Category Archives: Department of Energy

No easy road for U.S. nuclear new build

Posted on May 3, 2012 by dyurman| 5 Comments

Getting the NRC license is just the first step

By Dan Yurman

Last December, Southern Nuclear had plenty to celebrate on New Year’s Eve. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had just approved the safety certification for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, setting the stage for a decision on February 9, 2012, to issue reactor licenses to build two of them.

As Southern began mobilizing the full scope of its construction activity at its Vogtle site in Georgia, two issues arose that appeared inevitable based on what we know about the nuclear energy industry in the second decade of the 21st century.

First, the federal government continued to drag its feet on fulfilling its commitment to complete the final term sheet of the $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the project. Second, anti-nuclear groups launched a campaign to stop the construction activity.

Southern’s Vogtle project

Southern’s chief executive officer Thomas Fanning is not a man to put all of his eggs in one basket. In response to reports that the Department of Energy might not approve favorable terms on the credit risk premium for an $8.3 billion loan guarantee, he said that the utility has the ability to go to capital markets without it.

The issue at hand is the cost of the “risk premium,” which is the fee the utility must pay the government in return for the loan guarantee. A fee of between 1-2 percent of the amount covered ($83-166 million) is a lot of money, so every point counts.

In addition to working out a rate to charge the utility, the DOE has to contend with political pressure from Congress over the now ill-fated Solyndra loan that cost the government over half a billion dollars. It puts any new decision for any type of loan guarantee under a microscope.

David Frantz, the acting director of the DOE loan program, told a House Appropriations Committee hearing in March that he expects the agency to close on the loan guarantee. However, Alex Flint, vice president of government affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told Platts on March 28 that he worries the agency may not meet that commitment. He said that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which shares authority for approval of the loan guarantee with the DOE, “is not an enthusiastic supporter of the program.”

Flint added that the formula used by OMB “is flawed” and will result in a fee that is too high.

Another issue is that the way the collateral for the loan guarantee is calculated creates issues for the multiple equity partners on the Vogtle project. They want to limit their liability to their equity stake in the project. The government is seeking deeper pockets.

Another opening for contentions

An environmental group that wants to stop the construction of the Vogtle site reactors has won a partial victory in U.S. district court. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy won a ruling that will disclose some details of the DOE’s loan guarantee credit subsidy fee information for the $14 billion project.

Federal District Court Chief Judge Royce Lambert also criticized the DOE for denying the original Freedom of Information Act request. He said in his ruling that the DOE had failed to provide adequate justification for withholding the documents.

The Southern Alliance is also one of nine environmental groups that expects to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to halt construction of the Vogtle project while other courts consider previous legal challenges to the NRC’s action to grant the reactors a license. The NRC rejected the groups’ petition challenges to its February 9 decision.

The groups said that the NRC failed to adequately address safety issues that emerged from the Fukushima crisis. The NRC said it had done so and that reactors under construction would be held accountable for future safety orders based on their application to specific designs.

This is a key issue for Southern, which points out that any halt to construction would be costly in terms of schedule delays. Also, the utility worries that design changes mandated by the NRC could drive up construction costs.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who was outvoted by 4-1 on the licenses for the Vogtle reactors, said on March 31 that the review of the licenses for two similar AP1000s planned to be built by Progress Energy in Florida could be delayed if he has his way.

He wants all of the Fukushima safety related changes to U.S. reactors, including new starts, in place before any more licenses are issued by the agency.

The other four commissioners have rejected this position, saying that the agency can issue new safety orders whenever necessary and that there is no need to hold up new licenses.

Progress Energy is also in the midst of a merger with Duke Energy, which could change the project’s schedule or possibly end it depending on economic conditions and other financial and market issues for the new combined firm. The closing date for the merger has been postponed once and may be delayed again if state and federal energy regulatory agencies don’t sign off on it.

_______________________

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, financing, lawsuit, licensing, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear technology

Competition heats up for DOE SMR funding

Posted on April 20, 2012 by dyurman| 4 Comments

Westinghouse gets support from Missouri for 225-MW reactor

By Dan Yurman

The race to win $452 million in cost-shared funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for licensing and technical support to bring a small modular reactor (SMR) to market by 2022 got a new entry on April 19. Westinghouse has partnered with Ameren (NYSE:AEE) to submit a proposal based on the reactor vendor’s design of a 225-MW SMR.

The proposal won enthusiastic support from elected officials, including Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, with the promise of high-paying manufacturing jobs to build the components for the reactors in Missouri. Nixon called it a “transformational economic development opportunity.”

A consortium composed of Westinghouse, Ameren, and regional electrical utilities will prepare the proposal to submit to the DOE. The cost-share agreement covers a five-year period and would involve equal spending by the winning team and the government up to $904 million. The government may make two awards splitting the funds among developers.

The Westinghouse SMR is a 225-MW light water reactor design based on the firm’s 1100-MW AP1000, which achieved design certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last December. Westinghouse is building four units in China, and in 2012 began construction of four units in the United States—two in Georgia and two more in South Carolina.

Westinghouse SMR conceptual design diagram

If Westinghouse wins the DOE funding, it could submit combined license applications to build and operate, over time, up to five of its SMRs with Ameren in Missouri—eventually providing the equivalent of a single AP1000 reactor.

Kate Jackson, chief technology officer for Westinghouse, said in a statement that the first unit would be built and ready to enter revenue service within 24 months of receiving an NRC license.

Westinghouse SMR summary table of specifications

Change in strategy for Ameren

Until recently, Ameren had been pursuing a legislative strategy of seeking to change a 1976 Missouri law that banned CWIP. The acronym means “construction work in progress” and it defines a rate mechanism that would, if authorized, allow a utility to charge customers for the costs of an early site permit, licensing, and construction of a new reactor as they come in.

Ameren has twice tried and failed to win legislative approval to overturn the 1976 law. In 2012, on the third iteration, Ameren sought cost recovery just for the early site permit (ESP) in hopes that the legislature might be more amenable. That tactic appeared to be working. On March 8, the Missouri House committee on utilities passed a bill supporting the more limited concept. The bill, introduced by Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-Mokane), provides for up to $45 million to be recovered for an application for an ESP.

Ameren President Warner Baxter told the Kansas City Star on April 20, however, that the firm is suspending its drive for CWIP and instead is focusing on its new partnership with Westinghouse.

Greenhouse gases by the way

Even so, opponents of the effort to bring SMRs to Missouri lined up to sound off. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) told the Kansas City Star that the new KCP&L 850-MW coal-fired power plant cost $2 billion, or $2,350/Kw—about half the estimated price of the Westinghouse SMR at $5,000/Kw.

Ironically, Ellen Vancko, the UCS spokesperson, said that natural gas plants might be cheaper and faster to build. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions wasn’t mentioned in the report of her remarks.

Crowded field for DOE dollars

Competition to the bid by Westinghouse to win the DOE money will most likely come from other developers of SMRs using light water reactor technology.

Babcock & Wilcox is developing a 180-MW unit and has an agreement for cost-shared licensing and development with the Tennessee Valley Authority for two units at the utility’s Clinch River site in Tennessee. B&W already has its own manufacturing supply chain in Ohio and Indiana.

NuScale recently announced it would develop a unit for testing and licensing purposes at the DOE’s Savannah River Site. The DOE is not providing any money for the project, which will operate as a paying tenant at the lab. NuScale is partnering with NuHub, a South Carolina economic development organization to pursue the new build.

Further afield there are several efforts to develop fast reactors as SMRs, including Hyperion, which recently went through a management reorganization and re-branded itself as Gen4 Energy. It is working with a venture capital firm in Denver to commercialize a 25-MW design first developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The DOE says that it will make a decision by September 2012 on how it will award the funds. While the agency has the first of five years of funding in hand, future funding will depend on the decisions in appropriation bills of a deficit-minded Congress. The outcome of the presidential election and possible changes in the House and Senate will all play in the mix to determine whether the DOE will be able to deliver on a five-year funding commitment.

__________________

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, News, Small modular reactors

ANS President Eric Loewen submits testimony on FY 2013 energy appropriations

Posted on April 2, 2012 by lscheele| 2 Comments

On Friday, March 30, American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen submitted outside written testimony on behalf of the American Nuclear Society to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The testimony addresses on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction—in particular, funding for nuclear programs under DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

The testimony is below and can be downloaded in .pdf format by clicking HERE.

Testimony by Eric P. Loewen Ph.D.
President, American Nuclear Society
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
On the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
March 30, 2012

Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 12,000 members of the American Nuclear Society, I am pleased to provide testimony on FY 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

As you know, ANS represents a diverse cadre of nuclear professionals. As such, our members’ opinions on nuclear issues are often wide-ranging, and perhaps sometimes different from the Subcommittee. The ANS, however, truly appreciates the thoughtful and deliberate manner in which the Subcommittee approaches issues related to nuclear energy, science, and technology.

ANS believes the United States must maintain its nuclear energy technology capabilities, both from an energy and national security perspective. While we recognize that US demand for new nuclear reactors has cooled recently because of our economic downturn and historically low natural gas prices, the ANS knows nuclear energy is still an indispensable part of our long-term energy policy in the US.

The administration has set forth a plan to address the current set of nuclear challenges: a targeted research and development program to promote sustainability of our current light water reactor fleet; a program to accelerate development and licensing of light water Small Modular Reactors (SMRs); research programs focused on the nuclear fuel cycle, advanced reactors, and developing simulation and modeling tools that have broad application across the nuclear sector.

We are puzzled however by the President’s FY 2013 budget request for the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE), which is clearly insufficient to maintain progress on the administration’s own announced priorities.

Administration’s budget documents show a net increase of 0.7% over FY 2012, which on the surface would seem to be a reasonable request given the current fiscal pressures. Upon closer inspection, however, the administration proposes moving $95 million in funding for “Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security” into the main DOE NE budget from Other Defense Activities account. Without this clever piece of accounting, the actual FY 13 DOE NE budget would be cut by 11.7%, while the overall funding level for DOE would increase by 3.2%.

It is apparent that the president’s budget request for DOE NE is more a product of internal budgetary “goal posting” than a deliberate attempt to reduce the scope of the administration’s initiatives in nuclear energy science and technology.

The ANS believes it is extremely important to maintain funding for the DOE NE at consistent levels, and urges the subcommittee to base its FY 2013 recommendations on FY 2012 enacted levels. As such, our specific program recommendations for DOE NE assume “flat funding” in FY 2013.

We urge the Subcommittee to support the continuation of the Integrated University Program. Specifically, we request that the Subcommittee to restore the full $15 million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s portion of the IUP program and the $5 million FY12 appropriated level for DOE-NE. While we are pleased that the current leadership of the DOE NE has reestablished its commitment as the primary steward of university-based nuclear education programs, we believe it is critically important for NRC to continue its activities in this area. As you may recall, it was the House Energy and Water Subcommittee that originally precipitated the transfer in funding for universities from DOE to NRC several budget cycles ago. If these activities are not funded, several very important activities will be terminated, including support for younger faculty awards, and collaboration on curriculum between two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning.

ANS recommends funding the SMR licensing technical program at $95 million, which represents an increase of $30 million over the President’s FY 2013 budget request level. Our recommended funding level would put the DOE SMR program on a sustainable trajectory to meet its budgetary milestones of $452 million over a 5 year period. The subcommittee should recognize that the US is in a full scale race with other nations, such as Russia, China, Korea and India, to develop and deploy SMR technology. SMRs offer an opportunity for improving the attractiveness of the US nuclear export portfolio and create manufacturing jobs in the US. The president’s budget request level is
simply insufficient to meet the program’s objectives.

