Use Meltdown-Proof Modular Nuclear Reactors, Says Top U.S. Scientist
December 14, 2011 9:00 PM
comment(s) - last by
(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,
, 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
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
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.
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.
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.
Univ. of Chicago
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Government intervention
12/19/2011 9:31:54 PM
Oil and gas companies receive 88% of all federal energy subsidies. Nuclear energy gets 9%, and all clean renewables combined get about the same as nuclear.
As the article pointed out, the tech under discussion isn't viable in the marketplace without subsidy. I can only imagine the regulatory headache that portable nuclear would cause. I'm not sure portable nuclear will ever see the light of day... that is, unless the govt. is selective in making exceptions in it's push to eliminate tax expenditures and NRC becomes a stooge for industry. Of course these things would never happen would they!?!
"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
UC Researchers Produce First Quantitative Estimate of Fukushima Radiation Leak
August 16, 2011, 11:47 AM
EDITORIAL: France Bravely Pushes Nuclear, America Can't Find the Courage
June 29, 2011, 8:05 AM
Fukushima I Plant Retired, TEPCO Exec. to Step Down Due to Negligence
April 22, 2011, 11:13 AM
Obama Guarantees Loans for New Nuclear Plant to Combat Global Warming
February 16, 2010, 2:20 PM
Environmentalists Look to Block Nuclear Licensing with Protests
June 5, 2009, 9:52 AM
Creationists are Mad About Google Doodle Depicting Evolution
November 24, 2015, 8:48 PM
DHS and TSA: Whoops, We Missed That 73 Airport Employees May be Terrorists
November 19, 2015, 2:16 PM
Star Wars Spinoff Film "Rogue One", Theme Park Attractions Announced
August 17, 2015, 12:20 PM
SpaceX Falcon 9's Seventh Supply Mission to ISS Ends w/ Fiery Stage 1 Explosion
June 28, 2015, 1:10 PM
Cool Science Video: Glowing Millipede Prowls the Nevada Desert
May 18, 2015, 12:00 PM
Newly Discovered Costa Rican Glass Frog is Kermit's Doppelgänger
April 22, 2015, 11:26 AM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information