Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM John Brian Shannon
 

Size Isn't Everything, Baby: The New, Small "Green" Nuclear Reactor

Posted: 03/ 9/2012 7:54 am

The March 11, 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster has precipitated a world of change in Japan's nuclear power industry.

Within hours of the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, most of Japan's 54 nuclear power plants (which had supplied 27 per cent of Japan's electricity) were shut down on orders from then Prime Minister Naoto Kan.

Japan is now burning fossil-fuels to replace the missing electrical generation capacity and has recently signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to purchase three times their total 2010 oil imports.

In the interests of public safety and for the peace of mind of residents who live near the numerous and widely-scattered nuclear plants in Japan, the government has ordered "stress test" inspections of all nuclear plants in the country.

Even so, due to rising political pressure from ordinary citizens and the growing anti-nuclear power protest movement there, not every plant which has been "stress-test approved" may restart.

With those daily Japanese newspaper headlines in mind, the government of Japan and power plant operators are discussing the lengthy and hugely expensive decommissioning process for the Fukushima plant, which may take more than 40 years to achieve, at a cost estimated to between 15 and 45 billion (US) dollars. It looks like the Japanese taxpayers are stuck paying for the full decommissioning cost.

As you may be aware, Germany is decommissioning all of it's nuclear power plants by 2022 -- although in typical German fashion, they are ahead of schedule.

Many of Germany's nuclear power plants are decades old, problem-plagued, and would have required a staggering amount of investment to meet contemporary safety standards. In Germany's case, it was less costly over the long term to employ a temporary feed-in tariff scheme to speed earlier adoption of green energy, rather than constantly upgrade 17 old nuclear reactors to ever-changing standards.

Italy got out of the nuclear business in 1987 as the costs to retrofit their old power plants with better technology exceeded any profit they would have realized during the rest of their power-producing lifetimes. Switzerland has committed to scrapping their nuclear power program by 2045.

The United States, Russia, and Canada are all in the same boat -- as they continue to operate many old, lower-tech, and very costly to upgrade, large nuclear power plants.

However, a new hope for the nuclear power industry has arrived in the form of a brand-new nuclear power plant design -- known as small scale "modular" nuclear reactor, which is a profoundly better answer to the ultra-costly retrofitting of very old and large nuclear plants -- and long overdue for most of the world's reactors.

Modular reactors are much smaller (never larger than 300 megawatts) and are almost innocuous-looking when compared to the monster-sized nuclear power plants of the 1960s and 1970s. Best of all, they all feature 21st-century architecture with many "simple" redundancies built right in, such as gravity-fed cooling systems which remove the problem of cataclysmic coolant pump failures as has happened at Fukushima and other nuclear disasters. Modular nuclear reactors will be the future of nuclear energy and it turns out that the U.S. will be the first adopter.

Two large conventional nuclear power plants, now under construction, will be completed in the U.S., replete with the latest safety systems and some design elements borrowed from modular nuclear reactors -- at the nuclear power plant in Votgle, Georgia, and a smaller unit in North Carolina. After those plants go online, it is expected further U.S. plants will be small scale modular nuclear reactors between 45 and 300 megawatts -- tiny by nuclear power standards.

The modular nuclear reactor -- with its low profile, easy location requirements, small nuclear fuel and water appetite, low installation costs, easy grid connection, uber-safe design, and ability to generate both power and profits in a dramatically shortened time frame -- is going to be a tough competitor to beat.

The brilliance of modular power plants is that they mesh seamlessly with PV-solar, and wind turbine power. Along with sustainable energy, the dream of "all clean electricity -- all the time" is at the very least within our grasp.

By the time those nuclear plants in Germany have been completely decommissioned by 2025 or so, we should be at "all clean electricity -- all the time" in most of the industrialized world. Modular nuclear reactors will be an important and welcome partner of sustainable energy.

 

Follow John Brian Shannon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@JBSCanada

The March 11, 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster has precipitated a world of change in Japan's nuclear power industry. Within hours of the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, most of Japan's...
The March 11, 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster has precipitated a world of change in Japan's nuclear power industry. Within hours of the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, most of Japan's...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 65
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
12:44 AM on 04/09/2012
So let me get this straight. Big Fukushimas are bad but little Fukushimas are good?
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
12:36 AM on 04/09/2012
Anybody who uses that stupid size matters joke and thinks they are witty should be sht,.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
07:13 AM on 03/30/2012
Hi Genders,

I read the first link you cited and to my dismay, it had less than two paragraphs in total, that barely related to the modular nuclear reactor - the rest of the article was about every other type of reactor and their many problems - not modular nuclear reactors.

In fact, for the article to suggest that modular nuclear reactors have had problems, when not one of them has been built, is a little much.

What well-meaning people like yourself need to understand is that almost all of the reactors presently operating world-wide, are very old, have obsolete technology, many have had issues or close calls. Many are well-past their intended lifetimes. Do you fully realize what that means? The replacement of old nuclear reactors needed to begin in 1992, or shortly thereafter.

We need energy now, and for the next 25 years. As much as I love solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power, they will not ramp up within that time-frame to replace all that lost large nuclear generation. Not even close.

Why would you try to stop replacement of old, crumbling and potentially-dangerous reactors from being decommissioned and replaced with smaller, MUCH safer and more efficient modular reactors, which have tiny fuel loads, tiny water requirements and have gravity-feed cooling?

If you don't want nuclear accidents, you are going the wrong way here.

Best regards, JBS
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:39 PM on 03/30/2012
Solar, wind and waste are much faster to install than nuclear power and cheaper. By the time any new designs of nukes get built, green energy will be so cheap it will be ridiculous to go nuclear. Already green energy is out installing nukes. by far.

You admit that current reactors are old an crumbling, they are meltdown waiting to happen, and being run with record low maintenance times to maximize profit.

These new reactors designs are trotted out every time the nuke industry wants to install more plain old PWR. It's just bait and switch.

You want thousands of small nukes scattered around the world. Isn't it obvious the chances of theft, terrorism, and accidents will go up proportionally? I don't go into more specifics because the whole modular small nuke is a bait and switch marketing idea. There is no specific design for them. I'm not going to fight imaginary reactor designs.

Will we object of Iran wants lot of these reactors? You really think not? Sovereign nations can get these things, and use for weapons.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:21 PM on 04/01/2012
Did you know that solarbuzz does not use actual installation numbers? They assume the cost of an installed system is twice the price of the one off price of panels.

http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.

You and the rest of the world have been guided into thinking only about "brown field" big solar instillation.

Rooftop solar is cheaper: free land.

Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!

http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
shows overlap in solar and nukes costs at around 13 cents.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-solar-billing-2009-12
11:28 AM on 03/10/2012
you covered it all except cost ----and revenues ---other than that only about a hundred unanswered questions
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
05:35 PM on 03/10/2012
From my article:
"The modular nuclear reactor -- with its low profile, easy location requirements, small nuclear fuel and water appetite, low installation costs, easy grid connection, uber-safe design, and ability to generate both power and profits in a dramatically shortened time frame -- is going to be a tough competitor to beat."

To properly discuss your cost and revenue concerns it will take at the very least a 1000-page prospectus prepared for future modular nuclear power plant operators - being made public. Once that has been done, I shall be happy to pass along the link. As more information becomes publicly available I will update readers.

In the meantime, there are hundreds of pages of scholarly articles available via Google search, using keywords "modular nuclear power"

My role is to generally inform and update the public about power plant systems, either newly online or near-future deployment.

Cheers! John Brian Shannon
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
03:25 PM on 04/06/2012
There are no modular reactors, only modular reactor programs. From your world nuclear link(world nuclear is a very biased truth stretching paid pr group) : "aiming to have in 10-15 years a suite of SMRs providing power for the DOE complex. " Which is repeated for all of the reactors on the list, except for some graphite moderated reactors, in Siberia which are not safe, and have none of the qualities you describe for modular reactors. Or ship nukes which need refuling every 3 years,

Please pick one design. Post the link to the details. engineering specs, state of production.

Your link indicates that you are really just advocating the idea of small modular reactors, which means 300MW? and smaller? Then you give a list of great advantages, which no single design has. So you create the image of a super reactor that does not even come close to existing.

You fell for a dream, and idea.

The devil is in the details.
03:32 PM on 03/09/2012
I gather these are uranium fueled. There is a better approach. than the uranium fueled Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). LFTR is not pressurized and therefor doesn't require the expensive containment building required for PWRs. Furthermore its fuel, thorium, is much more abundant that U235 with reserves sufficient to fuel mankind's energy needs for in excess of 1000 years. Estimates for the cost of power produced by LFTR are $0.03/KWh.

Besides being unpressurized, LFTR has the following advantages over PWR.
- produces only 1% of the waste of PWRs
- waste cools to background levels in 300 years vs. >10,000 from PWR.
- can be shut down and restarted on short notice - PWR takes weeks or months.
- Self regulating- can't run away. Suitable for load-following -PWR isn't.
- In event of power loss, reactant drains into holding tanks with no moderator - reaction stops.
- High operating temperature allows more efficient Rankine cycle power generation.
- 1 GW reactors could be factory built (low cost) and transported via truck.
- The U233 it breeds is, due to a small percentage of highly radioactive U232, impractical for making weapons.
- Can be used to burn the waste from PWRs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/
11:45 PM on 03/09/2012
From what I understand, molten salt reactors have had maintenance problems in the past. Am I wrong here?
12:33 PM on 03/11/2012
Any MSRs to date have been experimental.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
12:07 AM on 03/10/2012
While I am very hopeful for the future of LFTR Thorium reactors, there are remaining technical and cost challenges to overcome. The fact that the U.S., Japan, Russia, China, Israel and the UK - all of which are researching these reactors, have all stalled at the same stage shows at least one of the challenges is a big one. Even the Wikipedia article you cited mentioned a 20 year time-frame to solve remaining issues.

When operating a corrosive solution of molten salt containing radioactive elements at temperatures between 650 and 860 Celsius, the materials used for components must necessarily withstand that severe duty day in and day out. Such materials are expensive and more research may well be required to determine if new materials or manufacturing techniques will solve the remaining issues.

India has the world's largest reserves of thorium and is proceeding with an aggressive thorium nuclear power plant programme, although India's neighbours seem uncomfortable with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plant

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

Thanks for your comment. JBS
03:58 PM on 03/10/2012
"While I am very hopeful for the future of LFTR Thorium reactors, there are remaining technical and cost challenges to overcome."

True, Dr David LeBlanc's video, on the Thorium Alliance website, includes a good overview of the challenges.
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC3.html
(It is the fifth video down the page)
None of the challenges appears insurmountable, but problematic is that an initial charge of fissionable fuel is needed to get the breeder going. To deploy these at any reasonable rate will probably require enrichment plants,or reprocessing of spent fuel from PWRs, or decommissioning weapons for fissionable material to start-up new LFTRs, and that will certainly be a hard sell.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:29 PM on 03/09/2012
Incredible. The Greenpeace article does not allow comments http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-sauven

Have you noticed that mini nukes have had paid advertisements on huff for a long time?

I guess is you buy enough advertising you get a column too.

http://johnbrianshannon.com/ means well as far as I can tell, but he has been fooled into believing in the mini nuke idea.

This is just a repeat of an old article he wrote last year

Mini nukes are the worst new idea to come along. Now we will need thousands of them, and EVERY disaster will be a nuclear disasters. They of course promise, as the do with every new nuke idea, that it will be meltdown proof, disaster proof etcc... but They lie, we know that.

If gravity feed is so great, why aren't reactor all built that way? It can fail, it can meltdown and explode. It is a human system, it will fail, and there will be many more failures and not that much smaller than the big one today. And since it's buried you can't fix it.

Is does noting to solve the waste problem and make the terror and proliferation problems worse.

John, Waste bio fuels are the perfect backup for solar and wind. You should know this, you have written some great articles on waste bio fuels.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
01:05 AM on 03/10/2012
Thank you for your comments.

I believe in an integrated energy approach for good reason. There is no one energy source which can provide all of our energy needs, all the time - with the exception of tidal power. There are only three operating tidal power plants in the world at present. (Until April, 2012, when there will be four)

http://www.nspower.ca/en/home/environment/renewableenergy/tidal/annapolis.aspx

Merit Order Ranking can allow different power plants to feed the grid at different times of day.

