This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,255 Members

Post

Obama Aims for Nuclear Breakthroughs

nuclear Two years ago, some thought that the nuclear energy had been leveled. But the industry today is picking up steam by getting construction licenses to build four new units and by getting government funding to develop smaller nuclear reactors that are less expensive and which may be less problematic when it comes to winning regulatory approval.

The creators of those roughly 100-megawatt electric modules want to sell their products first in this country before they would market them overseas to lesser-developed nations that don’t have a huge transmission infrastructure. They would be factory-built before being shipped and fueled to where the energy is needed. To the extent that more electric generation is required, no problem: Just lay the small-scale modules next to each other, making the financial outlays more manageable.

“Restarting the nation’s nuclear industry and advancing small modular reactor technologies will help create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses, and ensure we continue to take an all-of-the-above approach to American energy production,” says Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Two years ago, some thought that the nuclear energy had been leveled. But the industry today is picking up steam by getting construction licenses to build four new units and by getting government funding to develop smaller nuclear reactors that are less expensive and which may be less problematic when it comes to winning regulatory approval.

The creators of those roughly 100-megawatt electric modules want to sell their products first in this country before they would market them overseas to lesser-developed nations that don’t have a huge transmission infrastructure. They would be factory-built before being shipped and fueled to where the energy is needed. To the extent that more electric generation is required, no problem: Just lay the small-scale modules next to each other, making the financial outlays more manageable.

“Restarting the nation’s nuclear industry and advancing small modular reactor technologies will help create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses, and ensure we continue to take an all-of-the-above approach to American energy production,” says Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

To that end, the Obama administration is partnering with Babcock & Wilcox and Bechtel to develop those smaller nuclear reactors for the federally-owned utility  Tennessee Valley Authority. The Department of Energy is expected to invest about $450 million in the project, which equates to roughly half of the overall cost. Industry will pony up the other half.

Babcock builds smaller nuclear units of 100 megawatts, which can also be aggregated together to supply as much power as a base-load nuclear generator, or 1,000 megawatts. The modules are stored underground.

Christopher Mowry, president of Babcock, says that TVA should expect to have those units running by 2020. Beyond the federal wholesaler of electricity, he says that other potential clients exist: smaller utilities that can only afford to make “bite size” investments in nuclear energy that include the electric cooperatives and municipalities.

“I’d like to rebuild the United States first and then sell oversees,” says Mowry, who spoke with this reporter.

Smaller nuclear units are just as viable in other nations where the transmission grids can’t handle larger generation. Once the concept is shown to be feasible, the  developers can then build on the smaller facilities to form a larger base-load plant.

Currently, 104 nuclear reactors are located here in the United States. But half of them are nearing their retirement, although regulators will likely extend their lives to meet an expected increase in electricity demand. Southern Co. and Scana Corp. have gotten federal regulatory approval in the last year to expand their existing nuclear campuses.

Smaller reactors, though, have a place: They might not only serve niche markets but they could also replace at least some of those bigger and more centralized nuclear generation.

The right-sized reactors are expected to operate at high efficiencies and to have built-in advantages, ultimately giving those investments a respectable return. Such units, for example, generally come with a nuclear waste storage containment device. The facilities could also be used to create drinkable water supplies in those countries where such a resource is in short supply.

According to the Sandia National Laboratory, these smaller reactors would be factory built and mass-assembled, with potential production of 50 a year. They would all have the exact same design, allowing for easier licensing and deployment than large-scale facilities. Mass production will keep the costs down to between $250 million and $500 million per unit.

“This small reactor … could supply energy to remote areas and developing countries at lower costs and with a manufacturing turnaround period of two years as opposed to seven for its larger relatives,” says Tom Sanders, who has been working with Sandia. “It could also be a more practical means to implement nuclear base-load capacity comparable to natural gas-fired generating stations and with more manageable financial demands than a conventional power plant.”

In the case of Sandia, the right-sized reactors would generate their own fuel as they operate. They are designed to have an extended operational life and would only need to be refueled a few times during its projected 60-year lifespan. At the same time, the reactor system would have no need for fuel handling, all of which helps to alleviate proliferation concerns. Conventional nuclear power plants in the U.S. have their reactors refueled once every 18 to 24 months.

