Secretary Chu Op-Ed on Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors in the Wall Street Journal

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://energy.gov/news/8782.htm

March 23, 2010

Secretary Chu Op-Ed on Small Modular Reactors in the Wall Street Journal

Washington, D.C. - Today, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on small modular reactors. The op-ed can be viewed on the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092130239999278.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond">Wall Street Journal. The text of the op-ed is below:

America's New Nuclear Option

Small modular reactors will expand the ways we use atomic power.

By Steven Chu
Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2010

America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president's 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors.

What does all of this mean for the country? This investment will provide enough clean energy to power more than six million American homes. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead.

Perhaps most importantly, investing in nuclear energy will position America to lead in a growing industry. World-wide electricity generation is projected to rise 77% by 2030. If we are serious about cutting carbon pollution then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Countries such as China, South Korea and India have recognized this and are making investments in nuclear power that are driving demand for nuclear technologies. Our choice is clear: Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow.

That is why-even as we build a new generation of clean and safe nuclear plants-we are constantly looking ahead to the future of nuclear power. As this paper recently reported, one of the most promising areas is small modular reactors (SMRs). If we can develop this technology in the U.S. and build these reactors with American workers, we will have a key competitive edge.

Small modular reactors would be less than one-third the size of current plants. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.

If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. The modular construction process would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times.

Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants. Some of the designs for SMRs use little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. Finally, some advanced concepts could potentially burn used fuel or nuclear waste, eliminating the plutonium that critics say could be used for nuclear weapons.

In his 2011 budget request, President Obama requested $39 million for a new program specifically for small modular reactors. Although the Department of Energy has supported advanced reactor technologies for years, this is the first time funding has been requested to help get SMR designs licensed for widespread commercial use.

Right now we are exploring a partnership with industry to obtain design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for one or two designs. These SMRs are based on proven light-water reactor technologies and could be deployed in about 10 years.

We are also accelerating our R&D efforts into other innovative reactor technologies. This includes developing high-temperature gas reactors that can provide carbon-free heat for industrial applications, as well as advanced reactor designs that will harness much more of the energy from uranium.

Just as advanced computer modeling has revolutionized aircraft design-predicting how any slight adjustment to a wing design will affect the overall performance of the airplane, for example-we are working to apply modeling and simulation technologies to accelerate nuclear R&D. Scientists and engineers will be able to stand in the center of a virtual reactor, observing coolant flow, nuclear fuel performance, and even the reactor's response to changes in operating conditions. To achieve this potential, we are bringing together some of our nation's brightest minds to work under one roof in a new research center called the Nuclear Energy Modeling and Simulation Hub.

These efforts are restarting the nuclear power industry in the U.S. But to truly promote nuclear power and other forms of carbon-free electricity, we need long-term incentives. The single most effective step we could take is to put a price on carbon by passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions will make clean energy profitable-and will fuel investment in nuclear power.

Mr. Chu is the U.S. Secretary of Energy.

...

Before the charges start, I'm no fan of nuclear fission, but I believe it's important to keep informed.

[WhiteTara]

1. thanks for the post

this is a terrible idea in my mind. I hope something happens to stop it.

[Statistical]

4. Why?

By small and modular it is 70-100 tons plus couple hundred more tons of support equipment.

It isn't "small & modular" as in backpack sized. It is just small compared to current reactors (150MW vs 1150 to 1600 MW).
The US Navy has been safely using "small" reactors for almost 5 decades now.

Another way to look at it is this "baby reactor" has double the output of the largest solar plant in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

150MW at 92% capacity is 138MW average annualized output.
SEGS has average annualized output of 75MW.

[WhiteTara]

5. small spots of radiation all over

seems to be a horrible idea. Of course they "won't" leak for some years, but they all have a life span and what happens then? We don't have a place to put the waste now. Of course, I may be so wrong and these will be so safe and never leak, but I doubt it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The reactor itself is designed to fit on a railcar as a single unit

If it can be shipped to the site by rail, it can later be transported to a central storage/processing facility by rail as well.

Another company, promoting a similar, even smaller product is http://www.nuscalepower.com/">NuScale.

One advantage of these designs (to my mind) is that since they are factory built (rather than being built on-site) there should be greater uniformity, and greater safety.

(Once again, I'm no fan of nuclear fission, just trying to be informed.)

[WhiteTara]

7. thanks for the info

I had thought they would be small on sites, but as I think of manufactured housing, I'm not that reassured.

I'm liking the fuel cells if they aren't bogus. They seem much safer, cheaper and so cool. Think of being able to power a building anywhere with a small box and propane, nat gas or biogas (I believe that one doesn't even emit CO2.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I'm also a fan of fuel cells

However, you misunderstood about the use of biogas in fuel cells. This is easy to do, as you were led to that misunderstanding by the PR.

It's not that CO2 is not emitted, it's that since the biogas is not derived from fossil fuels, the process is described as carbon neutral.

That being said, the folks who make the "Bright Box" point out that it produces a pure CO2 output stream, which is well suited for sequestration.

[WhiteTara]

13. thanks for the clarification

I hope the fuel cells will be available in the next year. We want to build a studio, but running lines to it will be expensive and difficult.

[Statistical]

15. Won't you need a line for gas to run fuel cell?

[WhiteTara]

17. the propane tank is right there,

so that part will be easy.

[Statistical]

19. Ah forgot about propane.

Yeah propane works better in rural areas. Natural gas in urban areas.

[wtmusic]

8. For a non-fan, you're doing an excellent job of defending it.

:D Morning, OK.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Well, I think I've been fairly consistent

in saying that one of the clearest advantages of the French nuclear system over the US nuclear system is greater uniformity of plant design.

My preference would be (if we decided that "nuclear power" was a national priority) that the whole system should be rethought. Put the DoE (or some similar governmental body) in charge of designing, siting, building, maintaining, operating and dismantling sites.

The business with the pipes at Vermont Yankee is a symptom of what's wrong with our current system. I feel the most likely explanation is that the owners/operators of the plant chose to lie about their existence. Either that or they were honestly unaware of them.

Neither explanation is acceptable. In either case, a uniform design would have eliminated the "confusion."


My primary objection to nuclear fission remains. i.e. we do not have a suitable means of disposing of the waste. Currently, we have an ad hoc system of storing it indefinitely at sites which were not designed for long-term storage.

[Statistical]

11. Good points. The uniformity and modularity are the key advantages.

Uniformity:
Currently all reactors in the US are custom jobs, no two are alike. This presents problems in construction but it also means spare parts are all custom which increasing operating costs.

The Design certification for GenIII+ plants will improve that but there are limits. They will be built on site and will all be custom built (although theoretically from a single unified blueprint). Spare parts become standardized but there will be minor deviations from the plan which means each reactor will have quirks. The level of uniformity will rise but won't be 100%. Each new construction crew has a steep learning curve (unless you plan to use same crew all over the country for decades). The low number of units (even dozens is low number of units) means they remain unique construction challenges.

A nuclear factor eliminates many of those inefficiencies, reactors would be similar to wind turbines (although more powerful). A single factor will crank out dozens of identical reactors on a predictable production schedule. Companies could order reactors ahead of time based on future demand and place deposit guaranteeing certain delivery date (similar to how Boeing handles airline deliveries). The same factory crew will build all the reactors. You gain a lot of human capital that way. Processes are improved and perfected then codified.


Modularity:
Say a utility projects a need for 600MW more capacity over next decade. If they build a reactor it will have 1000MW+ capacity. Eventually demand will be that high but not initially. This makes timing of reactor construction difficult. Utilities often need to delay other construction to bring "reserve capacity" to a critically low amount before building a new reactor to avoid the reactor over-swamping demand. Then immediately after construction the grid has "too much" capacity so other plants get idled and are productivity (return on capital) for utility is reduced. Eventually equilibrium is achieved but like dropping a giant boulder in a lake it takes a while for waves to dissipate.

The ability to build a plant with 4 reactors (and enough room for 10) and have 500MW of power would be better solution. Then as demand rises (or coal plants idled) another 2 reactors could be built (brining capacity to 800MW. 5 years later another 2. 5 year later another 2. Final capacity will be 1500MW but it was built in steps that make it easier to balance supply & demand.

[kristopher]

12. What are the drawbacks?

[Statistical]

14. compared to existing nuclear reactors?

New designs although B&W has made reactor components for years.
Delays in regulatory approval
Demand vs production issue (chicken & egg problem)*
risk B&W will not be able to secure capital for building reactor plant
New regulatory issues. What are standards/regulations/processes for transporting reactor across the country. This isn't huge but will take some time.
Cost per watt likely higher than existing reactors (just my guess but larger output reactors tend to have lower cost per watt).

*Chicken & Egg problem is likely the hardest challenge to overcome. The system requires a plant to build reactors not just building reactors. Obviously if you have the overhead of a plant you need larger number of units sold. If you are building only one two custom builds make more sense. Economies of scale require the scale part. To make plant viable a certain number of reactors will need to be produced. Building the plant will require bonds, investors will want order guarantees before putting down money to build a plant that could never sell any product. Utilities will be reluctant to make firm commitments until plant and first couple reactors are built. I don't know the minimum number of reactor orders they will need to get the ball rolling but that will be the challenge.

I remain doubtful they will be able to achieve this. If they had say 20 contracted orders, and already issued bonds to cover plant construction I would be more optimistic.




As far as nuclear vs everything else. I will leave the usual FUD about $0.30 per kwh, elventy quadrillion dollar construction costs, 20 year construction time-line, we could run the whole world on solar tomorrow to you.

[kristopher]

16. I was thinking more along the lines of safety, security and refueling

Military ships are controlled, secure locations. Presumably distributed nuclear would require some degree of security and controlled access.

How would refueling be accomplished?

[Statistical]

18. I think the idea of "distributed" is not being understood.

These are still massive plants. 150MW generates enough power for 75,000 homes.
So they won't be tiny little plants in neighborhoods and in peoples backyards.

The goal is also to build 4 to 10 at one location. This means a full sized plant will have same power as a current nuclear reactor. The advantage is the power can grow.

2015: 4 reactors online = 500 MW
2018: 6 reactors online = 800 MW
2021: 8 reactors online = 1200 MW
2027: 10 reactors online = 1500 MW
...
2065: first reactors reach end of life (output drops by 150MW)
... output slowly declines at same rate as production schedule ...
2087: all reactors are end of life (output 0 MW)
2088: plants begins decommissioning.

They are major power facilities just 1/10th the size of current massive reactors.

Refueling is handled same way as any other nuclear reactor.
One nice feature is that cooling pond is inside containment and has sufficient room for 60 years of spent fuel (expected plant life). Reactor is also only fueled once ever 5 years. It is 100% refuel every 5 years. Current reactors use 4-6 year fuel cycle but they refuel 33% every 18-24 months.

Smaller plants could be designed for remote locations. I think a couple cities in Alaska are interested in these reactors. They need a hundred MW or so of power, too little for a "conventional reactor".

Security, refueling, operations, and maintenance would be similar to current nuclear reactors.

[kristopher]

20. So we'd need to esablish nuclear plant level security for 125MW plants.

You say the facility is designed to expand but if that's the presumptive case, it seems improbable there are any benefits to downsizing while there would be considerable additional costs in loss of economy of scale. My understanding is that the "standardized" size range we have arrived at for the reactors being marketed today is a direct response to the higher costs of smaller plants.

This sounds like another case where the benefits of one losing technology are touted to overcome the objections to another losing technology; it is only by examining the entire range of considerations that the realization emerges that both technologies are losers. (see previous discussions on thorium)

[Statistical]

21. Well part of the "supersizing" of nuclear reactors had to with regulated energy markets.

Since energy was a monopoly of heavily regulated a utility could chose to have an oversized nuclear reactor and simply idle other capacity until demand caught up with capacity. That works fine in a monopoly business model but doesn't anymore.

In deregulated energy markets utilities often have little control over competitive production power.
Wholesale independent power provider has even less resources to manage over-capacity.

"mini-reactors" are simply adjusting to that dynamic in changing economic model for electrical distribution.

Imagine if solar could only be build in 6000 to 7000MW blocks (6GW PV solar roughly same annual generation as 1150MW reactor).

How much more difficult would it be to plan & design solar rollout? Ensure to never allow to little spare capacity or end up with too much over capacity.

One of the problems of nuclear is that is is "chunky". It can only be installed in blocks of 1000MW+ sizes. It isn't an impossible problem to overcome but it is significant. This is an alternative method that attempts to bypass that issue.

A plant can still be as big but it can grow (like solar plant can) over time starting relatively small 500MW and growing in 150MW "chunks" up to max size of plant (900 to 1500MW).

[kristopher]

22. That makes no sense.

Starting at the end, solar doesn't require the same secure facilities that nuclear does. The reason it is much cheaper to build a new reactor at the site of an existing reactor is because the support facilities for nuclear are EXTREMELY expensive and duplicating those facilities is negative "economy of scale".

Your comments about bundled utilities being the reason for building large reactors simply doesn't make any sense at all. We unbundled utilities 11 years ago, and the current push for nuclear is predicated on a certain size range in the reactors using current economic conditions; you try to make it sound like this regulatory change happened last week.

Like all the other nuclear proposals, the idea of small reactors seems to have a number of fatal flaws.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. The lack of uniformity is also a problem for operators

In France, an experienced operator at one facility will feel right at home at another one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France">EDF can train operators virtually anywhere, and assign them virtually anywhere as needed.

In the US, with our relative lack of uniformity, that isn't the case. While the principles of operation remain similar, the particulars do not.

This represents another safety issue.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. An article on this type of reactor

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22867/?a=f

A Preassembled Nuclear Reactor

A new modular design could make building nuclear reactors faster and cheaper.

By Kevin Bullis | Tuesday, June 16, 2009

A new type of nuclear reactor that is designed to be manufactured in a factory rather than built at a power plant could cut construction times for nuclear power plants almost in half and make them cheaper to build. That, in turn, could make it possible for more utilities to build nuclear power plants, especially those in poor countries. The design comes from Babcock and Wilcox, a company based in Lynchburg, VA, that has made nuclear reactors for the United States Navy ships for about 50 years.

Typically, the nuclear reactors found in commercial power plants are large, each generating more than 1,000 megawatts of electricity. That's because overall, it's cheaper to build a single, large power plant than several smaller ones, in part because it's not necessary to duplicate components such as containment walls and control rooms. But this approach also requires taking a big financial risk, which is one of the reasons that it's been decades since the last nuclear power plant was built. Each plant can cost $9 billion or more--too much for all but the largest utilities to afford--and it can take more than five years from the time that construction starts to the time that the plant starts generating electricity and providing revenue to cover construction costs, says Andrew Kadak, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT.

The new Babcock and Wilcox reactor design could make nuclear power plants less of a financial risk, Kadak says. The reactors are much smaller, designed to generate 150 megawatts each, but could also be strung together to generate as much as a conventional nuclear power plant. They also integrate two separate components of a conventional power plant in a single package: the reactor itself and the equipment used to generate steam from the heat that the reactor produces. As a result, the entire system is small enough to be shipped on a railcar. And because the system can be shipped, it can be manufactured at a central facility and then delivered to the site of a future power plant.

Building a reactor in a factory should save construction time, says Kadak. He estimates that what takes eight hours to do in the field could be done in just one hour in a factory. Once the reactor is manufactured, it would then be shipped to the site of a power plant along with the necessary containment walls, turbines for generating electricity, control systems, and so on. Christofer Mowry, CEO of Babcock and Wilcox, estimates that total construction time will be three years--at least two years less than conventional construction would take.

...

[Statistical]

3. Here are some diagrams of mPower reactor

Couple of advantages are:
1) 5 year refueling cycle (higher capacity factor lower downtime. refueling outage for large reactor lasts about 1 month every 18-24 months. Reactors have 92% capacity factor in the US. About half of the 8% downtime is due to refueling. Having simpler refueling and less refueling could set new record in capacity factor.

2) entire reactor, coolant pumps, and steam generators are inside inner containment.
3) reactor is shipped from factory completely assembled (core, pressure vessel, pumps, steam generator, etc).
4) reactor containment is sitting in a pool of coolant adding passive heat removal (also stores spent fuel and replacement fuel in same pool).
5) lower thermal output makes LOCA events more manageable. The serious risk of negative void reactor is not uncontrolled fission. Stopping fission is easy. Managing the decay heat which is about 10% of peak output for first couple hours is the challenge.

The lower thermal output means that standard steam generators and turbines used in non nuclear applications can be used (economies of scale). The goal would be to build a plant that can handle multiple reactors (4 to 10). The plant can be built and initially 1 or 2 reactors ordered. As power demand rises more reactors could be ordered and installed in the same plant allowing output to scale with demand.



A 4 reactor 500MW plant



A February 2010 article on the mPower reactor for more info:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html

[tinrobot]

27. That's a lot more than what fits on a railcar.

Seems like there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in order to actually use one of these.

[Statistical]

28. The plant needs to be built.

The reactor is built in a factory.



Similar to a windfarm. The entire windfarm isn't built in a factory.
The turbines are built in a factory and installed onsite to form a windfarm.

[Fledermaus]

23. I don't think we use the reactors we have wisely.

I think it is a poor use of national assets when nuclear power plants are not use for co generation.

They should be producing power and heat for industrial process.

[Nihil]

25. Suspect that this is another victim of the history of "protest" decades ...

Co-generation requires (for maximal efficiency) co-location of source & sink.
At the very least, it requires the consumer of the "waste" heat to be close
enough to the generator as to not lose too much during transport.

On the other hand, the decades of anti-nuclear hype about "security fears"
and "radiation panic" (not to mention "Catastrophic High Energy Releases
Nuking Objects Before You Leave") have resulted in people wanting the
"generation" bits a long long way away from the consumers (nuclear submarines,
aircraft carriers, etc., notwithstanding).

This reduces the chances of cogeneration happening, sensible though it is.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

26. I am sure the anti-nukkers would protest about "nuclear heat".

Science is not their strong suit.

I had one anti-nukker tell me that there is liquid radiation. I also have had people tell me you can ingest radiation (not radioactive particles but actual radiation). Then you have the "tritium scare" and people talking about how it will never go away if you ingest it "it just keeps on killing you" despite tritium having a biological half life of like 10 days. Apparently the difference between radioactive material (matter) and actual ionizing radiation (energized particles & electromagnetic waves) is too hard of a concept to grasp.

The idea that different radiation has different properties is equally confusing. Another DU member told me that a train car spilling uranium would lethally irradiate anyone coming within range of it. The science that uranium has alpha decay and alpha particles are too weak to penetrate paper much less human skin simply doesn't mesh with the faith based reasoning of anti-nukkers.

Science is hard and nuclear is "scary" and "mysterious" to general population (something anti-nukkers love to encourage). Thus they are easily manipulated by those with an agenda. Still support for nuclear power is growing because all the doomsday scenario just never happen. People may not understand nuclear power anymore than they did in 1970s but they are starting to realize the anti-nukkers are full of shit.

There is some hope for nuclear co-generation in the future. DOE is doing research on VHTR (Very High Temperature Reactor).



An air cooled reactor with much higher output temperature (compared to PWR/BWR). The concept could be used to produce electricity, or create hydrogen, or provide industrial heat.