For example, in Germany, instead of paying for tonnes upon tonnes of coal between the hours of 10:00 - 18:00, solar adds to the grid - allowing less coal to be burned. At night, (in Germany) the wind tends to blow more regularly, therefore, wind is added to the grid and the amount of coal fed to the pile is much less. Electricity rates in Germany drop by 40% during those hours in which solar or wind are strongly active.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/

As for solar, please take a look at these links they are stunning:

http://twitpic.com/8r3njw/full

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/09/solar-power-charts/

In regards to your nuclear comments, the technology has come quite far since the 1960's when many plants were built. The latest plants in the U.S. do have gravity-feed cooling and more safety built right in to the design.

Cheers! JBS
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:06 PM on 03/10/2012
I agree we need a variety of GREEN techs, Nukes are not green.

Tidal power, wind and solar are all intermittent.

That means we need a backup.

Waste bio char bio fuels is the backup that uses existing fossil generators but clean, without the heavy metals and mercury.

Waste bio char empties out dumps, and is carbon negative when you bury the char.

There is plenty of waste bio mass, essentially everything we harvest we eventually dump.

energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!

Solar is cheaper than nukes, wind and waste half that and inefficiency half that again or less.

http://www.splainex.com/waste_recycling.htm

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Revolutionary-New-Process-Turns-Biomass-Waste-into-Fuel-Oil.html

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://www.biochar-international.org/
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:33 PM on 03/10/2012
The AP1000 is more expensive than the the old style reactors so 90% of planned new nukes are the old style LWR.

Big business cuts corners till things breaks.

AP1000 less safe then old reactors no redundant containment
http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-04-21/groups-say-new-vogtle-reactors-need-study?v=1271900068
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/critics-challenge-safety-of-new-nuclear-reactor-design/?src=busln

Gravity cooling has never been tested at full power.

Gravity feed can fail if the flow paths are disrupted by earth quake damage for instance.

Nuclear power is trillion dollar cancer causing disasters, million year cancer causing waste and civilization ending proliferation.

Nuclear power is expensive. they need 500M$ per reactor per year in breaks just to compete.

Nukes are slow to install. By the time a single new nuke can be built, solar wind and waste will be cheaper still.

We don't need them.

Why risk it all for something we don't need?

Nuclear power has already killed millions of folks with cancer.

Don't believe the zero deaths claims .

400k deaths http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.htm The UCS analysis, released earlier this week, also estimates there will be some 50,000 excess cancers due to the accident.

http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf 64M deaths including military, before japan.

http://enenews.com/nuclear-expert-forecasts-1000000-cancers-from-fukushima-in-japan-first-thyroid-then-lung-organ-brain-leukemia-video
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
12:58 PM on 03/09/2012
It is disappointing that this is the "best they got." We should be looking for a real breakthrough before building ANY new nuclear power plants.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
01:29 AM on 03/10/2012
If we have a choice between 3000 MW produced by 1960's technology, monster-sized nuclear power plants with a patchwork of upgrades added to those old plants over the years -- or 3000 MW of nuclear power produced by many, small and unobtrusive, 'simple redundancy' modular nuclear plants packed with the latest technology, I'll take the modular option every time. In fact, that is the choice soon to be before us.

The safety factor is several orders of magnitude greater with new nuclear due to technology - let alone new modular nuclear power, which has higher safety standards incorporated right into the design.

Many old nuclear plants world-wide are nearing the end, or are well-past their safe lifetimes - even by their operator's standards. That electricity needs to be replaced in a relatively short time and with a greater margin of safety.

No emission electricity from nuclear - is preferable to burning coal or fossil fuels to generate electricity. Along with solar, wind and geothermal, of course.

Best Regards, Robert.
JBS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Flannery
Editor, nerd, dad.
12:46 PM on 03/09/2012
I've often thought that cities should have their own, small reactors instead of these centralized behemoths with their expensive transmission systems. Bring it on!
09:22 AM on 03/09/2012
Cool , promising article. Will keep watching out for info on these reactors.