Modular Reactors the Future of Nuclear Energy

[Marlin]

Modular Reactors the Future of Nuclear Energy

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/reader-comment-modular-reactors-the-future-of-nuclear-energy/article_7d6d9303-4dad-5e44-9747-03b25f3648fd.html

[Bonds 25]

I agree.....and if I stay with Energy Northwest long enough I may just get involved 

[Rerun]

Won't happen. Ever.

[Marlin]

Won't happen. Ever.

Did you even read the article? 

[Rerun]

Yep. It wont happen. Ever

[Marlin]

Yep. It wont happen. Ever

Here let me help you out,

NuScale’s first potential customer is the Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems, which will apply to license the first NuScale power plant, to be located in Idaho and operated by Energy Northwest. By the end of this year, NuScale expects to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for certification of its reactor design, a process that could take several years. NuScale estimates that construction of the reactor will be completed in 36 months and that electricity production will begin by 2023.

But that’s not soon enough. NRC needs to expedite the certification process, so that NuScale can begin to market its reactor globally. China already has an SMR under construction between Beijing and Shanghai. A failure to act expeditiously will undermine the sale of U.S. reactors to other countries. It will place the nation’s nuclear industry at a disadvantage in competing for global nuclear sales that the Department of Commerce projects will be worth many hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.

Consider the potential value of the NuScale SMR. Its simple design reduces many of the complex and large systems such as pumps, valves and piping found in today’s nuclear power plants. As a result, the NuScale plant is safer and less expensive to build and operate than conventional reactors.




I think I will take a PHD's opinion who worked at a national laboratory over someone who works at a dirt burner.   

[GLW]

Here let me help you out,

NuScale’s first potential customer is the Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems, which will apply to license the first NuScale power plant, to be located in Idaho and operated by Energy Northwest. By the end of this year, NuScale expects to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for certification of its reactor design, a process that could take several years. NuScale estimates that construction of the reactor will be completed in 36 months and that electricity production will begin by 2023.

But that’s not soon enough. NRC needs to expedite the certification process, so that NuScale can begin to market its reactor globally. China already has an SMR under construction between Beijing and Shanghai. A failure to act expeditiously will undermine the sale of U.S. reactors to other countries. It will place the nation’s nuclear industry at a disadvantage in competing for global nuclear sales that the Department of Commerce projects will be worth many hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.

Consider the potential value of the NuScale SMR. Its simple design reduces many of the complex and large systems such as pumps, valves and piping found in today’s nuclear power plants. As a result, the NuScale plant is safer and less expensive to build and operate than conventional reactors.




I think I will take a PHD's opinion who worked at a national laboratory over someone who works at a dirt burner.  

that's pretty harsh,..

allow me to remind us all of some modern facts about US industrial capabilities,....

Fitzpatrick's generator (circa 1975) was built by GE in Schenectady, New York

Prairie Island's two new generators (circa 2015) are built by Mitsubishi in Kobe, Japan,...

Yankee Rowe's steam generators (circa 1959) were built by B&W in Pittsburgh, Pa (IIRC),...

SONGS steam generators (circa 2008) were built by Mitsubishi in Kobe, Japan,...

I could go on but you should get the idea,...

NuScale's most recent focus is to build in the UK (Rolls-Royce) and sell to China,...

Why?

Continued "foot dragging" in the US of A beauracracy,...

the work in Oregon, the offices in Maryland, the matching funds from the NRC, the proposal for an INL pilot plant, et al, are all just a lot of the same Washington to academia R&D grants, to political lobbying, to national lab boondoggle jobs programs BS that has brought us (the US of A citizenry) hundreds of PhDs working for decades of real time and millions of funded man-hours at national labs, universities, public interest start up companies, et al, BUT!!!!!!!!,...

still no fusion,...

in the end, the NIMBYs will rule the day (except in Texas and other points in the SE which I waxed eloquent on once before) and there will be no SMRs in the US of A outside of south of the M-D line and east of the Pecos,...

and the SE probably does not need the new capacity in the near future beyond the current old school light waters in COL,...

there are no Westinghouse's, GE's, CB&I's, B&W's and others with a dog in this race,...

Rerun is more right than Marlin on this one, albeit more pithy than I,....

almost forgot,...peace,...GLW,...

[Marlin]

that's pretty harsh,..

allow me to remind us all of some modern facts about US industrial capabilities,....

Fitzpatrick's generator (circa 1975) was built by GE in Schenectady, New York

Prairie Island's two new generators (circa 2015) are built by Mitsubishi in Kobe, Japan,...

Yankee Rowe's steam generators (circa 1959) were built by B&W in Pittsburgh, Pa (IIRC),...

SONGS steam generators (circa 2008) were built by Mitsubishi in Kobe, Japan,...

I could go on but you should get the idea,...

  Still just opinion on each side. As for the bureaucracy that tide is changing and siding with the old guard is a backward looking philosophy and inaccurate. There is a lot of money riding on this even on the "green" side. I think I would listen to the Secretary of Energy as a guide to the future not someone anchored to the past.

Nuscale Modular Nuclear Reactors Can Be Game-Changer, Moniz Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-07/nuscale-modular-nuclear-technology-can-be-game-changer-moniz

NuScale's most recent focus is to build in the UK (Rolls-Royce) and sell to China,...

One of their focuses, according to the article is building one in Idaho so I think that statement is not valid. Idaho is a good choice for a modular design, a smaller more isolated market.

in the end, the NIMBYs will rule the day (except in Texas and other points in the SE which I waxed eloquent on once before) and there will be no SMRs in the US of A outside of south of the M-D line and east of the Pecos,...

True NIMBY's are always a factor but are they a factor in Idaho that is home to INL? I doubt it.

and the SE probably does not need the new capacity in the near future beyond the current old school light waters in COL,...

The article discusses building in Idaho and as far as the SE there is still the possibility of building Modular's here in Tennessee if not for public power then for the National labs here.

Rerun is more right than Marlin on this one, albeit more pithy than I,....

almost forgot,...peace,...GLW,...

As for harsh, I think that is the only thing he understands, he has dealt out more than his share to new posters on this site.

[GLW]

awwww man,...

 Still just opinion on each side.....

Mitsubishi, Rolls-Royce and others off shore building components while GE, B&W, et al NOT building components is not an opinion, it's the facts on the ground,...

.....As for the bureaucracy that tide is changing and siding with the old guard is a backward looking philosophy and inaccurate. There is a lot of money riding on this even on the "green" side. I think I would listen to the Secretary of Energy as a guide to the future not someone anchored to the past.

this same DOE said the same thing about pebble beds, remember pebble beds?!?!?! they were going to save commercial nuke power in the US of A, I can't wait to start working at one before I die,...

2013 Hot on nuclear. Secretary Moniz says that advanced reactors could furnish clean industrial heat.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/11/22/u-s-energy-secretary-deploy-nuclear-for-clean-industrial-heat/

2014 Department of Energy Partnership X-energy recently won a 5-year / $40MM DOE grant for advanced reactor development

http://www.x-energy.com/

2005 A future for nuclear energy: pebble bed reactors

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/Future%20for%20Nuclear%20Energy.pdf

like I said:

the work in Oregon, the offices in Maryland, the matching funds from the NRC, the proposal for an INL pilot plant, et al, are all just a lot of the same Washington to academia R&D grants, to political lobbying, to national lab boondoggle jobs programs BS that has brought us (the US of A citizenry) hundreds of PhDs working for decades of real time and millions of funded man-hours at national labs, universities, public interest start up companies, et al,.....

and then this observation:

True NIMBY's are always a factor but are they a factor in Idaho that is home to INL? I doubt it.

The article discusses building in Idaho and as far as the SE there is still the possibility of building Modular's here in Tennessee if not for public power then for the National labs here.

my point exactly,...

the NIMBYs are a zero factor on the national lab sites themselves, be it INL or Oak Ridge,...

there WILL NOT be a SMR built within twenty or even fifty miles of Salt Lake City, Utah not matter how successful the pilot at INL on behalf of the Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems pans out; as far as technical feasibility,...

the political feasibility in Utah is DOA,...

political feasibility in Texas is better than 50/50, particularly as you increase your distance from Austin,...

...As for harsh, I think that is the only thing he understands, he has dealt out more than his share to new posters on this site.

take the higher road,....

[Marlin]

awwww man,...

Mitsubishi, Rolls-Royce and others off shore building components while GE, B&W, et al NOT building components is not an opinion, it's the facts on the ground,...

