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 

[GLW]

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............

it's not the technical feasibility,...

it's the demonstrated willingness to spend taxpayer dollars knowing full well there will be no return,...

if technical feasibility was the driver, then PBRs would be getting built on a scale akin to PWRs & BWRs were circa 1961,...

just like the current Sec. of Energy endorsed and spent millions on them:

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/

THAT was only 2013 & 2014 which was ONLY seven years after we waxed eloquent on PBRs;

The Pebble Bed reactor made a big splash for a while and South Africa at one time intended to build one. Lately there has not been much noise about it, has it gone by the wayside?

and so three years later here we are, no change since the last time we illuminated this paradigm:

No because,...

Allow me to elaborate:

The Atoms for Peace initiative was kicked off in a speech by Eisenhower in 1953,...

Shippingport went on the grid in 1957,...

By 1963 no less than 14 reactors had been put on the grid,...

That was then,...

This is now,...

The combined years of US government funded development of pebble bed reactors at MIT, University of California-Berkeley, General Atomics and Idaho National Labs exceeds forty years with no pebble bed reactors on the grid in the US of A,...

Fusion?!?!?,...Sandia, Los Alamos, PPPL, NIF, LLE, AERB, Texas A & M, Brigham Young , Stanford , U of M, UU et al to the tune of over 200 combined years and 500 billion dollars in grants and experiments with no fusion reactors on the grid in the US of A,...

Even the 4S reactors which are already done, all the technicals are a packaged deal looking for a buyer, but no, oh no no no no no, the 4S reactors have been looked at yet again, using US taxpayer monies, examined and contemplated by LLNL, ANL, and, of course, U of C-Berkeley, dissected (literally and metaphorically) for over eight years to the tune of better than 150 million dollars and once again, there are no 4S reactors on the grid in the US of A,...

From another tangent:

The current POTUS shelved Yucca, he shelved any viable long term solution to spent fuel storage, there is no national repository and likely never will be, Yucca is being dismantled as we type and read, Yucca will never be certified again for less than too many billions more that we quite simply do not have and should not be charging to any unborn generation's credit card,...

This government's influence is to talk a good game, throw gratuitous research dollars at the academia-national lab complex, all the while stuffing a cork in the expulsion end of the nuclear alimentary canal, a blockage which will lead to it's unavoidable death from it's own wastes,...

if Snow White had a dwarf named Hopeful, Marlin would be the studio model for the cel animators,...

not that that's a bad thing,...

[Marlin]

it's not the technical feasibility,...

It has been designed and is entering the licensing phase there is no new technology here.

it's the demonstrated willingness to spend taxpayer dollars knowing full well there will be no return,...

NuScale is a private company what public money are you talking about. There are cooperative efforts between the DOE and NuScale but the modulars in question are for a private utility.

if Snow White had a dwarf named Hopeful, Marlin would be the studio model for the cel animators,...

not that that's a bad thing,...

Pessimism versus optimism which one is the constructive emotion

[GLW]

NuScale is a private company what public money are you talking about. There are cooperative efforts between the DOE and NuScale but the modulars in question are for a private utility.

this public money,...

NuScale wins second round of DOE SMR funding under FOA

http://atomicinsights.com/nuscale-wins-second-round-doe-smr-funding-foa/

with a less nuanced description here:

http://portlandtribune.com/ttt/89-news/252644-121028-nuscale-power-tigards-nuclear-energy-company-prepares-for-2020

...The company has made some major strides in the past few years. In 2013, it received a $217 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to design and license a nuclear power plant.

The company is spending about $12 million a month to finish up its application to the NRC and has filed more than 180 patents related to the technology, McGough said....

let me play this out,....

my company gets a 217 million dollar grant which I (er, my company) spends at 12 million per month,...

I get to live good on the corporate credit card and pad my 401K for 18 months,...

I also get to approach Rolls Royce in Britain to build it and then sell the finished product to the Chinese,...

oh yeah, I also get to build a pilot pant on government property and forego the nightmare of a private landed OCA,...

after all, the Chinese would like to know the thing actually works before they buy it,....

you call it pessimism,....

I call it "Living in realsville",...

