backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on Dec 19 at 9:31 PM


  (Source: Washington Times)
Smaller reactors means lower costs, which in turn mean lower risk to investors

Argonne National Laboratory's former chief scientist and director, Robert Rosner, is on a mission to sell the nation on a clean "small modular reactor" (SMR) nuclear power solution.

I. Good Things Come in Small Packages

As the new director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC), Mr. Rasner has devoted much his energy into guiding public policy towards financially optimal "green solutions."

With funding from his former research facility, Professor Rasner and his colleague Stephen Goldberg -- a special assistant to Argonne's new director -- examined reactors ranging from the tradition gigawatt scale, down to smaller megawatt-scale designs.

The report simplified the equation a bit, removing interest and construction time.  It dubbed this simplified metric "overnight construction costs".  It puts the cost of a kilowatt of new nuclear capacity at $4,210 USD for a large plant -- nearly twice what large-scale capacity cost in 2004.  The remedy, it argues, is smaller reactor designs.

Professor Rasner cites "commodity price changes and other factors".  While he does not explicitly elaborate on those "other factors" in his press, release, he's likely referring to the strong public animosity for nuclear power in the U.S., in the wake of the Fukushima Japanese nuclear disaster.

But the veteran researcher says those who lump modern nuclear reactors with decades old legacy designs like the reactors at Fukushima are ignorant of the scientific reality.  He states to the contrary, "[Modern reactors] would be a huge stimulus for high-valued job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste management."

CSIS president and CEO John Hamre concurs, commenting that the new reactors are virtually meltdown-proof.  He remarks, "The entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection. There's no need for pumps."

Critics, it would seem -- tend to write a blank check to solar and wind power when it comes to environmental impact, land impact, safety, government funding, and risk -- while looking to sharply admonish nuclear power firms from seeking those same benefits.

II. Modular Mass Production Holds the Key to Profits, Halting Lawsuits

Again, he says the cheapest way to get their is to develop a modular construction process, perhaps somewhere around the 600 MW scale.  Rather than being custom-built on site, parts could be mass-produced at factories and then shipped to the new reactor for "easy assembly".

Mr. Hamre says its not just public sentiment that's holding reactors back -- it’s the staggering scale of large reactor cost.  A gigawatt scale reactor would cost a company $10B USD to deploy and would not see a pay for 7 to 9 years.

He opines that small reactors currently look like the best energy solution, other than natural gas use.  He says natural gas is less desirable too, because it's a commodity and its cost in 15 years could radically shift.

Mr Hamre and Professor Rasner say that the government must step in as a customer to help small nuclear manufacturers build up factories and deployment networks.    Even at small scales, initial costs will likely be too high versus traditional "dirty" power technologies like oil and coal, they argue.  

"The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point where you actually start making money faster." says Professor Rosner.  But while there is a rush to get these solutions out there, he warns that he's not advocating a rush to judgment.  He adds, "It's a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about.  There's a long distance between what we're doing right now and actually implementing national policy."

Another good thing about SMRs mentioned in the report is that they could serve as direct replacements to fossil fuel power plants.  Given the fact that many coal plants produce around 200 to 400 MW, a SMR could be fitted as a direct drop-in, versus current larger designs, which require special grid accommodations.

Another positive not mentioned in the report, is that SMRs would likely strike a blow to opponents who hope to cripple the clean power technology with lawsuits and protests.  Rather than having just one target to focus their wrath on, landowners and "environmentalists" would be forced to divide their time and money between several deployments per state, depleting their resources.

Georgia Plant
U.S. nuclear power stands at a crossroads.  Proponents want it to move ahead to new technologies, and they have backing from some top scientists.  But for every ounce of science leverage in support of nuclear there's and equal violent emotional backlash from public critics [Image Source: Georgia Times Blog]

So what do you think?  Should the U.S. follow in France's bold footsteps and invest big in nuclear, even if it requires mild government "seed funding"?  Or should it go in the opposite direction and pull a Japan, turning its back on nuclear energy?  Or should politicians simply sit there and keep their mouths shut, as President Obama has appeared to do (a reversal of his vocal pre-Fukushima support of nuclear development) -- in an effort to avoid angering either side?

For more reading, dive into the full report below.

Sources: Univ. of Chicago, EPIC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

thorium
By OzQuant on 12/14/2011 10:55:02 PM , Rating: 3
Just switch over the thorium already.