The Advanced Reactor Concepts program should be funded at the FY 2012 enacted levels. ANS recognizes that the administration has de-prioritized the development of socalled Generation IV reactor designs. However, its proposed 43% cut in funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts program will essentially relinquish US global leadership in an American technology and throw away previous US investments. Forgoing this leadership directly impacts our ability to promote US safety and nonproliferation standards around the world for these technologies.

The Next Generation Nuclear Plant project should be funded at its authorized amount in EPAC of 2005 in FY 2013. ANS believes that DOE should fund the NGNP project for success and near-term results rather than settle for a slower pace of licensing “framework” activities. Developing a licensing “framework” does not establish technology leadership, rather it concrete foundations of this first-of-kind project that will establish the US as technology leaders.

Sadly however, the 47% percent cut proposed by the administration would not allow DOE to even pursue its stated “framework” course, and would also continue to cause irreversible losses to a program established in EPAC 2005. For instance, several samples of advanced fuels currently being tested in the INL Advanced Test Reactor would have to be prematurely removed, thereby destroying valuable scientific data (that took years to create), and not keeping with Congresses vision of the project established by law in 2005.

Finally, we urge the Subcommittee to provide such sums as may be necessary for the preservation of all scientific and technical documents and predictive modeling licensing codes related to the Yucca Mountain license application. The ANS membership has been deeply disappointed that the administration has essentially chosen to value politics over sound science in withdrawing the license application. We recognize that the Administration efforts with the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), and their recommendations to Congress. ANS provided input to the BRC. Prudence dictates that the technical fruits of nearly $10 billion worth of utility rate payer investments should be preserved for future repository efforts regardless of the location in the US.

In closing, our goals is to provide the Subcommittee with the views of our society as it assembles the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, and we stand ready and willing to provide additional technical assistance based on this information. At this moment in the life of our industry, I call for more attention to the need for our nation to have the courage of commitment to live up to our historical leadership role in nuclear technology. Unless we step up, we will be left behind.

Thank you.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, U.S. Congress

Good and bad news stories for nuclear 2011/2012

Posted on March 22, 2012 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

By Jim Hopf

After giving a brief update on recent Fukushima-related events in the United States, I’d like to talk about some good (but relatively unpublicized) things that have happened during what has otherwise been a very challenging year for the nuclear industry. Then I’ll discuss what, to me, was the most disconcerting story in the past year.

NRC response to Fukushima

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a series of new requirements for U.S. nuclear plants, as a result of its evaluation of the Fukushima event. Requirements include seismic evaluations and upgrades (if necessary), the addition of portable pumps and generators (sited at multiple, protected locations), and enhanced monitoring capability for spent fuel pools. For many older boiling water reactors, hardened vents may be required (if not already in place). Another requirement being discussed is the ability to maintain operations (and cooling) without off-site power indefinitely (as opposed to the current requirement of 4–8 hours).

During Senate testimony, NRC Chairman Jaczko and other commissioners appeared to disagree over the amount of time that will be required for plants to make the proposed changes. Jaczko stated that some of the changes are likely to take until 2017–2019 (something that he said he was “concerned” about), whereas other commissioners thought that the changes will be in place by 2016.

Good news in 2011/2012

We’re all aware of the fact that the final NRC licenses were finally granted for construction of the new Vogtle reactors. It is also true that the project is within budget and schedule so far. Some lesser-known bits of good news are discussed below.

NRC Accident Consequence Statement

This is one potentially very positive thing that happened for the industry recently, without much publicity or fanfare. In part as a result of its evaluation of Fukushima, the NRC released a position statement concerning the potential consequences of (even worst case) nuclear plant accidents. The NRC (finally) acknowledged what many of us have known for a long time. It stated that the risk to public health, even from a severe accident, is “very small”. It also stated that the risk of short-term fatalities from acute exposure was “essentially zero,” and that the scenario of a large amount of radiation being released very quickly
(thus requiring a rapid evacuation) was unrealistic.

