small reactors

[hamsamich]

When you guess in absolutes you get to be right 50% of the time I suppose.

[mjd]

can sum won build a reactor in the u.s.a. without n.r.c. certification and licensing? may bee the government is slower inn the currant millennium as opposed too the last millennium.

Yup, Idaho National Laboratory (INL). "Various organizations have built more than 50 reactors at what is commonly called "the Site", including the ones that gave the world its first usable amount of electricity from nuclear power and the power plant for the world's first nuclear submarine. Although many are now decommissioned, these facilities are the largest concentration of reactors in the world. Perhaps the most well-known was the building of the prototype reactor for the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus."

IMO any private 'capitol' (including NuScale) could be building, testing, etc an "Un-NRC Certified Paper Reactor" design there right now... on their own dime. INL already has all the programmatic 'piece parts' in place to do it, including Quality, Engineering, Testing, Security, etc programs. You should ask NuScale why they aren't. It would have the advantage of incorporating the completed Start-Up Test Program operational data (including Anticipated Operational Occurrences, AOOs, like Turb Trip, LOMFP, etc) into the NuScale Simulator code models (bench marking). Then run the HFE Program on the bench marked Simulator using actual plant procedures including the Secondary Plant equipment, instead of 'NuScale Functional Requirements' limited to the scope of NuScale NSSS Supply. This is the common sense method to deal with the proposed NuScale reduced Licensed Operator manning issue. Note NuScale's proposed manning for a 12-Unit Site meets current NRC Reg requirements for a 1-Unit Site, which is all that would exist at this time. (A hidden advantage of this way is since INL Security controls Site access, they don't have to let INPO in!)

[Marlin]

Yup, Idaho National Laboratory (INL). "Various organizations have built more than 50 reactors at what is commonly called "the Site", including the ones that gave the world its first usable amount of electricity from nuclear power and the power plant for the world's first nuclear submarine. Although many are now decommissioned, these facilities are the largest concentration of reactors in the world. Perhaps the most well-known was the building of the prototype reactor for the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus."

IMO any private 'capitol' (including NuScale) could be building, testing, etc an "Un-NRC Certified Paper Reactor" design there right now... on their own dime. INL already has all the programmatic 'piece parts' in place to do it, including Quality, Engineering, Testing, Security, etc programs. You should ask NuScale why they aren't. It would have the advantage of incorporating the completed Start-Up Test Program operational data (including Anticipated Operational Occurrences, AOOs, like Turb Trip, LOMFP, etc) into the NuScale Simulator code models (bench marking). Then run the HFE Program on the bench marked Simulator using actual plant procedures including the Secondary Plant equipment, instead of 'NuScale Functional Requirements' limited to the scope of NuScale NSSS Supply. This is the common sense method to deal with the proposed NuScale reduced Licensed Operator manning issue. Note NuScale's proposed manning for a 12-Unit Site meets current NRC Reg requirements for a 1-Unit Site, which is all that would exist at this time. (A hidden advantage of this way is since INL Security controls Site access, they don't have to let INPO in!)

Nice to see rational thought rather than an anti discussion laconic response, this is a forum after all.


 


 

[GLW]

.............. (A hidden advantage of this way is since INL Security controls Site access, they don't have to let INPO in!)

So, is the big INPO "in" the NRC / Security spheres of accountability or is it ANI?

or something else?

[GLW]

....IMO any private 'capitol' (including NuScale) could be building, testing, etc an "Un-NRC Certified Paper Reactor" design there right now... on their own dime.....

which gets to my point,...

NuScale has no dime,....

since year 2000 there is more 700 million invested into that SMR concept without an actual SMR putting out power anywhere,...

that's 18 years!!!!

a lot of these NuScale guys are gonna be retired before 2026 (at the earliest),...

and how many more millions before that "proposed" milestone?!?

I'm just saying,....

https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03292018-463

[Marlin]

which gets to my point,...

NuScale has no dime,....

since year 2000 there is more 700 million invested into that SMR concept without an actual SMR putting out power anywhere,...

that's 18 years!!!!

a lot of these NuScale guys are gonna be retired before 2026 (at the earliest),...

and how many more millions before that "proposed" milestone?!?

I'm just saying,....

https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03292018-463

Are you good with the subsidies for wind and solar. Those are operating subsidies not research for new technology which is a normal funding by government.

Just sayin'

What about the environmental side of this. I am a Global warming skeptic but there is more coming our of fossil fuel stacks than C02, not a crisis but it is clear that our long term energy needs have to morph into new technologies. Wind and solar are our new hazardous waste crisis in the future the unintended consequence of the alarmist environmental movement. I am not so much interested in zero CO2 emissions as not wanting to crap in our own nest.

Again Just sayin'



 

[GLW]

Are you good with the subsidies for wind and solar. Those are operating subsidies not research for new technology which is a normal funding by government.

OMG!!!!

you've known me for how long?!?!?!?!

you already know I am not!!!!!

BUT!!!!!

I don't like the "Johnny did it too!!!",...

I do not think wind and solar and all the others should be subsidized into the ever after just because they cannot compete with natural gas or coal,...

Nor should nuclear,....

you also know I believe we have a DOE but no energy policy,....

energy policy which subsidizes basic infrastructure for the common good needs to address all concerns,...

including reserving our vast natural gas inventories for future use in those energy devices which best utilize natural gas,...

which is not pushing trons thru a wire,....

THAT's a "free market" exploitation of natural resources,....

your most recent inferred justification for the SMR debacle smacks of "they can get it so can we!!!!",...

I'm not wired that way,....

it IS wrong for those other subsidies to be done the way they are,....

and it IS wrong for 700 million dollars to be spent on a technology company which is not likely to ever payback the "investment",...

NuScale, Solyndra, etc.,....

I see little difference in the outcome,....

just 'cause I'm a nukeworker don't make it right,....

[Marlin]

OMG!!!!

you've known me for how long?!?!?!?!

you already know I am not!!!!!

Rhetorical

it IS wrong for those other subsidies to be done the way they are,....

and it IS wrong for 700 million dollars to be spent on a technology company which is not likely to ever payback the "investment",...

NuScale, Solyndra, etc.,....

I see little difference in the outcome,....

just 'cause I'm a nukeworker don't make it right,....

   Solyndra was a business with existing technology NuScale is emerging technology even in the nuclear field. Government has and should help to launch new technologies not support PC alarmist agenda. NuScale may not pay back the investment on it's first project but the payback to the nation long term in new technology should be the issue (    YMMV).

[Marlin]

Rhetorical

Failure in use of emoji's 

[GLW]

there is no technical rea

Rhetorical

   Solyndra was a business with existing technology NuScale is emerging technology even in the nuclear field. Government has and should help to launch new technologies not support PC alarmist agenda. NuScale may not pay back the investment on it's first project but the payback to the nation long term in new technology should be the issue (    YMMV).

read this:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

SMRs are not currently on the grid for reasons other than technical viability,....

SMRs in the USA today are like these were once upon a time, too much investment, too little payback:

[Marlin]

there is no technical rea
read this:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

SMRs are not currently on the grid for reasons other than technical viability,....

SMRs in the USA today are like these were once upon a time, too much investment, too little payback:

Very long read and there are a lot of small reactors on the junk heap but I don't think your citation supports your conclusion. Here is the excerpt about the NuScale effort.

NuScaleA smaller unit is the NuScale Power Module, a 160 MWt, 50 MWe integral PWR with natural circulation. In December 2013 the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it would support accelerated development of the design for early deployment on a 50-50 cost share basis. An agreement for $217 million over five years was signed in May 2014 by NuScale Power. In September 2017, following acceptance of the company's design certification application (DCA) by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) earlier in the year, NuScale applied for the second part of its loan guarantee with the US DOE.It will be factory-built with 3-metre diameter pressure vessel and convection cooling, with the only moving parts being the control rod drives. It uses standard PWR fuel enriched to 4.95% in normal PWR fuel assemblies (but which are only 2 m long), with 24-month refuelling cycle. Installed in a water-filled pool below ground level, the 4.6 m diameter, 22 m high cylindrical containment vessel module weighs 650 tonnes and contains the reactor with steam generator above it. A standard power plant would have 12 modules together giving about 600 MWe. An overhead crane would hoist each module from its pool to a separate part of the plant for refueling. Design operational lifetime is 60 years. It has full passive cooling in operation and after shutdown for an indefinite period, without even DC battery requirement. The NRC concluded in January 2018 that NuScale's design eliminated the need for class 1E power – a current requirement for all US nuclear plants. It claims good load-following capability, in line with EPRI requirements and also black start capability.The UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) has confirmed that the reactor can run on MOX fuel. It also said that a 12-module NuScale plant with full MOX cores could consume 100 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium in about 40 years, generating 200 TWh from it. This would be in line with Areva’s proposal for using the UK plutonium stockpile, especially since Areva is already contracted to make fuel for the NuScale reactor.NuScale-power-module-(NuScale).jpgNuScale Power Module (NuScale)The company estimated in 2010 that overnight capital cost for a 12-module, 540 MWe NuScale plant would be about $4000 per kilowatt, this in 2014 had risen to $5078/kWe net, with LCOE expected to be $100/MWh for first unit (or $90 for NOAK).The NuScale Power company was spun out of Oregon State University in 2007, though the original development was funded by the US Department of Energy. After NuScale experienced problems in funding its development, Fluor Corporation paid over $30 million for 55% of NuScale in October 2011. With the support of Fluor, NuScale expects to bring its technology to market in a timely manner. The DOE sees this as a "near-term LWR design." In August 2013 Rolls-Royce joined the venture to support an application for DOE funding, and in March 2014 Enercon Services took undisclosed equity to become a partner and assist with design certification and COL applications.NuScale lodged an application for US design certification in January 2017, and in July 2017 the NRC confirmed that its highly integrated protection system (HIPS) architecture was approved. NuScale has been engaged with the NRC since 2008, having spent some $130 million on licensing to November 2013. It expects the NRC review to take 40 months, so the first unit could be under construction in 2020 and in operation about 2023. A COL application is planned for early 2018. The company also expects to apply for generic design assessment in the UK in a similar timeframe. At the end of April 2018, NuScale announced that the NRC had completed the first and most intensive phase of the review for its SMR design certification.In March 2012 the US DOE signed an agreement with NuScale regarding constructing a demonstration unit at its Savannah River site in South Carolina.In mid-2013 NuScale launched the Western Initiative for Nuclear (WIN) – a broad, multi-western state collaboration* – to study the demonstration and deployment of a multi-module NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) plant in the western USA. WIN includes Energy Northwest (ENW) in Washington and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).  A demonstration NuScale SMR built as part of Project WIN is projected to be operational by 2024, at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), with UAMPS as the owner and ENW the operator. This would be followed by a full-scale 12-module plant (600 MWe) owned by UAMPS and run by Energy Northwest and costing $5000/kW on overnight basis, hence about $3.0 billion. Energy Northwest comprises 27 public utilities, and had examined small reactor possibilities before choosing NuScale and becoming part of the UAMPS Carbon-Free Power Project.* Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona.NuScale is investigating cogeneration options including desalination (with Aquatech), oil recovery from tar sands and refinery power (with Fluor), hydrogen production by high-temperature steam electrolysis (with INL) and flexible back-up for a wind farm (with UAMPS and Energy Northwest).

[mjd]

Very long read and there are a lot of small reactors on the junk heap but I don't think your citation supports your conclusion. Here is the excerpt about the NuScale effort.

NuScaleA smaller unit is the NuScale Power Module, a 160 MWt, 50 MWe integral PWR with natural circulation. In December 2013 the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it would support accelerated development of the design for early deployment on a 50-50 cost share basis. An agreement for $217 million over five years was signed in May 2014 by NuScale Power. In September 2017, following acceptance of the company's design certification application (DCA) by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) earlier in the year, NuScale applied for the second part of its loan guarantee with the US DOE.It will be factory-built with 3-metre diameter pressure vessel and convection cooling, with the only moving parts being the control rod drives. It uses standard PWR fuel enriched to 4.95% in normal PWR fuel assemblies (but which are only 2 m long), with 24-month refuelling cycle. Installed in a water-filled pool below ground level, the 4.6 m diameter, 22 m high cylindrical containment vessel module weighs 650 tonnes and contains the reactor with steam generator above it. A standard power plant would have 12 modules together giving about 600 MWe. An overhead crane would hoist each module from its pool to a separate part of the plant for refueling. Design operational lifetime is 60 years. It has full passive cooling in operation and after shutdown for an indefinite period, without even DC battery requirement. The NRC concluded in January 2018 that NuScale's design eliminated the need for class 1E power – a current requirement for all US nuclear plants. It claims good load-following capability, in line with EPRI requirements and also black start capability.The UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) has confirmed that the reactor can run on MOX fuel. It also said that a 12-module NuScale plant with full MOX cores could consume 100 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium in about 40 years, generating 200 TWh from it. This would be in line with Areva’s proposal for using the UK plutonium stockpile, especially since Areva is already contracted to make fuel for the NuScale reactor.NuScale-power-module-(NuScale).jpgNuScale Power Module (NuScale)The company estimated in 2010 that overnight capital cost for a 12-module, 540 MWe NuScale plant would be about $4000 per kilowatt, this in 2014 had risen to $5078/kWe net, with LCOE expected to be $100/MWh for first unit (or $90 for NOAK).The NuScale Power company was spun out of Oregon State University in 2007, though the original development was funded by the US Department of Energy. After NuScale experienced problems in funding its development, Fluor Corporation paid over $30 million for 55% of NuScale in October 2011. With the support of Fluor, NuScale expects to bring its technology to market in a timely manner. The DOE sees this as a "near-term LWR design." In August 2013 Rolls-Royce joined the venture to support an application for DOE funding, and in March 2014 Enercon Services took undisclosed equity to become a partner and assist with design certification and COL applications.NuScale lodged an application for US design certification in January 2017, and in July 2017 the NRC confirmed that its highly integrated protection system (HIPS) architecture was approved. NuScale has been engaged with the NRC since 2008, having spent some $130 million on licensing to November 2013. It expects the NRC review to take 40 months, so the first unit could be under construction in 2020 and in operation about 2023. A COL application is planned for early 2018. The company also expects to apply for generic design assessment in the UK in a similar timeframe. At the end of April 2018, NuScale announced that the NRC had completed the first and most intensive phase of the review for its SMR design certification.In March 2012 the US DOE signed an agreement with NuScale regarding constructing a demonstration unit at its Savannah River site in South Carolina.In mid-2013 NuScale launched the Western Initiative for Nuclear (WIN) – a broad, multi-western state collaboration* – to study the demonstration and deployment of a multi-module NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) plant in the western USA. WIN includes Energy Northwest (ENW) in Washington and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).  A demonstration NuScale SMR built as part of Project WIN is projected to be operational by 2024, at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), with UAMPS as the owner and ENW the operator. This would be followed by a full-scale 12-module plant (600 MWe) owned by UAMPS and run by Energy Northwest and costing $5000/kW on overnight basis, hence about $3.0 billion. Energy Northwest comprises 27 public utilities, and had examined small reactor possibilities before choosing NuScale and becoming part of the UAMPS Carbon-Free Power Project.* Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona.NuScale is investigating cogeneration options including desalination (with Aquatech), oil recovery from tar sands and refinery power (with Fluor), hydrogen production by high-temperature steam electrolysis (with INL) and flexible back-up for a wind farm (with UAMPS and Energy Northwest).

This is all basically true history. My point above was to answer Sloglo's question. The current plan is build it on the INL site and operated by ENW, but it will be done there under the current NRC process (which I believe is either 10CFR50 or 52 (COL). And AFTER NRC Design Certification. But it does not have to be done that way... there is another process to use (can't recall the specific CFR section right now) and let INL manage it independently of NRC. I'm sure NuScale (and NuScale investors) has chosen this current path because they believe there is more potential market value (foreign?) for the NRC Design Certification route. Time will tell. In my humble opinion... if you want buyers to place orders for a FOAK design, build it, test it, run it... prove the paper reactor runs. The navy does it without NRC.

Different era I know, but W turn-keyed their 3-loop Robinson (PWR) Unit for ~$50M and 'gave it away' just to prove it for potential buyers. I think similar was done by GE (BWR) at Oyster Creek. I think the bigger issue for SMRs is are there US buyers, not the route to get there. But my (jaded) opinion is the less NRC the quicker, cheaper, and better.

[Marlin]

But my (jaded) opinion is the less NRC the quicker, cheaper, and better.

Definitely on the same page there.

[GLW]

Very long read and there are a lot of small reactors on the junk heap but I don't think your citation supports your conclusion. Here is the excerpt about the NuScale effort......

we post links to minimize filling forum space with long passages,....

even that citation lists pollyanna hyperbole,....

for instance this:

A demonstration NuScale SMR built as part of Project WIN is projected to be operational by 2024, at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), with UAMPS as the owner and ENW the operator




multiple links, from the folks actually doing the proposed project do not list 2024 as the date,...


nope, no sooner than 2026 is listed,....


and the years keep piling on:


https://www.energy-northwest.com/ourenergyprojects/smr/Pages/default.aspx


https://neutronbytes.com/2017/05/07/idaho-lab-plans-news-uses-for-nuscale-smr/


http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/company/nuscale-submits-first-ever-small-modular-reactor-design-certification-applicat


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/nuscale-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-first-ever-to-complete-nrc-phase-1-review.html

[Marlin]

we post links to minimize filling forum space with long passages,....

Seriously, I just said it was a long read not a criticism of the link.

even that citation lists pollyanna hyperbole,....

for instance this:

A demonstration NuScale SMR built as part of Project WIN is projected to be operational by 2024, at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), with UAMPS as the owner and ENW the operator

Opinion not fact schedule delays are common in any industry for new technology.

[Marlin]

Opinion not fact schedule delays are common in any industry for new technology.

Like fusion     


 

[hamsamich]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/21/if-innovation-makes-everything-cheaper-why-does-it-make-nuclear-power-more-expensive/#4704e30a2d7d

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document

mentions SMRs in the paper when discussing optimal sized reactor, and talks about the reasons why building nukes have exponentially increased in general since the 1970s

[SloGlo]

mjd, et al...
may bee eye should have said gov't cert & licensing when aye wrote
"can sum won build a reactor in the u.s.a. without n.r.c. certification and licensing? "
butt we mite have mist all the beautiful prose since that post.
how ever, thinking that putting a reactor inn won's own back yard sans any certification oar licensing is gonna run a fowl of a law oar too, knot two mention bureaucratic bureaus full of rules n regs.  plus get what ever insurance is kept, cancelled.
udder wise, the boy scouts wood have a merit badge for reactor build.

[GLW]

Seriously, I just said it was a long read not a criticism of the link.....

I was adducing, mr. moderator, that once upon a time we encouraged links rather than long pastes from reference sites,....

no criticism of the content meant by that typed statement,...

Opinion not fact schedule delays are common in any industry for new technology.

not opinion,...

the lead link is from Energy Northwest,...

EN is operating the dam thing!!!!!!!

EN is stating not operational before 2026,...

[Marlin]

I was adducing, mr. moderator, that once upon a time we encouraged links rather than long pastes from reference sites,....

no criticism of the content meant by that typed statement,...

not opinion,...

the lead link is from Energy Northwest,...

EN is operating the dam thing!!!!!!!

EN is stating not operational before 2026,...

I am starting to feel like I am playing chess with a pigeon.

[GLW]

I am starting to feel like I am playing chess with a pigeon.

I do not even know what that means,...

[TVA]

If you want to sell the electricity publicly you HAVE to go to the NRC. No getting around it.

[Marlin]

If you want to sell the electricity publicly you HAVE to go to the NRC. No getting around it.

Privately owned facilities will be NRC regulated power or not. DOE has external regulatory agreements with the NRC for some of it's reactors. The SMR for NuScale appears to be a private facility on government land and is pursuing a NRC license. Our comments were speculation and would have applied to the pilot plant as a proof of concept but thanks for the input.

[Marlin]

I do not even know what that means,...

The pigeon struts around the board kicking over the pieces then struts off declaring victory. Maybe I should have said it was like trying to nail jello to the floor.

[GLW]

The pigeon struts around the board kicking over the pieces then struts off declaring victory. Maybe I should have said it was like trying to nail jello to the floor.

well, to tell you straight my old sometimes comrade / sometimes oppugner,...

I sometimes feel the same way,...

'bout you,....