RE: thorium
By dgingerich on 12/14/2011 11:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
RE: thorium
By dgingerich on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: thorium
By michael67 on 12/14/2011 11:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree fully, but the main problem is that there are no real working designs to build a efficient Thorium plant, yet.

India is the only country that has 8 working plants, all 25y and older, and only one is use for commercial use.
But is building a new one.

quote:
Commercial nuclear power station

India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core. India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2011, after which five more reactors will be constructed. Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research. India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050.


RE: thorium
By mjv.theory on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: thorium
By ShieTar on 12/15/2011 7:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
300 times more efficient? So they will achieve efficiencies far beyond 100%?

Either way, giving up on alternatives to nuclear fission power now would be extremely short-sighted. Depending on how fast energy demand in China and India will rise in the future, and on how much coal/oil/gas we need to replace with nuclear power, fission material will run out (or become unaffordable) anywhere between the years 2050 and 2400.

There has to be a development of other power sources at some point, and there is no reason not to develop them right now.
That way we can save fission material for uses where it really is the best option. Like research and medical reactors, submarines, maybe future starships.


RE: thorium
By m51 on 12/15/2011 8:58:31 AM , Rating: 5
300 times more efficient does not imply efficiencies in excess of 100%. Current fuel utilization in Light Water reactors is less than 0.4% of the mined Uranium.

Uranium is not going to run out that soon. Uranium is currently very cheap at around $40 a lb and little money or effort has been spent on prospecting in decades. The actual recoverable uranium in the ground is vastly larger than what are published as Known Reserves simply because most of the supplies are unknown as of yet. In the past whenever money has been invested in prospecting for Uranium, known reserves have increased sharply.

Also what is deemed Recoverable changes drastically with market price. A rough rule of thumb is that for every doubling of the market price of a mineable commodity the recoverable reserves increase by a factor of 10 since lower concentration ores become economically recoverable and the amount of lower concentration ores is enormously larger than high concentration ores. Currently the cost of the mined uranium is about 0.2 cents per Kwh. Uranium prices could increase by a factor of 10 and only increase the cost of the power generated by 2 cents a Kwh. Current energy prices are around 10 cents a Kwh.

Since uranium salts are water soluble there is also 4.6 billion tons of uranium in seawater. The japanese have already demonstrated methods of extracting it although not competitive with current mined prices of uranium it would be competitive should uranium prices rise by a factor of 5 or so.

On top of all this the fallacy of running out of uranium fuel assumes that no effort is made to develop breeder reactors, or even the development of high-burn up reactors. Breeder reactors can use all the mined uranium as fuel, thus increasing the fuel supply by more than 200 times. Thorium LFTRs are also breeders so they use all the thorium as fuel, and Thorium is about 3 times more common than Uranium in the earths crust. There is enough nuclear fuel in the ground to last millions of years.

For policy making decisions even a 100 year supply is sufficient, enough to cover the next 2-3 generations of reactors. At that point in time technology will be much advanced and there may be other options.


RE: thorium
By augiem on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: thorium
By lagomorpha on 12/15/2011 1:38:54 PM , Rating: 3
Well at current demand if we harvested the oceans and put the hydrogen in a hypothetical 1% efficient deuterium-deuterium fusion reactor we would have power for something like 5 billion years. On the other hand at current population growth rate the entire mass of the universe will be composed of human flesh in a few thousand years. If I didn't have to leave for work I'd run through the calculations (done them before but it's been a while).


RE: thorium
By geddarkstorm on 12/15/2011 2:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow.

Population growth around the world is slowing--our population is nearing what is called the "stationary phase", and will not grow beyond that (unless we start colonizing space). 9 billion will probably be the top out, or even lower, since higher technology actually decreases human population density (or conversely, makes birth rates decline more sharply with increasing density. Consequently, most first world countries have negative growth rates, and are shrinking as technology can do more, requiring less people to be born).

Population is always a function of density, need, and resource allocation. It will never grow indefinitely or cataclysmically. It's a natural process seen with ALL types of populations, from bacteria to humans, to abstracts like product adoption, markets, and the like.

Nothing to be afraid of at all. The only real woe we have right now is the UNDERDEVELOPMENT of most of the world's population.

And now on to the fuel.

You do realize that uranium fissions into thorium, correct? That's where most of the thorium comes from.