This is probably as close as we’re going to get to a formal retraction of the earlier analyses/assumptions that formed the basis of emergency response planning over previous decades. These grossly unrealistic analyses predicted thousands of immediate deaths from acute exposure, followed by tens of thousands of long-term cancers. Chernobyl had already shown those analyses to be completely unrealistic, and (I suppose) Fukushima, with its complete lack of health impacts, was the final nail in the coffin.

But, alas, I suppose I’m being unrealistic in hoping that this could lead to some relief with respect to emergency planning requirements. Indeed, many seem to be drawing precisely the reverse conclusion, asking whether evacuation zones should be increased (never mind that many other facilities that are actually more dangerous, such as chemical plants, oil refineries, etc., do not have similar evacuation zones).

This is a shame, given that these evacuation zones/plans have always been an albatross around the industry’s neck that has been used relentlessly by nuclear opponents (e.g., the Shoreham plant). They always argue about how rapid evacuation may not be practical. Well, we’ve just (finally) realized that it’s not necessary!

Fukushima also showed that, even with respect to longer-term impacts, significant effects of even a worst-case meltdown do not extend beyond ~20–25 miles of the plant (in any direction). And yet we still hear people talking about populations as far as 50 miles from plants (e.g., New York City from the Indian Point plant).

Clean Energy Standard Legislation

The Senate Energy Committee finally released a detailed legislative proposal for a Clean Energy Standard. The final proposal is the result of many years of analysis and negotiation. While it is unlikely to pass (or be considered) this year, it is considered more likely to pass than other options such as comprehensive global warming legislation. It has the potential support of several moderate Republicans.

The good news is that the final details of the legislation appear to be rational and even-handed, and fairly good for the nuclear industry. The Standard requires that 85 percent of U.S. electricity generation be from “clean” sources by 2035. While the final version does allow partial credit for fossil sources like gas, the amount of partial credit scales (inversely) with the level of CO2 emissions (relative to a coal plant). Thus, non-emitting sources like nuclear would retain a significant advantage over gas, particularly in the later phases of the program (when an all-gas generation profile would no longer be able to meet the requirements).

SMRs Move Forward

The U.S. Department of Energy recently decided to provide $452 million in funding for licensing of small modular reactors (SMRs), over the next five years. The DOE is also making plans to host three SMR demonstration projects on the Savannah River Site. The three selected reactors are the 45-megawatt (MW) NuScale Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the 25-MW Gen4 Energy fast reactor, and a 140-MW PWR reactor from Holtec.

Hopefully, construction of the prototypes will speed the technological development of these reactors, although NRC licensing should occur in parallel. Use of the Savannah River complex may make siting these prototype reactors easier, which could speed licensing and deployment.

A New Low Level Waste Site (at last)

The Waste Control Specialists’ low level waste (LLW) site in Texas (near the New Mexico border) will soon begin operation. The site will take waste from 38 states. It will handle all types of LLW, including Class A, B, and C. Given the closure of the Barnwell site to out-of-compact waste, the Texas site is now the only site that accepts all classes of LLW from most states.

This represents a significant victory, given the level of difficulty the nation has had in siting new LLW disposal facilities, anywhere, for many decades. This is the first site to open in 30 years. For some time, the political task of opening new LLW sites was thought to be intractable.

It should also be noted that within the same general area (in southeast New Mexico), the local communities around the DOE’s WIPP repository are actively seeking to host the nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste as well. There is some indication that the state government is willing to consider the option.

Sanity Prevails in France

The French government recently released a new long-term energy options evaluation that concludes that the most economical and practical option is to extend the operating life of its existing reactor fleet from 40 years to 60 years.

In the past, French policy had always appeared to be to replace its reactors with new ones after ~40 years of life.  Given the long-standing position in the United States that light water reactors (LWRs) could be run safely for 60 or more years, I’ve always found the (old) French position to be puzzling. I wondered if it was, in part, just a means of creating extra work to keep its domestic industry employed and on top of its game, similar to U.S. Depression-era make-work programs.

In any event, it seems like they’ve finally come to their senses. Any new nukes should be used to increase, not maintain, capacity (i.e., be used to replace fossil fuels). The cost savings will be enormous. Perhaps this new position is partly a result of Fukushima. With political support for new reactor construction much lower, perhaps the French government concluded that the only way their nuclear capacity would be maintained would be through extended operation.

The biggest bad news story of 2011/2012

Despite the positive news stories discussed above, my level of optimism for nuclear’s future was deeply shaken last year, not by the Fukushima event itself, but by the public/media/political reaction to it, particularly in Japan.

Here in the United States, Fukushima is somewhat less significant. Polls show only small reductions in public support. New nukes remain highly popular in most regions/locations where new reactors are being considered. Also, in the United States, several other factors, including the lack of any global warming policies on the horizon, the fact that the economic downturn suppressed future power demand growth, and low natural gas costs due to the shale gas “miracle,” loom larger over nuclear’s future.

In the rest of the world, however, Fukushima has had a surprisingly large impact on public opinion in many, if not most nations. In addition to Japan and Germany, anti-nuclear opinion has surged in other nations with strong nuclear programs, such as France and South Korea. The reaction in Germany does not surprise or upset me much. They are merely returning to their usual long-standing anti-nuclear position (with the 2022 nuclear phase-out date actually being two years later than a long-standing 2020 phase-out date). I was (and am) utterly dismayed, however, by the public/political reaction in Japan.

Japanese Reaction

If one asks the question of how big a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake) a nuclear plant should be able to take, the rational answer is clearly not “infinite.” One quite reasonable answer given by many people is that the disaster should be sufficiently large that if it did occur, a meltdown would be the least of their problems. One would think that Fukushima would be a textbook case of this, with ~20,000 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami, no immediate deaths from the meltdown, and few if any projected future deaths. It is also true that the number of evacuees and lost homes due to the earthquake and tsunami is larger than that from the radiation release.

But then, we watched in horror as the world’s attention (media, etc.) focused mostly on the plant meltdown, as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami. Not only were the enormous impacts of the earthquake and tsunami (deaths, etc.) deemed less newsworthy than the plant meltdowns, but so were the vastly larger ongoing health and environmental impacts of fossil fuel generation. Apparently, such logical thinking on our part does not adequately consider various psychological and political factors.

According to the World Health Organization, fossil-fueled power generation causes hundreds of thousands of deaths, worldwide, every single year (i.e., on the order of 1000 deaths every single day). Even conservative estimates, based on the pessimistic linear-no-threshold assumption, predict less than ~1000 eventual deaths from Fukushima. Thus, in terms of health impacts, worldwide fossil fuel power generation is having an impact equal to (or worse than) having a Fukushima event occur every single day. And that’s before considering global warming.

Despite these facts, the people of Japan, and their political leaders, are apparently ready to shut down their nuclear plants and replace them with vastly more dangerous and harmful fossil fuel generation. They are willing to do this even through it will mean greatly increased air pollution and CO2 emissions, and will have a devastating effect on their economy. Japan has always had an export-driven industrial economy with large trade surpluses. For the first time in memory, however, Japan will be running a trade deficit, primarily due to the increased fossil fuel imports that are necessary to replace their nuclear generation. In addition to horrendous health and environmental impacts, the fossil generation will result in markedly higher power costs. Many of Japan’s heavy industries have threatened to move off-shore.

Double standard forever?

These reactions, in Japan and elsewhere, are leading me to believe that there is a deeply-ingrained prejudice against nuclear power as a means of power production; one that may never disappear. Whether it is the legacy of the bomb, or is due to enormous media/political influence of the world fossil fuel industry (who knows?), the fact is that minor impacts from nuclear are given far more attention, and are far less tolerated, than far larger impacts from fossil fuels and other technologies.

The double standard is also alive and well in the United States. Not only has the U.S. nuclear industry accepted the NRC’s new requirements without significant resistance, but they’ve even proactively pursued improvements on their own, without being legally required to do so. And yet, in congressional hearings
and elsewhere, many are not satisfied with the rate or amount of improvement,
saying that having to wait over five years is an unacceptable risk. Meanwhile, old “grandfathered” coal plants in the United States are still not meeting the requirements of the 1970 Clean Air Act, the result being tens of thousands of annual deaths. Despite the fact that the public health risks in question are orders of magnitude larger in the coal plants’ case, apparently taking over 40 years is okay for them, whereas five years is too long for nuclear’s Fukushima upgrades.

