Small, Modular Nuclear Reactors — the Future of Energy? 314
cylonlover writes "This year is a historic one for nuclear power, with the first reactors winning U.S. government approval for construction since 1978. Some have seen the green lighting of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built in Georgia as the start of a revival of nuclear power in the West, but this may be a false dawn because of the problems besetting conventional reactors. It may be that when a new boom in nuclear power comes, it won't be led by giant gigawatt installations, but by batteries of small modular reactors (SMRs) with very different principles from those of previous generations. However, while it's a technology of great diversity and potential, many obstacles stand in its path. This article takes an in-depth look at the many forms of SMRs, their advantages, and the challenges they must overcome."
Re:What about Thorium (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Distributed Grid (Score:5, Informative)
"...put them closer to the actual users and cut transmission losses and costs. Why the hell aren't we doing it yet?"
Exactly! Here in Europe we had a cold spell of a few weeks and the French, with their dozens of nuclear reactors had to import electricity from Germany, who shut theirs down after the Japanese 'incident'.
French officials were grinding their teeth, they had predicted the Germans the opposite would happen in winter.
The Germans have tons of solar roofs and while it was cold as hell, the sun shone quite nicely as well as the wind was blowing.
Re:What about Thorium (Score:5, Informative)
The best demonstration of Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR) was by ORNL in the 60's. They had a prototype molten salt reactor using U-233. This is the fissile component of the Th-232/U-233 fuel cycle. The breeding of TH-232 into U-233 was simply omitted as unneeded complication for this prototype. This was intended to prove / debug the molten salt reactor, it was very successful in key ways.
India has been working on solid fuel thorium reactors, this is an attempt to re-use our experience with U-235 reactors technologies. It is doubtful that this would ever be competitive with a clean LFTR design.
In the US, the regulatory hurdles for LFTR are very high, unless you bypass them by selling your design to the military, which has the option to bypass these regs. This is why Flibe Energy [flibe-energy.com] is planning to sell their LFTR to the military first. It is a lot easier to change the regulatory environment if there is clearly functional and safe product being used by the military.
Re:Nuclear power is corporate welfare (Score:5, Informative)
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/25/the-truth-about-nuclear-power/singlepage [reason.com]
Re:Distributed Grid (Score:5, Informative)
"...put them closer to the actual users and cut transmission losses and costs. Why the hell aren't we doing it yet?"
Exactly! Here in Europe we had a cold spell of a few weeks and the French, with their dozens of nuclear reactors had to import electricity from Germany, who shut theirs down after the Japanese 'incident'. French officials were grinding their teeth, they had predicted the Germans the opposite would happen in winter. The Germans have tons of solar roofs and while it was cold as hell, the sun shone quite nicely as well as the wind was blowing.
Sources? I freely admit that I do not speak german, but a friend of mine who does told me that Der Spiegel [spiegel.de] had this article stating that net net, solar production was negligible this winter."[..]The only thing that's missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.[...]"
Remember the fudge about "money" (Score:4, Informative)
All of this money, and I quote, "Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times." To summarize: only in transfers, NOT in total subsidy costs, Germans each years are paying themselves, meaning some taxpayers are paying other taxpayers through electricity bills, the amount of money needed to build one of finland's new reactor from scratch, after cost overruns, and a simple neat multiplication by 2 [nytimes.com]. Ain't life splendid?
Re:What about Thorium (Score:5, Informative)
Th-232/U-233 was investigated as a nuclear fuel back in the 60s because there was widespread fear that uranium would prove to be scarce and prohibitively costly. That didn't turn out to be the case -- uranium is cheap (relative to the costs of the plant) and abundant. Light-water reactors fueled by low-enriched uranium oxide fuel pellets are well understood by utilities and regulators. Utilities are notoriously conservative and risk averse, so "amazing new technology" makes them nervous.
Molten salt reactors are essentially unproven in large scale testing. Yes, I am very much aware of the Air Force's experiments at Oak Ridge. But the fact remains that nobody has built a large one, and nobody has run one for long periods of time. On-line reprocessing is a clever idea that has never been demonstrated in a reactor. And U-233 most certainly can be used to make a weapon... so the proliferation resistance argument is a bit overblown.
Solid thorium oxide fuels were used at the Ft. Saint Vrain reactor in Colorado in a gas-cooled reactor. That's another promising technology that isn't going anywhere because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has basically said "we know how to license and regulate LWRs. We don't have the manpower or resources necessary to do the same for a host of advanced concepts." And the utilities have basically said "we know how to run LWRs with better than 90% capacity factors. We're skeptical that you can do the same with an advanced non-LWR."
So yeah, we're gonna build Voglte-3 and 4 (AP1000 PWRs). We're gonna build Summer-3 and 4 (AP1000s again). Beyond that, the financing is the bottleneck. Until the economy picks back up, no utility is going to try to finance the overnight cost of a large-scale reactor. The SMRs that will be licensed in the next decade are all small PWRs: NuScale, mPower, Westinghouse SMR. GE isn't pushing PRISM (a sodium cooled fast reactor) in the US. Hyperion Power Generation is a joke with no realistic licensing strategy. The Traveling Wave Reactor is a pipe dream due to fuel cladding limits. It'll be advanced LWRs for the next two to three decades.
Assumption is wrong. (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. Two mistakes!
First, no approvals have been made because no proposals have been up for approval. Nuclear power isn't viable without government subsidies and there weren't any between 1980 and 2005, because the government in that time frame actually attempted to reflect the will of the taxpayers (oh, for such innocent times to come again!).
Second, the government doesn't actually do the approvals - the NRC does. The nuclear industry is regulated by the nuclear industry, effectively. The government is a couple steps away hiding behind some smoke and mirrors.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Informative)
Bzzt. Wrong. Do some math.
They are talking about 'mini nukes" that power approximately 50,000 homes each. So somewhere around 3000 of these would power 150 million homes, and thus most or all of our foreseeable electric demand. You're telling me its impossible to keep tabs on 3000 mini nukes??? FTA they would likely be installed in "batteries" of a few, meaning there'd probably be more like 1000 or so nuke sites. So hire 100 inspectors and you'd have each one responsible for 10 sites. They'd be able to be onsite at each site for 4-5 weeks per year. Which is way more probably than they spend at current power plants.
Sorry dude, epic math fail.
Nickel-Iron batteries are available again (Score:5, Informative)
Local battery storage is cost-ineffective for most small solar producers/ homeowners. If you don't aggressively manage your batteries they don't last worth a damn, and even if you do daily hygrometer checks etc. and get every last minute of life out of them, battery banks are unfortunately quite costly. I have an antique lead-acid electric tractor so I speak from experience!
But nickel iron batteries [ironedison.com] are back on the market - and despite their poor energy density, high mass & volume, and high cost they are still a great alternative for homeowners because they are so extremely robust. Market capitalism to the rescue? It's certainly a different approach than nuclear socialism, which is the model France and Scandinavia are on (and which the USA is attempting to emulate, only with our own special sauce of corporate profiteering liberally slathered over the top).
Re:Who gives a fook about peak? (Score:4, Informative)
Biogas and bioethanol production did increase and means that Germany will import grain this year, because it is burning too much of its own production. Germany has been a grain exporter for over half a century. Biofuels and biogas are the main culprits for the vanishing supply of global grain markets and the hugely increased prices. (Some 85% - only about 15% can be attributed to speculation.) 10% of the world grain harvest in currently being burned for "sustainable energy", a receipt for sustained famines.
Your link contradicts your post. (Score:4, Informative)
The link you provided says the Toshiba design has not yet been built or approved - thus there are none in commercial production, right?
I said there are no commercial nuclear reactors that are not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. In the USA, sbusidies include the Price-Anderson act (which provides subsidized insurance) and the Cheney energy policy of 2005 (which provides per-kilowatt incentives and removes requirements for set-aside of decommissioning costs). Naturally, I got modded troll for speaking independently verifiable truths about a controversial topic.
Maybe it would be great if commercial nuclear fission were economically viable in the future, as your link suggests might be the case with Toshiba's product, but I'm talking about now.
Thanks for the link, though - it was very interesting!
Re:Distributed Grid (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-power-exports-to-france-increasing/150/537/33036/ [renewables...tional.net]
Distribution fee has little to do with losses (Score:4, Informative)
Distribution fee covers the infrastructure costs. Ever seen a footage after a big storm with fallen trees, broken lines? Maintaining and repairing the lines is costly. It costs much more than power losses due to transmission over large distances. You would have to pay fees to cover infrastructure costs no matter if there were one power plant per 100,000 households or one per 100.
Re:That's wrong for a start (Score:4, Informative)
They hav 75% load because they're down so often.
Why?
Rivers too low and water in the river too hot to cool the reactor. Boom tomorrow.
And, please, whilst you're whining about "where's the proof!!!" where's yours?
PS Nuclear gets around 60%, the 90%+ figures are for "when running". But it's so often out for maintenance (or error, see above) that you don't get to run them more than about 2/3 the time.
Google "DAWES" report.
the stas from the IAEA [iaea.org] seem rather different.....sorry to seem so fastidious, but sources?
For the record: I DID google DAWES report....but apart from something having to do with german reparations after the war, i did noty find anything. Link next time, will ya?