The poster you are replying to is completely correct. Even with everyone consuming as much power as the US does, we have enough uranium and thorium in this planet to last a million of year. And this is ignoring OTHER types of radioactive elements we may one day be able to use as fuels, and OTHER types of sensible renewable power generation like hydroelectric. Radioactive elements are everywhere: uranium is in your soil, your drinking water, and your body. And let's not even get started on the ubiquitous amounts of radon gas, which gives you the biggest dose of radiation every year that you will ever receive, sans being hit by a nuclear weapon.

And then there's outer space.

Us humans are really in no danger from resource depletion, just our own idiocy and self destructive policies, and the mindless fears driving them.


RE: thorium
By lagomorpha on 12/15/2011 3:21:28 PM , Rating: 3
While population growth is slowing, it is unlikely yo stop before we actually do stretch our resources to the limit. New humans are not manufactured on a by need basis, they are produced by adults who either want children or lack family planning. As the proportion of the population that is willing to use family planning shrinks you are going to see another factor in the population growth rate - willingness to limit yourself to 2-3 children is a massively powerful selective force. What would prevent entire cultures from using family planning even at the risk of their family's wellbeing? Well religion for one.

Also a million years of thorium does not invalidate 5 billion years worth of hydrogen inour oceans.


RE: thorium
By Ringold on 12/16/2011 2:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While population growth is slowing, it is unlikely yo stop before we actually do stretch our resources to the limit.


People have been saying that since, most famously, Malthus. Been wrong ever since. At the end of the day, innovation has always kept us ahead and moving forward.


RE: thorium
By m51 on 12/15/2011 4:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you meant uranium decays into thorium, not fissions. U238 and Thorium 232 are actually in two different decay chains and U238 does not decay to Thorium 232. Uranium 238 Does decay into other Thorium isotopes (Th234 and Th230) but these are relatively short lived and do not consitute a significant fraction of the Thorium in the crust.

The source of Thorium is from the primordial super nova that created most of the elements with a higher atomic number than iron in our earths crust. It has a half life of about 14 billion years. U238 has a half life of about 4.5 Billion years.

You are quite right about radioactive material being distributed everywhere on earth. People have a distorted view of the risks of radioactivity, like people on the west coast of the US fearing the radioactivity from Fukushima when the naturally occuring radioactive Potassium-40 in the person sleeping next to them is giving them a bigger dose of radiation than any fallout from Fukushima. Neither of which constitute any measurable danger. Driving to the grocery store once would increase your risk of dying prematurely more than the miniscule radiation doses. Yet people have no sense of the scale of the dangers and are terrified of radiation completely out of proportion to the risks.


RE: thorium
By lagomorpha on 12/15/2011 10:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
How big boned would the person sleeping next to you have to be to give you a lethal dose of radiation from potassium-40 decay?


RE: thorium
By bh192012 on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: thorium
By mattclary on 12/15/2011 1:40:30 PM , Rating: 3
100% of .4% = .4%
200% of .4% = .8%
300% of .4% = 1.2%


RE: thorium
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2011 2:29:18 PM , Rating: 3
Public schools ftw.


RE: thorium
By hankw on 12/16/2011 6:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair the original post did say 300 "times", which is actually 30000%. ;)
Something that is 3 times greater, is 300% greater.


RE: thorium
By Just Tom on 12/16/2011 8:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
From the original post...

quote:
"China is investing heavily in this technology - these devices are 300+ more efficient than the solid fuel dinosaurs referred to by this article."


300% would be 3 times more efficient, not 300+. I have no clue where you got 300% from.


RE: thorium
By kattanna on 12/15/2011 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
300 X .4% = 120%


this post makes me laugh..and cry


RE: thorium
By Just Tom on 12/16/2011 8:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you have such weird emotional reactions to a correctly solved equation? You must have been highly entertaining during 8th grade alegbra.


RE: thorium
By m51 on 12/15/2011 6:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
less than 0.4%


RE: thorium
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Another source of Uranium is Coal. There are some seams of coal that would be worth more as a source of Uranium than what they are currently worth simply used as fuel.


RE: thorium
By NellyFromMA on 12/15/2011 12:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
300% more efficient than current output efficiency, which is clearly within the typical laws of efficiency as there is room in output efficiency to be 3 times greater while still under 100%, a likely unattainable figure.

Arithmetic Fail.


RE: thorium
By Slackjaw747 on 12/15/2011 3:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
You can scream efficiency all you want, but until they can find some way to harness the energy other than boiling water, it will never be efficient. Boiling water with nuclear energy is simply ludicrous...


RE: thorium
By m51 on 12/15/2011 6:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately it's your statement that is ludicrous. It only displays your complete lack of understanding of the thermodynamics and engineering involved.

