Small Modular Reactors
Looks like the Obama Administration wasn’t kidding about an “all-of-the-above strategy,” i.e., the deployment of every available source of energy; the U.S. DoE announced the implementation of small modular reactors (SMRs). For me to see value here, in addition to being convinced of safety issues, I’d have to see a compelling cost per Watt, which I don’t.
With abundant cheap natural gas now available, there may be nothing that can compete with natural gas. However, there are other considerations.
Other considerations… Like the need to limit climate disruption?
Yes, exactly.
From what I’ve read, it appears that probably the best solution is the lithium fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). Unfortunately, the nuclear museum here in Albuquerque doesn’t have a LFTR display. The only reactor display they have is for the pressurized water uranium reactor that we are now unfortunately using. I may have an opportunity to help correct that situation early next year so that visitors to the museum will be aware that there are many possible reactor designs, a fact that few people seem to know.
Yes, why don’t you see if you can scrape up a model of the old breeder reactor design popularly use by the French as well.
I think that it would be desirable to have displays of several reactor types so that the public will become aware that there are many different ways to design reactors. It appears that the public is familiar only with the pressurized water uranium reactor and knows very little about even that type. Of course it would be impractical to have displays for all reactor types since there are dozens and dozens of ways to design reactors, including Na cooled, Pb cooled, the Canadian CANDU reactor, boiling water reactor, gas cooled reactor, graphite moderated reactor, LFTR, etc. etc. etc.
Exactly what will be included is open to discussion, but surely the Na cooled breeder reactor should be included. The new Westinghouse AP1000, even though it’s also a PWR, should probably be included because its passive emergency cooling system, in addition to other design differences, should greatly enhance safety and reduce investment costs. But considering its potential, I think that heavy emphasis should be on the LFTR.
Actually, Na cooled reactors make me uneasy because of the reactivity of Na. An accident caused by the reactivity of Na wouldn’t necessarily threaten public safety, but it could be a disaster for the investors just as the PWR at Three Mile Island was.
If the public were aware that there are so many ways to design reactors, perhaps it would be less likely to condemn blanketly all reactors.
I think it most unfortunate that the USA has been unable to expand the use of nuclear energy. If a nuclear plant had been built in place of every coal plant that has been built since the last nuclear plant was built in the mid seventies, we could have avoided hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and illnesses, not to mention the billions of tons of CO2 and pollutants unnecessarily released into the atmosphere.
The way forward for nuclear will be difficult after Fukushima. Whether the general public can ever overcome their irrational (in my opinion) and exaggerated fear of nuclear is an open question. There are many in the environmental movement who never ever be convinced of the safety of nuclear and will insist on a level of safety that is unreasonable and unrealistic.
I think that SMRs are a good way forward. In spite of what the big boys (Bechtel et al) say, the economies of scale are simply not there for large nuclear plants due long permitting and custom design aspects of large scale nuclear. Having SMRs factory built instead of site built will certainly reduce cost if the number being built can engender economies of scale via mass production. I also like the idea of distributed SMRs– avoiding the concentration of generation that existed in Fukushima– seven reactors, each over 1000MW.
There are four other requirements I would like to see:
First, make them earthquake prove. Easy to do with the small size of an SMR.
Second, make them air cooled so they don’t need to be located near a body of water. The EPA is cracking down on water cooled plants, whether nuclear or coal, due the damage to aquatic species.
Third, make sure they are passively cooled so they just power down automatically and don’t have to rely on active cooling systems that can fail.
Finally, and maybe the most important point, have them powered by nuclear waste or used nuclear fuel. This will serve to complete the nuclear cycle and to get rid of nuclear waste. There are estimates that there is enough energy in used nuclear fuel in the US to power this nation for a thousand years.
For an interesting take on an SMR that meets these requirements, check out the new SMR that General Atomics is working on at http://www.ga.com/nuclear-energy/energy-multiplier-module.
This:
“Having SMRs factory built instead of site built will certainly reduce cost if the number being built can engender economies of scale via mass production.”
In addition to reducing cost, building them in a factory by experienced people and under controlled conditions would reduce the likelihood of manufacturing errors and increase quality.
I also think that it is the most promising way to go, although we cannot be certain until there is some experience with them. Eliminating the need for active cooling systems, which has always made me uneasy, is a big plus. But the failures at Fukushima were inexcusable. It is absolutely insane that they installed the Diesel generators where flooding was possible.
There is a related oversight in the design of the PWRs. We all know that they need to be cooled for some time after shutdown. The energy released by decay after shut down is approximately 9% of the power they generate while in normal operating mode. That 9% would be sufficient to generate power for emergency cooling. They could have a small steam turbine directly driving a pump for emergency cooling only and, after stopping fission, direct the steam to the small steam turbine to provide the emergency cooling. Others have thought of this, but apparently it has never been done.
Interesting idea for cooling, Frank