Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

See, sometimes people don’t think bigger is better.

Neither does the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).  TVA has agreed to assist Babcock & Wilcox of Lynchburg, Va. in gaining certification of a “mini” nuclear power plant. TVA has signed a non-binding agreement to evaluate a possible site for building a small modular reactor near Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

The nuclear reactors would be approximately one tenth (≥125 MW) the size of a normal size nuclear power plant (1000 - 1600 MW). The nuclear reactions would be contained in an enclosure that is stored underground.

It is roughly estimated that a 125 MW reactor would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 Million, whereas recent estimates for the new generation nuclear plants that are being reviewed by the NRC show a cost of construction around $10 Billion.

The article mentions that one issue the companies may face in obtaining a design certification is that the NRC is currently busy with licensing requests from utilities for new designs of standard size nuclear plants. A license application for a “mini” reactor has not yet been submitted to the NRC, but could be in as little as two years, states Chris Mowry (President and Chief Executive of B&W Modular Nuclear Energy LLC). Once an application is submitted to the NRC, a review could potentially take several years.

Here is a link to the original article.

Here is a link to another recent article that discusses the possibility of this “mini” reactor:

( By Michael Bloom ) [Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

The world is in the midst of a “Nuclear Renaissance” where a large number of new nuclear energy projects are under way. Currently, new nuclear plants are being designed to be larger and larger in order to take advantage of economies of scale and offset the large capital cost of construction. Large reactors are reliable, clean, and produce safe energy to the masses, but they do have some limitations.

Large plants are limited by the infrastructure of the power grid, the difficulty to finance, and the long construction timeline. Nuclear plant designers could address these limits by building much smaller reactors and also making them more cost effective. Doing so would create a strong catalyst for continued growth and diversification in the nuclear industry.

Several decades from now there might be a bright future for a small class of nuclear reactors known as (STAR) short for Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor. Currently in development by a team that includes the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, the goal of STAR is to make small scaleable power plants that can compete with the cost per output of the larger plants.

In order to do so, STAR reactors will be manufactured in a plant similar to commercial airliners. After being manufactured, STAR will be shipped safely to a construction site determined by a utility. At any point in time, the utility could increase capacity of their plants by adding more modules of STAR. The flexibility and scalability would make financing much easier and in turn, give utilities the ability to constantly add new plants to their nuclear fleets.

“In addition to those pioneering efforts, small-size reactors are employed in training, isotope production, research, naval propulsion, and in some space applications.

But what role could small-scale nuclear reactors have in generating central station power? The International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that more than 50 new concepts and designs for advanced small or moderate-size reactors are under development in more than 15 IAEA member states. Proponents of such designs believe they have the potential to meet such needs as providing energy for islands that are not served by a national grid or for regions lacking the infrastructures and grid capacity needed for large plants. Small reactors could also power such energy-intensive industrial activities as water desalinization or the extraction of oil from tar sands.”

STAR reactors may also mitigate any existing concerns, real or make-believe, about nuclear material proliferation.

“One frequently cited drawback to widespread use of nuclear power is the risk of fissionable material being diverted to produce weapons. In the 1990s, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory began looking at reactor system designs intended to minimize the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. The initial research effort concluded that this goal could be met by a sealed reactor that was transportable and autonomous in operation and that would have a very long reactor core lifetime. Such a reactor would eliminate the need for handling or processing fresh or spent nuclear fuel and otherwise minimize the potential for any possible misuse of the reactor.”

Currently, the power grids in many developing nations are unable to transmit large quantities of electricity over long distances making it pointless to construct a large plant. STAR would make it possible to spread nuclear power to developing countries, increasing the standard of living all over the globe.

STAR might be the next big thing in nuclear industry but it will be a while before it is ready. Several technological advances are still needed as seen below.

“One of those technologies is a yet-to-be-developed and qualified advanced cladding and structural materials that will enable service in lead for the 15 to 30 years core lifetime at peak temperatures of up to about 650 °C. Other technologies that need to be developed are qualified transuranic nitride fuel meeting performance requirements, a whole-core cassette refueling system, and a means for in-service inspection of components immersed in lead coolant.”

Hopefully, for the sake of global energy needs and environmental concerns, STAR will have a bright future.

For more information and a link to this story featured in ME’s July Magazine follow this link.

( By AQG )

Hyperion Power Module (HPM)

In the midst of what many are calling the dawn of a Nuclear Renaissance, nuclear power has become the center of discussion for many proponents of “green” or “clean” energy.

Currently, 104 nuclear power plants across the nation contribute to around 20% of the United States national electricity generation.  This share in production is supplied by the traditional, large nuclear reactors constructed throughout the 60’s, 70’s and into the part of the 1980’s.

The existence of these operating plants has not come without considerable resistance.  Opponents of nuclear power have for many years argued the overall safety and reliability of the industry, citing accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as their source of concern.  However, as facts become more evident to the general public and the impeccable safety record of the industry continues forward, more and more people are expressing their support for the industry.

One particular obstacle is that of the not in my back yard (or NIMBY) concept where a group or community that may not necessarily oppose nuclear power, does not warm up to the idea of building such a large facility close by.  This article, from the Wall Street Journal, discusses the emerging interest in small reactors that could provide additional versatility or leverage for the industry to appease such groups, while offering a cheaper, and arguably safer alternative for remote locations or areas of less than dense population.  Interesting to say the least.

“All of the new start-up reactors are tiny compared to the 104 old ones, each of which was custom designed for and constructed at the site of its utility power plant. Small enough to fit on a large kitchen table, the new reactors can be manufactured at very low cost and shipped by truck to power-plant sites.

These new small reactors meet important criteria for nuclear power plants. With no control rods to jam, they are far safer than the old models — you might well call them nuclear batteries. By not using weapons-grade enriched fuels, they are nonproliferating. They minimize nuclear waste. And they’re economical.

The start-ups estimate that it will cost each of them roughly $100 million and five years to get their small reactor designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. About $50 million of each $100 million would go to the commission itself.”