[mjd]

The actual real problem with NuScale becoming a shovel ready design within a time frame to allow them to be a one-for-one replacement for any of the current fleet (just to maintain the current ~19% nuke generation), much less increase the total US nuke generation share, is not technical. It boils down to the same issues that control any utility decision to buy a nuke of any type; final cost and schedule. There is probably general agreement the whole population of potential buyers in the US is watching the four AP1000 builds to try to get a handle on final cost and schedule before they commit. Time will tell. The subtle influence on that process is, every time a plant in the current fleet is lost reducing the total nuke percent, it builds negative momentum for nukes in the wrong direction at every level involved; buyer decisions, government support, etc. A few years ago the total nuke generation was ~25%, today about 19%, and there is a number (don't know what it is, lets say 10%) where the total opinion will be "there just aren't enough of them to be worth the hassle." A primary driver in the loss of current fleet plants is NRC dysfunctionality; e.g. FLEX.

NuScale adds one more dimension to the cost and schedule uncertainty equation, the final cost and schedule for an NRC certified design. My above "fact list" was meant to show how the current NRC dysfunctionality has turned the design certification process into a classic "catch 22" for NuScale. Maybe that didn't sink in. Consider just the issue of one RO running four plants at a time (a full Commission policy issue). NuScale has to submit the design that way, to get action on the decision. What if it doesn't fly? The whole control room is designed around that NuScale assumption, including the HFE process to justify exemption requests to the current 10CFR50.54 Licensed operator manning. If that policy doesn't fly (regulatory uncertainty) NuScale can throw their design away and start over. Period.

Add to that, the real cost to NuScale (thus the final product cost) to get certified only about starts at design submittal. Just answering endless NRC questions on the design will likely exceed NuScale's development costs to date.

But the real regulatory uncertainties are actually for a buyer, greatly affecting final cost for a buyer, are not even identified in the current discussions as potential problems, because they are not NuScale's problems to "solve"; they belong to the potential buyer. If they are not even on the table for resolution, the total cost uncertainty is huge. These are insurance, INPO, NRC fee structure, etc. The current predicted plant on-line schedules are extremely optimistic because they haven't considered resolution of these real cost and schedule issues. Consider just getting your operators licensed (if INPO is "in"). There is no exam bank, there is no certified training program, there are no certified instructors, the NRC has no program to examine a single SRO overseeing 12 units running on a simulator (or even an examiner qualified to do it), etc. If INPO is "in", you tell me when this work will be done, and who pays for it... so we can talk real cost and real schedule for a buyer, when they are not even on the table for discussion. Meanwhile the clock is ticking on the buyer's interest on the loan. There is a "least common denominator" to these problems, but the current discussion is it's a leap too far to solve it.

I do tend to agree the government could probably solve a lot of this... it they had the will. 

[Marlin]

this public money,...

NuScale wins second round of DOE SMR funding under FOA

http://atomicinsights.com/nuscale-wins-second-round-doe-smr-funding-foa/

with a less nuanced description here:

http://portlandtribune.com/ttt/89-news/252644-121028-nuscale-power-tigards-nuclear-energy-company-prepares-for-2020

Money for research that has been awarded to a broad range of companies Bechtel included. This project rides on this money no more than any commercial venture that benefited from previous research.

this public money,...

NuScale wins second round of DOE SMR funding under FOA

http://atomicinsights.com/nuscale-wins-second-round-doe-smr-funding-foa/

with a less nuanced description here:

http://portlandtribune.com/ttt/89-news/252644-121028-nuscale-power-tigards-nuclear-energy-company-prepares-for-2020

...The company has made some major strides in the past few years. In 2013, it received a $217 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to design and license a nuclear power plant.

The company is spending about $12 million a month to finish up its application to the NRC and has filed more than 180 patents related to the technology, McGough said....

let me play this out,....

my company gets a 217 million dollar grant which I (er, my company) spends at 12 million per month,...

I get to live good on the corporate credit card and pad my 401K for 18 months,...

I also get to approach Rolls Royce in Britain to build it and then sell the finished product to the Chinese,...

oh yeah, I also get to build a pilot pant on government property and forego the nightmare of a private landed OCA,...

after all, the Chinese would like to know the thing actually works before they buy it,....

I have to say that your bullet point responses at times remind me of this Calvin and Hobbs cartoon.

you call it pessimism,....

I call it "Living in realsville",...

Then humanity would still be living in caves in that "Realsville" dreamers built our societies.

[Marlin]

I do tend to agree the government could probably solve a lot of this... it they had the will. 

   Agree but that is a function of public opinion which is changing. It does need a champion and a good lobbiest

   The nuclear industry has always been bad at public education and it's own advocacy. Today there are many previous nuclear opponents that are now it's advocate.

[Rennhack]

I have some questions, and I'm too lazy to read to learn the answers.  These 'small' modular reactors.... do they plan to build dozens of them at a single location or just one?  Because ONE large reactor already build isn't making enough money to stay open, how can a newer, more expensive, smaller reactor (less revenue generation) expect to be economically feasible?

Oh, and I just saw this great image for "lets get our ducks in a row"..

[GLW]

Money for research that has been awarded to a broad range of companies Bechtel included.....

Marlin, you're misdirecting and equivocating,...

You ask "What public money?"

I answer "This public money.",...

you respond with equivocation,...

I lay out time after time that the public and private enterprise cooperative which saw the germination of the "Atoms for Peace" and our industry is not the public and private enterprise that exists now,...

In times past the enterprise and the jobs and the economic boon affected PhDs, corporate board rooms, heavy industry production line workers, utility workers and baseload assurance for the utilities and utility customers,...

Today the enterprise and the jobs affect the PhDs, corporate board rooms, ..........................................................

and that's about it,.....

plus the bureaucrats in the government divvying our grants, et al,...

and then a misdirection equivocating a reality check to being stuck living like a caveman?!?!?!?

the "Realsville" of today is not the "Realsville" of 1953 when Eisenhower kicked off "Atoms for Peace",...

you can keep "hoping" for 1953 but it ain't coming back,...

except maybe south of the M-D line and east of the Pecos,...

where 1953 never really left,...

evolved from 1953 yes,....

disavowed 1953? no,...

[Marlin]

I have some questions, and I'm too lazy to read to learn the answers.  These 'small' modular reactors.... do they plan to build dozens of them at a single location or just one?  Because ONE large reactor already build isn't making enough money to stay open, how can a newer, more expensive, smaller reactor (less revenue generation) expect to be economically feasible?

Oh, and I just saw this great image for "lets get our ducks in a row"..

Let's use the wayback machine here.

"The cost for 12 small modular reactors is about $3 billion, NuScale has said, compared with about $15 billion for a conventional nuclear plant. Part of the cost savings comes from building the modular reactors at a factory and then trucking them to their locations."

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

[Marlin]

Marlin, you're misdirecting and equivocating,...

You ask "What public money?"

I answer "This public money.",...

you respond with equivocation,...

I lay out time after time that the public and private enterprise cooperative which saw the germination of the "Atoms for Peace" and our industry is not the public and private enterprise that exists now,...

Wow, talk about equivocating. We are discussing the modulars to be built in Idaho for a private company by a private company not the previous research done by many different companies on a variety of Small Modular Reactors. That money has been spent. If you want to debate the research money fine but that is a horse of another color.

[GLW]

Wow, talk about equivocating. We are discussing the modulars to be built in Idaho for a private company by a private company not the previous research done by many different companies on a variety of Small Modular Reactors. That money has been spent. If you want to debate the research money fine but that is a horse of another color.....

okay I guess, I'll wait to see an SMR on a privately held OCa and not a federal reservation,...

then again, perhaps federal reservations will be the only viable siting places for the balance of my lifetime outside of south of the M-D line and east of the Pecos,...

too little,.... probably too late,....

"Renaissance in Reverse: Competition Pushes Aging U.S. Nuclear Reactors to the Brink of Economic Abandonment,"

http://216.30.191.148/atriskreactors.html

it would be nice to actually see a new construction plant come on line in the next six years,...

but historically, we are way too far behind on the sustainability curve,...

woo hoo some more,....

[Marlin]

okay I guess, I'll wait to see an SMR on a privately held OCa and not a federal reservation,...

then again, perhaps federal reservations will be the only viable siting places for the balance of my lifetime outside of south of the M-D line and east of the Pecos,...

We log and drill for oil on federal land this would not seem to be much different. Reaching a little here but seems applicable.

too little,.... probably too late,....

Maybe but...

[GLW]

We log and drill for oil on federal land this would not seem to be much different. Reaching a little here but seems applicable.....

I would concede to that,...

out west, with the vast holdings of federal land it would make things plausible for geographic proximity to urban population centers,...

which would be a huge quid pro ? ? ? subsidy to private enterprise,...

and might even get legitimately challenged by yet unknown friends of the court,....

not so much in places like New York state,...

you concede?!?!?!

can't hold my breath that long,....

can't remember the last time in 15 years on these boards I saw you concede,...

[Marlin]

I would concede to that,...

out west, with the vast holdings of federal land it would make things plausible for geographic proximity to urban population centers,...

which would be a huge quid pro ? ? ? subsidy to private enterprise,...

and might even get legitimately challenged by yet unknown friends of the court,....

not so much in places like New York state,...

you concede?!?!?!

If you expand the argument to future sites every potential licence will have it's challenges and I would concede that, no oil, logging or nuclear on Yellowstone National park  . As to the land for the project under discussion I don't see any conflicts it looks like all parties involved are more inclined to facilitate.

you concede?!?!?!

can't hold my breath that long,....

can't remember the last time in 15 years on these boards I saw you concede,...

I have admitted mistakes and conceded many points (not many to GLW perhaps   ). I am more inclined to come to a point to agree to disagree on a discussion but then many threads seem more argument than discussion:

A discussion is about what is right... and argument is about who is right.  

[Rennhack]

A discussion is about what is right... and argument is about who is right.

I clicked on the forum rules link, expecting #1 to be that the Forum Admin is always right, and #2, if the admin is wrong, see rule #1... sadly that only works with my wife always being right. 

[hamsamich]

IMHO, all this really hinges on nuclear in any form being an answer to add value to the energy mix.  And I think it does due to low carbon output and the fact that it is the only large energy source that isn't a fossil fuel or a renewable.  Every fuel source has its issues including nuclear.  But there is nothing else like nuclear on its scale.  Renewables need batteries and could never power the world until this issue is figured out.  Fossil fuels make carbon and just look at China's big cities and the problem is obvious and 1000 times worse than nuclear pollution could ever try to be.  Not that I want to move to China but it's nice to be able to plan without pandering to both political parties wasting billions in the process and destroying precious infrastructure (see Yucca Mtn. and Shoreham).  China has its issues but they would probably scoff at what Germany and the US are doing to valuable nuclear power plants.  Embarrassing.

[Marlin]

I clicked on the forum rules link, expecting #1 to be that the Forum Admin is always right, and #2, if the admin is wrong, see rule #1... sadly that only works with my wife always being right. 

If you are married you can be right or be happy but you can't be both   

[mjd]

I have some questions, and I'm too lazy to read to learn the answers.  These 'small' modular reactors.... do they plan to build dozens of them at a single location or just one?  Because ONE large reactor already build isn't making enough money to stay open, how can a newer, more expensive, smaller reactor (less revenue generation) expect to be economically feasible?

You've asked a very good question. And you don't have to do a lot of reading to answer your own question, just use your own intuition. An answer was given, stated as:
"The cost for 12 small modular reactors is about $3 billion, NuScale has said, compared with about $15 billion for a conventional nuclear plant. Part of the cost savings comes from building the modular reactors at a factory and then trucking them to their locations."

My "guess" is that $15B for a conventional nuclear plant means the estimates for a dual AP1000 unit build, or 2000+ MWe. Time will tell on the final actual cost. But keep in mind, in the entire history of the world, one of these large complicated LWR plants has NEVER been built on schedule and on budget (My recommendation is... Give it up, it can't be done. Additionally, the only utilities even willing to take that risk are ones in states that allow passing the cost into the rate base on "pay as you go". For states who's rate structure require the utility to hold the paper on the construction loan until the generator breakers are closed that "estimated" price tag is not even an option to try it. So that provides the momentum for looking at less complicated smaller designs like LWR SMRs).

I don't know the basis for NuScale's $3B "estimate", but again I have a "guess." That $3B number is the NuScale estimated (average) cost to the BUYER of the Nth unit for 12 - 50 MWe reactor units for a site total of 600 MWe (After the breakers are closed on all 12).

As you point out equivalent size MWe plants are not currently economically feasible with a "paid for" plant. A NuScale buyer has to first pay for the plant, before they even start to make a profit. And the fact is for the current fleet the killer for the owner is the O&M budget, because the original capital cost has long ago been recouped. As I discussed above, key drivers of the BUYER's continuous O&M budget are not yet even on the table for discussion, so how can NuScale estimate the cost when they are not finalized? Not to mention NuScale has an uncertified paper reactor at this point. The key drivers in the O&M budgets are how many licenses are you buying, one or 12. How many Price Anderson policies are you buying, one or 12. And the other insurance cost hook is the "accident" insurance part (this is not the federal liability cap insurance, it's the "collision" type insurance all these plants have). This insurance company part is owned by the current plant owners, at a cost sharing of one policy per reactor plant. It's also the one requiring INPO participation. Are the current participants going to require a NuScale owner to buy one share or 12. That decision should be based on "risk" of an accident. This insurance is what took CR3 down, the other owners wouldn't agree what happened was an "accident" and wouldn't agree to help pay for it. A big likely driver in O&M cost potential is will INPO be required to get this insurance.

Another huge unknown in NuScale's final cost estimate is the manufacturing supply chain cost to the buyer for the delivered product. Yes, a lot of off-the-shelf stuff. But stuff like the RPV will have to be manufactured to strict QA standards, and the only folks currently doing that for RPVs in the US are the folks doing it for navy plants.

I'm not saying these problems are unsolvable, I'm saying nobody is working on them and they are not NuScale's problems to solve. I think you can answer your own question. With these current unknowns are you willing to buy a 12 reactor-unit, 600 MWe NuScale project. Remember, nobody is willing to buy the single reactor plant certified AP600 600 MWe design with a known O&M budget overhead of one license already a settled issue.

[Marlin]

You've asked a very good question. And you don't have to do a lot of reading to answer your own question, just use your own intuition. An answer was given, stated as:
"The cost for 12 small modular reactors is about $3 billion, NuScale has said, compared with about $15 billion for a conventional nuclear plant. Part of the cost savings comes from building the modular reactors at a factory and then trucking them to their locations."

My "guess" is that $15B for a conventional nuclear plant means the estimates for a dual AP1000 unit build, or 2000+ MWe. Time will tell on the final actual cost. But keep in mind, in the entire history of the world, one of these large complicated LWR plants has NEVER been built on schedule and on budget (My recommendation is... Give it up, it can't be done. Additionally, the only utilities even willing to take that risk are ones in states that allow passing the cost into the rate base on "pay as you go". For states who's rate structure require the utility to hold the paper on the construction loan until the generator breakers are closed that "estimated" price tag is not even an option to try it. So that provides the momentum for looking at less complicated smaller designs like LWR SMRs).

I don't know the basis for NuScale's $3B "estimate", but again I have a "guess." That $3B number is the NuScale estimated (average) cost to the BUYER of the Nth unit for 12 - 50 MWe reactor units for a site total of 600 MWe (After the breakers are closed on all 12).

As you point out equivalent size MWe plants are not currently economically feasible with a "paid for" plant. A NuScale buyer has to first pay for the plant, before they even start to make a profit. And the fact is for the current fleet the killer for the owner is the O&M budget, because the original capital cost has long ago been recouped. As I discussed above, key drivers of the BUYER's continuous O&M budget are not yet even on the table for discussion, so how can NuScale estimate the cost when they are not finalized? Not to mention NuScale has an uncertified paper reactor at this point. The key drivers in the O&M budgets are how many licenses are you buying, one or 12. How many Price Anderson policies are you buying, one or 12. And the other insurance cost hook is the "accident" insurance part (this is not the federal liability cap insurance, it's the "collision" type insurance all these plants have). This insurance company part is owned by the current plant owners, at a cost sharing of one policy per reactor plant. It's also the one requiring INPO participation. Are the current participants going to require a NuScale owner to buy one share or 12. That decision should be based on "risk" of an accident. This insurance is what took CR3 down, the other owners wouldn't agree what happened was an "accident" and wouldn't agree to help pay for it. A big likely driver in O&M cost potential is will INPO be required to get this insurance.

Another huge unknown in NuScale's final cost estimate is the manufacturing supply chain cost to the buyer for the delivered product. Yes, a lot of off-the-shelf stuff. But stuff like the RPV will have to be manufactured to strict QA standards, and the only folks currently doing that for RPVs in the US are the folks doing it for navy plants.

I'm not saying these problems are unsolvable, I'm saying nobody is working on them and they are not NuScale's problems to solve. I think you can answer your own question. With these current unknowns are you willing to buy a 12 reactor-unit, 600 MWe NuScale project. Remember, nobody is willing to buy the single reactor plant certified AP600 600 MWe design with a known O&M budget overhead of one license already a settled issue.

   The only point of contention I have with your argument is that it relies on conventional wisdom. The advantages of the SMR is that it will break many of these barriers. With a three year construction time frame (if true) the utility starts cash flow as the next is built. Relaxed rules for smaller, safer, and easier to operate facilities would make licensing easier if the NRC delivers on new rule making, green initiatives to be carbon free would put pressure on them to do so. There is an uphill battle to make this happen and there is no guarantee but I don't believe that it is dead on arrival. It would be better if Nuscale had an Elon Musk, Thomas Edison or Richard Branson.

[Marlin]

The Nuclear News feed below has this article listed but is linked to unrelated NRC notices.

DOE targets eastern Idaho as possible site for small nuclear reactors

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-targets-eastern-idaho-as-possible-site-for-small-nuclear-reactors/414220/