In fact boiling water can be a quite efficient means of energy conversion and is used with coal, geothermal, and solar thermal systems as well.


RE: thorium
By a_roach on 12/15/2011 6:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
There are several more efficient ways to convert energy as your input temperature goes up. Most notably the Brayton Gas cycle used currently in natural gas turbines.

The only reason this isn't done with traditional nuclear is that the current reactors use water for coolant, and there's a limit to how hot you can get water, even under pressure, and have it stay water rather than flashing to steam. Therefore, it's more efficient at the relatively low temperatures in conventional nuclear to just boil water not under pressure and use that to make power.

Many/most of the new nuclear designs allow for much higher output temperatures and therefore have inherently better conversion efficiency. LFTR comes to mind in particular.


RE: thorium
By a_roach on 12/15/2011 6:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Also, to be clear, in traditional light water reactors, the (primary) coolant water is under pressure and is used to boil a separate (secondary) loop of water to steam that isn't under pressure through a liquid/liquid heat exchanger.


RE: thorium
By polishvendetta on 12/15/2011 9:03:01 AM , Rating: 4
while im all for green renewable energy, this country, geographicly, is not made for the current technologies of green energy without factoring in nuclear power. wind and solar are good but only in specific types of climates. with the large land mass of america and having several climate zones, it seems to me modular nuclear is a very good solution.

this technology seems to be 5-10 years away where throium is likely 20 or so with government regulations and such. Its good to have a long term goal but equaly good to have several short term ones as well.


RE: thorium
By WinstonSmith on 12/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: thorium
By ShieTar on 12/15/2011 10:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
The global amount of Thorium is about 3 times higher than that of Uranium. You do not need to look for it specifically, as you can figure this out on a global scale by Neutrino-Measurements.

Nevertheless, the main problems are it's lower efficiency as compared to enriched uranium (It is not fissible in itself, but needs to be bred first), and the generally higher complexity of fuel generation.

Thus at this moment there is very little economic incentive to switch the fuel cycle.

The other thing to keep in mind is, that expanding the Uranium cycle usage can lead to a decrease of waste components with a long half-life and thus simplify the waste managment.


RE: thorium
By WinstonSmith on 12/15/2011 3:27:09 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it's about four times higher (10ppm thorium vs. 2.5ppm uranium). And U235 is .018ppm.

Here's one of several technical discussions that have convinced me that a serious effort should be made to further develop this commercially:

Google Tech Talk
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8


RE: thorium
By AntiM on 12/15/2011 10:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
...or helium 3.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72...

This could be an incentive to put us back in space and have abundant, safe energy at the same time.


RE: thorium
By m51 on 12/15/2011 11:30:26 AM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately HE3 doesn't pass a reality check. The neutron flux over Deuterium-Tritium fuel will only be reduced by about a factor of 3, not enough to make a difference. The drawback is much higher temperatures are needed to achieve practical reaction rates and increased losses due to Bremsstrahlaung radiation etc. may put it out of reach as a usable fuel.
There is also the supply problem. It would not be cost effective within orders of magnitude to try and 'farm' this stuff off the moon compared to standard old nuclear reactors or other power generation systems.

As to Fusion power in general it doesn't look like commercial power generation via Fusion power will happen in my lifetime or several generations after. A number of intractable problems remain such as the first wall problem for which there are no solutions and no viable options. This after 60 years of fusion research. Even if break even power generation with fusion is technically possible it appears it will be orders of magnitude too expensive as a commercial power source. It does us no good if it is not economically feasible.

The only small hope I have is that one of the alternative non-tokamak approaches pans out like the Dense Plasma Focus, Polywell, or the Field-reversed technique. If one of these can be made to run with Boron-11 fuel then we may have a new ballgame.


RE: thorium
By Namey on 12/15/2011 12:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Say "Bremsstrahlaung" three times fast


RE: thorium
By ppardee on 12/15/2011 12:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Three times? I can't even say it once without choking on my tongue!


RE: thorium
By Gondor on 12/15/2011 5:24:23 PM , Rating: 3
It is not that difficult once it is spelled correctly. Split it into syllables:

Brems - like "Brahms", but with an 'e'
strahl - "trall" ('a' as in "bar" or "car") with "sh" (from "shoot") in front of it
ung - "oong"

and it's not the soft 'r' of English language, it's a hard 'r', more like that of Spanish ("perro").

Bremsstrahlung - easy ;)


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki