up work from the R and D, let alone real work being done for private clients? Mayor Casper wanted this to happen when she first became mayor, citing Hanford and PNNL as the example to follow.

Did anyone else State Senator Bart Davis' not so veiled action he used with AG Lawrence Wasden?

Both of the above matter as reportedly talks about a second amount of spent nuclear rods, for INL, have come to a stalemate again. Many blame Wasden and say if INL split the clean up from other lab work then Walden could hold the clean up portion of the DOE accountable, but INL wouldn't lose this shipment of spent rods.

I think splitting the functions of the lab and even using a new name for the non complete cleanup is a good idea. It would accomplish more than just allow delivery of the spent rods.

What do you think?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Idaho
3,718 posts, read 3,203,152 times
Reputation: 7735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident View Post
This might make understanding some of the INL's current work easier.

Idaho National Laboratory to oversee 15 new projects | News - Home

Also, I saw about three construction type jobs for the New Navy facility. I'll cross post with Development. I don't know who the Navy or INL uses as a contractor or construction crew. I know workers must pass an Extended, Federal Background check. I'm clueless what all is checked.

Scott, Mike, F5F, as current members of the service or retired veterans, can you add anything to clarify what an Extended, Federal Background check adds? Thanks in advance.
Never heard the naming convention "Extended." Basically the government does different types of background checks that are dependent upon what the person will be doing. A person siting at the front desk of a Forest service ranger station answering questions gets a background check to make sure they are not a criminal, and are US citizens. Not too extensive, but probably, knowing the government, will take a month to perform.

However, as you climb the security ladder you get more involved security clearances, then the check will get the FBI involved. (NOTE: There are NO documents that are ever marked as CLASSIFIED) they will be marked with classified categories of Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and other SCI possible classifications. For example, when I was in the Military, I had a TS with classifications of COFRAM, Arc Light, with SEATO clearance. Those went away when I left the military and went to college.

When returning to Uncle Sam, the TS was again achieved and there were some classifications that I will not list here since not sure if they are still valid or not!

A TS clearance is VERY involved and requires some very intensive investigation of friends, family, neighbors, old and current girlfriends, shoe size, types of briefs worn, etc., and takes months to get the clearance. And in this day-and-age, probably require extensive review of facebook, twitter, etc. (Remember, when I got the clearances facebook was a book you laid on your face when napping ) And it was always suggested I remain off of facebook.



Back to the article. I believe the Feds may have some unique background checks for construction workers. They probably want to make sure they don't hide bombs in the walls, or wire the place with bugs, etc. How extensive? Not sure. I would hope it is at least the same or similar to a confidential clearance but knowing the Federal government, there is NO telling what it entails.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:01 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Default NuScale's Projected Timeline

Here's an update about when NuScale plans to get things done. I still do not understand how come majority owner, Fluor, had them hold off a year with the NRC submission. Maybe Fluor wanted the Idaho contract first?

https://neutronbytes.com/2016/04/15/...o-site-by-2024
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:02 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 12,043,126 times
Reputation: 6270
Quote:
Originally Posted by f5fstop View Post
Never heard the naming convention "Extended." Basically the government does different types of background checks that are dependent upon what the person will be doing. A person siting at the front desk of a Forest service ranger station answering questions gets a background check to make sure they are not a criminal, and are US citizens. Not too extensive, but probably, knowing the government, will take a month to perform.

However, as you climb the security ladder you get more involved security clearances, then the check will get the FBI involved. (NOTE: There are NO documents that are ever marked as CLASSIFIED) they will be marked with classified categories of Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and other SCI possible classifications. For example, when I was in the Military, I had a TS with classifications of COFRAM, Arc Light, with SEATO clearance. Those went away when I left the military and went to college.

When returning to Uncle Sam, the TS was again achieved and there were some classifications that I will not list here since not sure if they are still valid or not!

A TS clearance is VERY involved and requires some very intensive investigation of friends, family, neighbors, old and current girlfriends, shoe size, types of briefs worn, etc., and takes months to get the clearance. And in this day-and-age, probably require extensive review of facebook, twitter, etc. (Remember, when I got the clearances facebook was a book you laid on your face when napping ) And it was always suggested I remain off of facebook.



Back to the article. I believe the Feds may have some unique background checks for construction workers. They probably want to make sure they don't hide bombs in the walls, or wire the place with bugs, etc. How extensive? Not sure. I would hope it is at least the same or similar to a confidential clearance but knowing the Federal government, there is NO telling what it entails.
That is funny, F5!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Idaho Falls

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top