NUCLEAR POWER TO THE RESCUE

National Center for Policy Analysis ^ | September 5, 2006 | Paul Driessen

[thackney]

A revolutionary nuclear energy technology is being designed and built in South Africa, but with suppliers and partners in many other nations, says Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The 165-megawatt Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) are small and inexpensive enough to provide electrical power for emerging economies, individual cities or large industrial complexes. However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

Process heat from PBMR reactors can also be used directly to desalinate sea water, produce hydrogen from water, turn coal, oil shale and tar sands into liquid petroleum, and power refineries, chemical plants and tertiary recovery operations at mature oil fields.

The fuel comes in the form of baseball-sized graphite balls, each containing sugar-grain-sized particles of uranium encapsulated in high-temperature graphite and ceramic; this makes them easier and safer to handle than conventional fuel rods, says Pretoria-based nuclear physicist Dr. Kelvin Kemm.

It also reduces waste disposal problems and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation; conventional fuel rod assemblies are removed long before complete burn-up, to avoid damage to their housings; but PBMR fuel balls are burnt to depletion.

Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns.

Since PBMRs can be built where needed, long, expensive power lines are unnecessary; moreover, the simple design permits rapid construction (in about 24 months), and the plants don't emit carbon dioxide.

PBMR technology could soon generate millions of jobs in research, design and construction industries -- and millions in industries that will prosper from having plentiful low-cost heat and electricity. It will help save habitats that are now being chopped into firewood -- and improve health and living standards for countless families, says Driessen.

[alnitak]

How many MW of commercial (not research) pebble-bed plant are expected to be built over the next decade?

[Brilliant]

"cooled by helium..."


Maybe that helium reserve is going to come in handy afterall.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

the loony left will never buy it and the democraps have put so many restrictions on nuke reactors in our country that it takes decades to wind through the red tape to build one.

[jpsb]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

this alone (if it is the whole truth) makes this type of fuel system very desirable,IMO: "...conventional fuel rod assemblies are removed long before complete burn-up, to avoid damage to their housings; but PBMR fuel balls are burnt to depletion."

[doc30]

The simple fact it is nuclear energy will doom it's implementation in the U.S. The average citizen doesn't understand the advances in reactor design and fundamental shifts a pebble bed reactor has with respect to efficientcy and safety. The envirowackos will use that ignorance against the better interests of this country and continue their massive no nuclear power for any reason at any time attitude. Even if the go ahead was given, it would be tied up in state and federal courts for decades before the first shovelful of dirt is turned in the construction.

[kidd]

Possible drawbacks:
1. Since they are inherently safe, there may not be a need for a containment structure to contain the results of an accident. This may make these reactors more attractive as a terrorist target. Solution: require a missle shield.

2. There will be a greater volume of radioactive waste (not more radioactivity), simply because of the size of the pebble. Offsetting aspects of a PBMR include the ability to use non-enriched uranium, and the used pebbles are inherently safer to handle...and some argue are safe enough to dispose of as is.

[CPT Clay]

One size fits all nuclear reactor please. Just like Southwest Airlines only flys 737. If there is a problem in one, look at this problem for all.

[bobsunshine]

Here is some info on the reactors:

One of the political drawbacks is that there is no "Containment building". People get worried about leaks and terrorists attacks.

The second is that there is more spent fuel per kw then conventional nuclear plants. Thus the feeling is that would be more waste to bury.

It appears there are critics and supporters all over. There was an accident in Germany about 20 years back using a similar pebble reactor design (pebble got stuck in a cooling line). Here are some more links for those interested:

http://www.nacworldwide.com/Links/Pebble-Bed-Reactor.htm

https://www.pbmr.com/

Also, Texas will be the state with the first new nuclear plants since 1978. These are conventional ones, but it is a start:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19473

Not a single nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States since 1978, but that is about to change as General Electric and Hitachi have announced a joint venture to build two nuclear power plants in Texas.

The Texas project, announced in June with plants scheduled to begin operations in 2014,...