But not relavent to building a modular reactor in Idaho. The process to build smaller components locally and shipping to the site is one of the selling points of modulars in general.

this same DOE said the same thing about pebble beds, remember pebble beds?!?!?! they were going to save commercial nuke power in the US of A, I can't wait to start working at one before I die,...

2013 Hot on nuclear. Secretary Moniz says that advanced reactors could furnish clean industrial heat.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/11/22/u-s-energy-secretary-deploy-nuclear-for-clean-industrial-heat/

2014 Department of Energy Partnership X-energy recently won a 5-year / $40MM DOE grant for advanced reactor development

http://www.x-energy.com/

2005 A future for nuclear energy: pebble bed reactors

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers1_files/Future%20for%20Nuclear%20Energy.pdf

like I said:

my point exactly,...

Did they invest hundreds of millions of dollars in them? My point exactly!!!

the NIMBYs are a zero factor on the national lab sites themselves, be it INL or Oak Ridge,...

there WILL NOT be a SMR built within twenty or even fifty miles of Salt Lake City, Utah not matter how successful the pilot at INL on behalf of the Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems pans out; as far as technical feasibility,...

the political feasibility in Utah is DOA,...

political feasibility in Texas is better than 50/50, particularly as you increase your distance from Austin,...

   Even the DOE must deal with "Stakeholders", if not Yucca Mountain would already be built. If as stated the reactors will produce cheap safe power a population that has benifited by the operation of many reactors probably will not object. We will have to agree to disagree on the NIMBY issue the tide of green opinion is changing attitudes on nuclear power.

take the higher road,....

I prefer the road less travelled

[GLW]

But not relavent to building a modular reactor in Idaho. The process to build smaller components locally and shipping to the site is one of the selling points of modulars in general.

Did they invest hundreds of millions of dollars in them? My point exactly!!!

   Even the DOE must deal with "Stakeholders", if not Yucca Mountain would already be built. If as stated the reactors will produce cheap safe power a population that has benifited by the operation of many reactors probably will not object. We will have to agree to disagree on the NIMBY issue the tide of green opinion is changing attitudes on nuclear power.

I prefer the road less travelled

we'll see, I'd wager 100 quatloos against in our lifetime outside of a national lab or R&D center,...

nothing commercial out on the fruited plain of private OCAs,...

[Marlin]

we'll see, I'd wager 100 quatloos against in our lifetime outside of a national lab or R&D center,...

nothing commercial out on the fruited plain of private OCAs,...

Dave would approve of this wager (at least the currency). But what is the currency exchange for Triskelion quatloos to US dollars.

 

 

[Marlin]

Idaho eyed as potential site for small nuclear reactors

http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/article/E-Idaho-eyed-as-potential-site-for-small-nuclear-6839879.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

[GLW]

....A site would likely be picked out within two months, Webb said. However, additional steps in the process, such as an environmental analysis if the company decides to move forward, means the small modular reactors likely wouldn't be operational before 2023....

as was typed some days ago,....

we'll see, I'd wager 100 quatloos against in our lifetime outside of a national lab or R&D center,...

nothing commercial out on the fruited plain of private OCAs,...

this thread needs a merge,...

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,40089.0.html

[Marlin]

....A site would likely be picked out within two months, Webb said. However, additional steps in the process, such as an environmental analysis if the company decides to move forward, means the small modular reactors likely wouldn't be operational before 2023....

as was typed some days ago,....


this thread needs a merge,...

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,40089.0.html

Done

[GLW]

Done

 

[Marlin]

we'll see, I'd wager 100 quatloos against in our lifetime outside of a national lab or R&D center,...

nothing commercial out on the fruited plain of private OCAs,...

It is commercial the next step is building them on public property. The cost of 12 small modulars at $3 billion as opposed to $15 billion for one conventional nuclear plant for the same output/safer and probably a higher capcity factor would be a big motivator provided that prediction holds true.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The U.S. Department of Energy announced Thursday an agreement with an energy cooperative that could lead to the building of small commercial nuclear reactors at an eastern Idaho federal nuclear site.
The agency granted a site-use permit to Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) to access the 890-square-mile area containing the Idaho National Laboratory to find a spot to build what are called small modular reactors.

[Rerun]

Will never happen

[mjd]

Without the specific information from on-going dialog between NRC and NuScale about NuScale's paper reactor, most of the published views are just unsupported or optimistic "opinion."
Here's some published facts:
NuScale will submit a design for certification in 2016 (hasn't happened yet, no change announced).
NRC has committed to a 42 month review; IF the submittal is up to "standard".
There is no standard other than the current Standard Review Plan (SRP), which is heavily pointed to current LWRs and needs revision for NuScale.
NuScale does not comply with the current SRP.
NRC position is they can't revise the SRP without seeing the NuScale specific submittal.
NRC official position is they can't officially comment on the design from just the talks, they need the submittal.
NuScale's dilemma is they are shooting in the dark on the final design because they don't know what may be an NRC "hell no."
NuScale has been officially informed by NRC of potential design pinch points, under the guise of a letter claiming "may impact review schedule of 42 months."
Some are: NuScale proposed licensed operator manning of one RO running 4 reactors at a time (navy size reactors), no 1E power at all, relaxed Appendix B requirements.
The NRC Staff position on these is they are NRC Policy decisions (full Commission), not Staff, thus Staff can't control the review schedule. Their further position in the letter was it is NuScale's problem to elevate to Commission level. (A cleverly worded letter... nothing is ever my fault).
Another NuScale proposed idea (with no formal NRC feedback to date I am aware of). NuScale wants to decrease the EPZ evacuation size and increase the allowable off-site accident dose. (Hmmm... that sounds like an easy "pig won't fly"). The intent of this is marketing, can site the plant inside high population zones.

And then a miracle occurs, that design gets certified as proposed. Remember it has the same output as an AP600, which no one will buy.
You are the buyer, how many Price Anderson policies are you buying? How many NRC annual fees are you buying (there is a proposal, not a policy)? If your insurance requires INPO, how many memberships (and you can kiss your reduced staffing good bye)? Also, to date, NuScale claims the design is scale-able, but the intent is with a target of 12 units. If the buyer's application only needs 1 or 2 units, will they have to buy the entire 12 unit control room, SFP design, etc? Anything less is a different design, not certified.
Etc., etc. etc.
I think for right now I'm probably with the "ain't going to happen camp" under the current NRC structure.

[Rerun]

Exactly and no review will happen within 42 monrhs

[GLW]

Without the specific information from on-going dialog between NRC and NuScale about NuScale's paper reactor, most of the published views are just unsupported or optimistic "opinion."
Here's some published facts:
NuScale will submit a design for certification.....

BUT,...

US of A taxpayers may very well subsidize the pilot on government land at INL,...

and then these guys will build them,...

....NuScale's most recent focus is to build in the UK (Rolls-Royce)....

and these guys will buy them (the first few dozen anyways),...

..... and sell to China,...

and this pithy fella will be right,....

Rerun is more right than Marlin on this one, albeit more pithy than....

more pithy than anybody really,...

and there you,...

almost forgot,...

peace,...GLW,...

[Marlin]

   There are a lot of very smart people putting up money on this, I think I will take their word for it. Using the conventional wisdom of old school nuclear power I would agree but there seems to be a paradigm shift in design, public opinion, and regulation that are occurring with the modulars that would seem to negate CW. As much as I oppose AGW that is likely to be one of the primary drivers- "how ironic".

   Pithy is little more than the parrot squawking his some old song, no discussion just a Trumpesse "I am great trust me". Doesn't hold up when there are people much smarter in more responsible postions with opposing views that are investing money and career on this.

 

[GLW]

   There are a lot of very smart people putting up money on this,..............

fusion,...hundreds of PhDs, billion of dollars, dozens of start up and venture companies,...

nada,....

smart people putting up money while being subsidized by the government?!?!?!?!?

I'm not convinced,....

I might be able to also make some money,.....

if I were to get in at the right time,....

and get out at the best time,....

 ...................

[Rerun]

Won't happen ever

[Marlin]

fusion,...hundreds of PhDs, billion of dollars, dozens of start up and venture companies,...

nada,....

smart people putting up money while being subsidized by the government?!?!?!?!?

I'm not convinced,....

I might be able to also make some money,.....

if I were to get in at the right time,....

and get out at the best time,....

 ...................

Apples and oranges one is research in future power pure science and practical, the other is a feasible design in progress. Fusion is in academia and Government realm the other is a commercial proposal with sound technical back ground.

But nice try but non sequitur. 

   Yourself