Whut? The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
announced Friday
(.pdf warning) that they will certify the Small Modular Reactor design from a
company called
NuScale. The
reactor is a first in an important class of designs; the SMR isn't built on
the site of a power plant like the big reactors most of us have read
about. The small reactor is built on a production line that one would
hope could allow some of the continuous improvements in quality and safety -
not to mention the cost reductions - that we see in virtually every
mass-produced item. After manufacturing, it is shipped (presumably by
truck) to the site where it will be installed.
The reactor design approval process began in 2016 (which is a different problem) and approval has reportedly been expected since 2020, when the SMR received its safety approval from the NRC.
The NuScale SMR is a 76-foot-tall, 15-foot-diameter steel cylinder capable of producing 50 megawatts of electricity. The reactor is not one of the newer designs we keep reading about, like molten salts, thorium or something based on another radioactive isotope; rather, it's a pretty conventional steam generating design based on heat from uranium with control rods to absorb neutrons and reduce the heat. The steam produced is maintained internal to the reactor, and their design features passive safety and fault tolerant design elements.
The design features a passive cooling system, which means no pumps or moving parts are required to keep the reactor operating safely. The pressurized internal hot loop is arranged so that it allows hot water to rise through the heat exchanger coils and sink back down toward the fuel rods after it cools.
In the case of a problem, the reactor is similarly designed to manage its heat automatically. The control rods—which can encase the fuel rods, blocking neutrons and halting the fission chain reaction—are actively held in place above the fuel rods by a motor. In the event of a power outage or kill switch, it will drop down on the fuel rods due to gravity. Valves inside also allow the pressurized water loop to vent into the vacuum within the reactor's thermos-like double-wall design, dumping heat through the steel exterior, which is submerged in the cooling pool. One advantage of the small modular design is that each unit holds a smaller amount of radioactive fuel, and so it has a smaller amount of heat to get rid of in a situation like this.
NuScale image of their SMR.
While it's a 50 megawatt reactor, they envision a plant employing up to 12 of these reactors in a large pool like those used in current nuclear plants, to generate 600 megawatts.
It's important to note that they're not done with the hurdles before these can be installed around the country. The NRC has to approve the specific sites where any of these
reactors are deployed. Currently, one such site is in the works: a
project called the Carbon Free Power Project, which will be situated at
Idaho National Lab. That has been scheduled to be operational in 2030 but has
been facing some financial uncertainty. As I'm sure you're noticed, the people who claim to be in favor of minimizing CO2 emissions are largely devoutly opposed to nuclear power.
Hmm, hmmm....... I wonder if there is any possibility of adapting for space? Or maybe a smaller version? What possibilities would megawatts of power offer to a space station, or a lunar base, or a far-side telescope?
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that I am indulging in wild speculation, but I like to do that sometimes when I hear some good news like this. Offsets the other crap.
The cooling system and safety systems require gravity in order to function. So the answer would be no, it is not readily adaptable for use in space.
DeleteThis is amazingly positive. I'm still skeptical, but our power needs in the next decade will become critical. And if we don't have fossil fuels, we'll need fissile fuels. (as far as I know, that last sentence is original)
ReplyDelete"if we don't have fossil fuels, we'll need fissile fuels." - Sounds like the origin of a good bumper sticker.
DeleteWe need both. 'Green' energy ain't, and oil/natural gas is the 2nd most common liquid in the world and is being renewed constantly (yes, nat gas is liquified under pressure under the earth...)
DeleteSo....pretty much just like existing reactors, just smaller. And what do we do with the waste after it's too old to use in the reactor but still far too dangerous to actually throw away? It's one of the major headaches of existing reactor design. Waste material that is dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteSpent Nuclear fuel CAN be reprocessed, y'know...
DeleteReprocess it and after it can't be reprocessed anymore, send it to Yucca Flats.
DeleteCould we use the planetary scale recycling center called a subduction zone, or have they stopped suggesting that idea?
DeleteFrank
Dan, that problem was solved over half a century ago. Nobody hears about because the anti-nuclear people block it. I remember reading a summary in Scientific American back in the '70s.
DeleteAs Anon 0123 says, much of it can be reprocessed. The alternative for what can't be reprocessed is vitrification. Encase it in glass cylinders and bury them in a geologically stable place. All that means is without underground water known to be moving.
I'm not remembering the details clearly, but in the '05/'06 time frame, there was a burial site being built in New Mexico (I think). Congress mandated any radiation from the site be less than the background radiation that's naturally occurring there. IIRC, it stalled the project because nobody knew how to accurately measure the level below background.
Back in the ‘60s the United States was recycling nuclear waste from naval reactors, and test reactors. The recovered high enriched uranium was returned to processing facilities to be manufactured into new fuel. The remaining waste was stored onsite. Later the technology was developed to calcine the liquid waste into a dry granular form to both reduce the volume and prepare for eventual vitrification. Due to the nature of the naval reactor fuel (highly enriched U-235) transuranic elements (manmade elements beyond uranium) were not much of a problem.
DeleteThe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico was initiated to store transuranic waste, primarily from DOE facilities in a stable salt formation. WIPP has been storing DOE waste since 1999. President Carter banned reprocessing of United States commercial nuclear fuel, ostensibly to reduce the risk of diversion of special nuclear material for illegal nuclear weapons and to “set an example” for the rest of the world. An example the rest of the world promptly ignored. Somehow we can securely manufacture and transport actual nuclear weapons, but we can’t guaranty the security of non-weapons grade plutonium from reprocessed reactor fuel.
The result is that national policy shifted to storing used reactor fuel at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. The plan was that the intense radiation of the used fuel elements would preclude diverting the fuel elements to allow rogue nations/terrorists from recovering the plutonium and processing the non-weapons grade plutonium into nuclear bombs. Harry Reed D. Nevada worked with President Clinton to block any used fuel being shipped to Yucca Mountain. As of now used reactor fuel is being stored onsite at the various reactor plants, either in the fuel storage pools or in dry waste storage containers.
Nuke Road Warrior
Excellent backgrounder, Nuke Road Warrior. Thanks!
DeleteAround '75, I met a friend of the in-laws who worked on the construction of one of Florida's big nuclear power plants, Turkey Point. One of the things he said stuck with me: any tools that had contacted things that were radioactive were then considered nuclear waste and were dumped into metal drums. At the time, those drums were just left there on the grounds.
While I can understand that, I didn't get out of that any information of how dangerous they would be and for how long. 45 years later, I don't recall if he said anything about those details. It seems reasonable to test them and determine what kind of radiation and in what amounts the tools gave off, but maybe that was far more expensive than just getting new tools regularly.
Unless they were Snap-On.
SIG, There are typically three categories of radioactive waste with a few wrinkles just to make things interesting, Low level waste (LLW), high level waste (HLW), and intermediate level waste (ILW). Low level waste is basically contaminated tools, protective clothing, clean up materials, hospital waste, etc. Low level waste is generally more of a nuisance rather than a hazard. LLW is usually placed in sealed metal drums and sent to a licensed disposal facility like Barnwell, South Carolina. In the past contaminated tools were evaluated on how valuable the tool was vis a vis the cost of decontaminating. Now with the relative high cost of disposal, it often makes economic sense to clean up a damaged tool so it can be either repaired or disposed of as non-radioactive rather than sent to radioactive disposal site. Now for one of the wrinkles I mentioned earlier, if the radioactive material contains transuranic elements (not likely at a reactor facility), it cannot be categorized as LLW. Also the chemical makeup (toxic, corrosive, pyrophoric, etc.) can affect the waste classification. HLW is typically spent (used) nuclear reactor fuel which is lethal without adequate shielding, and can be hazardous for hundreds to thousands of years. ILW is waste that is neither LLW or HLW. Typically it is activated structural materials (iron, cobalt, chromium, etc.). Typically it is hazardous for long term exposure, but not immediately lethal. Also, the half-life is such that the material decays to the the point it is indistinguishable from normal background, typically less than a thousand years.
DeleteNuke Road Warrior
France offered to buy our waste to recycle....we said no. They planned to bury it at Yucca mountain....that planned got shitcanned. So now waste sits in pools out back of the reactor....where it will pose a risk for millenia. As I said... ACCURATELY.... The problem with current reactor design, including this new one, is the waste. We MUST find a solution to the waste that works before nuclear power is feasible.
DeleteDan, we have found technical solutions to the "waste problem." The solution to nuclear waste is a policy that doesn't change with every election, and a logical approach to the dealing with actual hazards. Unfortunately, with the current crowd in Washington, lying and fear mongering is built into their DNA. They would rather we have rolling brownouts or blackouts than embrace a reliable, safe, carbon free power source that can actually provide the needed power to the grid.
DeleteNuke Road Warrior
I've been hoping that the recent ruling that said agencies like the EPA (NRC, etc.) can't make Federal Laws, and that congress has to do that, might lead to some sanity in regulations. I just don't see much sanity anywhere in the regulatory state.
DeleteThe anti-nuke green lobby is very powerful and militantly anti-human. They'd just as soon kill off all the people around parks and beautiful places to keep them "natural" and heaven forbid local people be allowed to have nice lives. They've gotten people terrified of the "R-word" (radiation) and completely ignorant of the facts about safety. Many believe ionizing radiation like gamma rays and non-ionizing like an infrared heat lamp are the same sort of hazard. Think of the people who think 5G cellphone signals created the Covid virus and sucks the oxygen out of your lungs.
If we don't want carbon, we need to accept fissile fuel until fusion becomes a reality - a long time from now.
ReplyDeleteFusion is only 20 years away. They told me that in 1972. ;-)
DeleteIt’s a good thing. But don’t forget …. Submarines. The Navy has been using small reactors for years.
ReplyDeleteRagnar
Absolutely. A long time ago, I ran a piece advocating that we use the reactors used on aircraft carriers, spread around the country.
DeleteWhy? They have a national standard part number, so they don't need to be designed, just ordered. There are thousands of guys out there who know how to run and maintain them. And one of those is big enough to power a small town.
Then again. Use your favorite search engine to look up Sam Brinton.
ReplyDeleteWhat could go wrong?
You’re going to need eyewash after you see some of the pictures.
Ragnar
Political appointee (read: No Freaking Experience) from the most corrupt administration ever.
DeleteCompetency? We don' need no steenkin' competency!!
The Road to Ruin is littered with incompetent "managers" - and this is a clear-cut case of incompetency.
'Nuff said.
There are so many intelligent comments here, I hesitate to add anything, due to my limited knowledge of nuclear power. But I will add anyway, counting on those with more understanding correcting any errors I might make.
ReplyDeleteI also have been hearing about nuclear fusion since the late 70's. And it might be a very good answer to all of our power needs, if it ever pans out. But life is not built upon good thoughts and hopes. We live in the here and now. This new, smaller reactor that has been in development, and is nearing certification, seems like a very good start to our clean energy needs.
Even those of us who are not climate change idealists believe that it is a good idea to move towards cleaner solutions for our future energy supply. Here in my home state of Michigan, the energy companies are voluntarily changing over to renewables. And while much of the nation's energy is provided using natural gas, I don't think that the current generation of wind and solar hold the promise long term that smr does.
The biggest problem that nuclear energy faces is not disposal of spent fuel, or that of technical difficulties, or even environmental activists. The biggest problem that I can see is that of the federal government, and lack of support. I don't know that we can expect anything different if a Republican president takes over in 2024. I think that the money that lobbyists give to both political sides tend to keep the nuclear forces at bay and keep the politicians in the pockets of big energy, be they mainstream, or renewables.
I could see the idea of a group of nuclear reactors, placed together, and used to power large swaths of places like where I live, in West Michigan, with a decent population, but somewhat spread out. A series of reactors placed up and down the west coast of Michigan, could replace much of our power needs. The other thing that should be considered at the same time as building these reactors is to upgrade our electric grid, which has become old in many places. I have seen a move to upgrade some of our grid within 2 miles of my house, replacing the large metal poles with new ones. As long as we are considering a new power source, it would be a perfect time to work on infrastructure. Federal money to incentivize that would be money well spent. The dangers of a breakdown due to grid fatigue, or solar flare or even an unfriendly EMP, are something that should also be taken into consideration when making any upgrades.
Sadly, I doubt that any of these things will occur. It is pretty easy to get federal funds to build a highway to nowhere, or some monument to a politician. But try and get money to build infrastructure, and you might just as well be asking for money to reopen the Mustang Ranch. If the federal government cannot run a brothel and make a go of it, it is pretty much a given that they won't be able to make the investment into rebuilding our energy grid, which won't show anything tangible, but is badly needed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sam+Brinton&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS721US722&hl=en-US&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALiCzsbCLKsiYYPxwhLOb9Eue9LobUA43g:1659476774790&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8nrLdkKn5AhX3fDABHXp1DAoQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3#imgrc=F9ObhbEd9LLI-M
ReplyDeleteFor those puzzling over this, it's an image search on Sam Brinton, the ... thing ... recently appointed deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy.
DeleteBarf bags are recommended if you're not familiar with this thing. I'm pretty sure I've read everything published about it, or at least the majority of what has been published. Most of what what has been written by people knowledgeable in that field.