Also noteworthy is the relative lack of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) sentiment regarding nuclear power. A June 25 Dallas Morning News house editorial in response to the announcement of the new nuclear power plants in Texas voiced just the opposite opinion.

[Ditto]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

Unknowns.

1st, these are just designs. None has ever been built. 2nd, fuel handling is extremely complex. 3rd, it's gas cooled and past experience with gas cooled reactors has not been encouraging from a reliability standpoint. There are just too many unknowns at this point to start jumping up and down.

All that said, I'd like to see research continue and see if these can be commercially viable, but I wouldn't dump all of my eggs in that basket right now. We know that light water reactors work well and we need to start building more of them now.

[RightWhale]

What is the Toshiba unit they were going to install at Galena?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns."

Being "cooled by helium" has zip to do with the ability to sited near or away from water. ANY nuke reactor can be sited near or away from water---all that changes is the cooling tower design.

[Wonder Warthog]

"One size fits all nuclear reactor please. Just like Southwest Airlines only flys 737. If there is a problem in one, look at this problem for all."

Westinghouse tried this back in the early 1970's. Killed by the anti-nuke hysteria.

[Centurion2000]

Whatever happened to that Mitsubishi or Toshiba nuke plant that was a self contained unit using it's own shielding (liquid lead) as the heat transformation mechanism? We need about 100 of those here now (50MW output)

[Gorjus]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

I've very much in favor of nuclear power, and have written so in this forum and others many times. However . . .

This article makes no mention at all of cost. I think that's no coincidence. Creating all those pebbles in the first place is going to be very expensive. It wouldn't be cost-competitive against rational nuclear reactor designs - but of course the libs are not rational about nuclear power.

If the economics support it, then great. If we don't do something, the costs of alternative ways to generate power will rise until this is cost-competitive, which is sort of like hitting your thumb with a hammer so you don't think about your toothache.

[thackney]

That is a different type of reactor.

Nuclear Power for Galena, Alaska
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

[burzum]

However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

As a former reactor operator, I'm not impressed with that suggestion. One control room means that the control signal wiring from multiple reactors will merge. The Browns Ferry fire of 1975 showed the idiocy of that idea.

For new reactors there should be only one control room per reactor and the number of shared vital systems should be minimized (though obviously isolatable cross connects should be allowed).

[TRY ONE]

Bump....

[Paradox]

I am very pro-nuclear, and any honest GW endorsing environmentalist should be too. The fact that they have NOT rushed headlong into supporting new Nukes and nuke technology pretty much exposes the Greens as Luddites..

[alnitak]

This PDF (which I will not excerpt because it needs to be read in detail) indicates that it is more expensive that other nuclear power designs such as Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) (whatever that is)

www.ne.doe.gov/reports/NuclIndustryStudy.pdf

[Boiler Plate]

A little nukie never hurt anyone.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

A little nukie never hurt anyone.

Especially when they are small and you can string them together if you need more.

[nuke rocketeer]

PMBR's have been debated for several years and this one in SA is a few years behind schedule. My company (Westinghouse) is heavily involved in it. IMHO, it's too small (in MWe output) to be of very much interest to the US, Europe, Japan and China. It uses gas turbines to extract energy from the hot helium and there is a limit of about 250 -300 MWe on gas turbine output, whereas steam turbines get as high as 1500 MWe. Even if they tried to operate it a a combined cycle mode with gas and steam turbines, the best they could get is about 500 MWe. Given the cost of fuel, waste disposal, and regulatory structures, you get better bang for the buck by going with the current and new light water reactors we have been building for years.

High temperature Ggs reactors are a good technology that could be more useful if they were operated in a combined cycle mode at higher outputs. A reliable demn=onstration in the 800-1000 MWe range would go a long way to getting it accepted in the US, Europe, and Japan. The Ft. St. Vrain experience makes many US utilities wary of HTGR's though.

[caveat emptor]

A couple of introductions to thorium reactors: here and here.