The issue that manufacturers of small reactors have is that they are relying on the venture capital community to back their ideas. While they may be worthy, they must still endure years of regulatory scrutiny before they would get  the permission to be built in this country. Investors don’t want to tie up their money for that long. That’s why the Energy Department is getting involved.

Consider NuScale: It says that by taking its smaller modules and ultimately forming a 540 megawatt plant that it would cost between $2.2 billion and $2.5 billion. That’s marginally less expensive than a traditional plant. 

At a few billion, the company says that utilities would not be taking the kind of risks they might otherwise be incurring if they were to build a larger $10 billion facility. For most companies, the amount of money is too great, especially in the aftermath of a recession, credit crunch and Japanese nuclear crisis.

“We saw the economic value of taking virtually the entire nuclear system, including its containment, to a factory where they could be manufactured under more controlled conditions,” says Paul Lorenzini, founder of NuScale, in a previous talk with this writer. He goes on to say that smaller units are extremely safe because they are immune from the type of events that occurred in Japan.

Right-sized nuclear reactors face the same financial and regulatory obstacles as do their bigger brothers. But if the smaller and scalable technologies prove effective, they will establish valuable niche markets for themselves not just among the TVAs of the world but also among those local utilities and less developed countries that need a clean and continuous source of power.

 

Ken Silverstein is editor-in-chief for Energy Central’s EnergyBiz Insider and a contributor to Forbes, where this article originally appeared. Follow him at @Ken_Silverstein.

Breakthrough Institute's picture

Thank Breakthrough for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

dennis baker's picture
dennis baker on Feb 16, 2013 10:04 pm GMT

The "build em here" first , then export is important to qualify for Carbon Credits as a potential Return On Investment ROI. Should someone have the courage and cash to step up!

The "build em here" first, maximises Job Creation manufacturing and assembling components.

In my opinion



We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!

At a scale required to accomplish this task :

Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.

Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.

Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option

Solar uses food land : Not a viable option

Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option



All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html

The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.

Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.

Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .

Reducing illness / health care costs as well !



Dennis Baker 
Penticton BC V2A1P9 
cell phone 250-462-3796 
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633

 

 

TSvi Howard Epstein's picture
TSvi Howard Epstein on Feb 18, 2013 10:21 am GMT

The link asserts that ocean depth temp differences can supply all the power we need by driving heat engines.  But evidence that this can be done economically is not presented. Have experiments with this even been conducted? Unless there are large temp differences, thermodynamics dictates that engine efficiencies will be small. Locally, here in Oregon, there are experiments starting with wave power generation, but no one yet claims to know the economics of several proposed systems under investigation. Temp stratification engines are yet a whole other breed of cat...but if they could be economic, they would at least be able to operate 24/7.

TSvi Howard Epstein's picture
TSvi Howard Epstein on Feb 19, 2013 9:04 am GMT

 

An interesting link. I saw a list of projects, but not clear how many are delta T ocean generation projects. Nor did I see a report on the economics of a completed project or one in progress. Your suggestion of 100MW for $400M would be just earth shaking if this is tried and proven to be reliable long term. $4/W for 24/7 power and no fuel costs would yield well under 10 year payback even throwing in considerable maintenance. Unbelievable for a new technology that has yet to be scaled up. Lots of people live near shorelines...transmission losses could be low on short distances to market.

Sounds too good to be true...so probably it isn't true. Please do not invest money in this company yet.

TSvi

 

dennis baker's picture
dennis baker on Feb 22, 2013 1:15 am GMT

Jim Baird

Not so odd when your link regarding the warming oceans and its dangers is addressed in my solution, terminating its use as a tolet , and chemical repository.

Dennis Baker 

Thomas Garven's picture
Thomas Garven on Mar 6, 2013 3:32 pm GMT

Jim and I have had a few off-line discussions about OTEC and I agree that a potential exists for the use of this technology.  It is however not without it's challenges just like almost every other technology used to generate electricity.  HOWEVER, If you look at OTEC maps, it can be seen that the waters off the Southern U.S., most of Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico and up the eastern seaboard to the Carolina's are excellent resource areas for this technology.  As a Quality Engineer by profession, the financial wisdom of such projects is not really my area of expertise so won't get into that aspect.  There are however, some major corporation investing large amounts of money into OTEC.    

 

Oean Thermal Map

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »