Modular Reactors the Future of Nuclear Energy

[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/