[jpsb]

It is my understanding that the biggest cost of a N reactor is the cost to dismantle once it is no longer useable. I favor N power but would like to see some clev er thinking done about the waste problem.

[Gorjus]

It is my understanding that the biggest cost of a N reactor is the cost to dismantle once it is no longer useable.

I've never heard this particular issue raised before. I'm not sure we've actually dismantled any power reactors as unusable in the US. Some reactors have been decommissioned in place.

But I'd disagree with the statement even if it were in general discussion. Far and away the biggest cost of a nuclear reactor is administrative impendimentia created by those who hate nuclear power. It takes three meetings, with a cast of a dozen including highly trained nuclear engineers, to change a light bulb in a monitor panel. This is not a joke or an exaggeration.

We should be so lucky that the needless costs of nuclear power could be reduced to the point that disposal of wastes and dismantling of obsolete reactors were the biggest costs. If that is true today, it is because the paranoia of nuclear power haters requires that anything within the fence (including the fence) at a nuclear power plant needs to be treated as though it were highly radioactive waste - preventing it from being salvaged for value. The actual radiation exposure of anything outside the reactor vessel itself is minimal. Even the containment structure is salvageable if we wanted to do so, being about as radioactive as an equivalent amount of metal exposed to direct sunlight for a comparable time.

I am reminded that for years gasoline was burned off during the petroleum refining process as unusable. All we wanted was kerosene and other lower distillates. And today, one of the most productive sources of gold in the US is the slag piles of 'unusable' ore detritus that was discarded as the gold was originally mined. If I had the money, I would be buying all the 'waste' nuclear fuel I could get my hands on. In a generation, that will be highly valuable. Saving it, as in Yucca Flats, is going to turn out to be a very wise decision.

[chimera]

It is my understanding that the biggest cost of a N reactor is the cost to dismantle once it is no longer useable. I favor N power but would like to see some clev er thinking done about the waste problem.

There has been some experience, in this country, and worldwide, with power reactor decommissioning. The costs vary depending on when the plant was built in the first place (newer plants have higher capital costs because of construction delays caused by intervenors). But the numbers I recall are in the range of 10-30% of the initial capital investment, adjusted for inflation, are required for decommissioning and restoration.

BTW, not many people know it, but the nuclear industry is one of the few, perhaps the only, industry that is required to set funds aside ahead of time to cover decommissioning costs. This is known as the decommissioning fund and every licensed reactor has to demonstrate on a periodic basis to the NRC that funds are available for this purpose. I don't think the same is required of other industries, like refineries, chemical plants, factories, etc. I know some mining operations that involve strip mining are required to "restore" the land, but, to be honest, most places I've seen "restored" in this manner look more like a covered-over landfill. In my town alone there are dozens of abandoned industrial sites, such are aircraft manufacturing, steel rolling mills, bearing plants, a trash-to-power generating plant, that were simply abandoned in place, with the owners walking away and letting them rot, leaving it to "someone else" to deal with the legacy. Nuclear energy generating plants are required by law to plan for their own burial, yet you'll hear anti-nuke kooks ranting all the time about how "evil" the industry is because it plans ahead to manage it's waste.

As far as "waste" goes (most of the material isn't that at all), reprocessing with full actinide recycle is the way to deal with it. We have the technology and the know-how to do it, but lack the political will.

[jpsb]

Well thanks for the info, guess I was wrong (happy to be wrong this time!) about shutdown costs on a nuke plant. thanks again.

[DungeonMaster]

People don't want nukes.

[thackney]

Many intelligent people want to see the US use more nuclear power.

[DungeonMaster]

People are not that easily manipulated about nukes.

[thackney]

And apparently, some are not easily informed.

[ArrogantBustard]

favor N power but would like to see some clev er thinking done about the waste problem

The most "clever" approach to dealing with radioactive waste is to change your way of thinking ... it's not "waste", it's a recycleable resource. Pres. Jimmy Carter banned, by executive order, the reprocessing of used reactor fuel assemblies in the US. This was one of his many acts of malfeasance in office.