Nuclear has always been held to standards thousands of times as strict (in terms of dollars spent per life saved, etc.) than fossil fuels. Before Fuksushima, with all the attention being paid to global warming, I had thought that the playing field might start to become somewhat more balanced. Now, after Fukushima, nuclear requirements are becoming even more strict (with any notions of regulatory relief being put to bed), whereas attempts are now being made (in the United States, anyway) to reduce regulations/requirements on fossil fuels even further. Humble requests to reduce air pollution and/or CO2 emissions are met with calls to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

Thus, the spectacularly unlevel playing field will likely get even more unlevel. The Clean Energy Standard is the only hope left out there.

Our industry seems all too eager to accept unprecedentedly stringent requirements, for love of the engineering challenge, apparently. The most pertinent example is the acceptance of radiation dose rate limits (e.g., 100 mrem/yr) that are orders of magnitude lower than the levels for which any significant health impacts are seen. The fact is, in my view, that NO technology can survive (over the long term) while being on the receiving end of an enormous double standard (i.e., under a tremendously non-level playing field). Better technology (e.g., SMRs, etc.) is not the answer. We must ask ourselves what we can do to get policies enacted that will level the regulatory playing field, and how we can reduce the tremendous prejudice that society has against our technology. I have several thoughts on those issues, but I’ve run out of space for this column…

____________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in DC Perspective, Department of Energy, Fukushima, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small modular reactors, South Korea, U.S. Congress

ANS Board Member Steven Arndt named Federal Engineer of the Year

Posted on February 24, 2012 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

Steven A. Arndt, Ph.D., P.E., cited as best engineer in federal service

American Nuclear Society board member Steven A. Arndt, Ph.D., P.E., has been named the federal government’s Engineer of the Year by the National Society of Professional Engineers. “Steven is an extremely distinguished member of the Society with a long history of exceptional and diverse public service,” said ANS President Eric Loewen regarding the award. “We’re very fortunate to have him on our board of directors and we extend our heartfelt congratulations to him on this well-deserved recognition.”

Dr. Steven A. Arndt and Mr. David L. Skeen, Director of Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, NRC

Arndt, since 2007 a senior technical advisor in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has more than 30 years of experience as a nuclear engineer. Much of his career has been at the NRC, but he also co-founded a business supporting the nuclear community. In addition, he served as a professor of nuclear engineering, including two years at the United States Naval Academy. He was appointed by the governor of Maryland to the Maryland State Board for Engineering. During the Fukushima nuclear event, Arndt responded to the NRC’s Operation Center supporting the Japanese government and the U.S. ambassador’s office in his role as a severe accident analyst. He continues to support the NRC–Japan lessons-learned efforts, including screening and prioritizing recommendations for U.S. nuclear plants.
 
When asked about the recognition received on Thursday at a ceremony at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Arndt said, “I’ve devoted my professional life to nuclear engineering and I’ve enjoyed the opportunities to make contributions. I’m honored to receive this award.”

Christopher M. Stone, P.E., National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), Dr. Arndt, Mr. Skeen, Lawrence A. Jacobson, executive director NSPE

“Steven is a great example of the dedication and experience of ANS members,” said Loewen. “The country is fortunate to have him acting in a role of such responsibility and importance at the NRC, and we’re fortunate to have him among our membership.”

Christopher Stone, P.E. and Dr. Steven Arndt

For more information about the National Society of Professional Engineers’ awards, please visit the NSPE website.

_______________________

→ 3 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, engineering, Honors & Awards, lessons learned, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ANS’s Loewen visits local sections

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.

During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).

Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.

At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).

 

NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.

The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”

The next day, in Charlotte,  Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.

Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)

“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”

When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”

Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Local Sections, Meetings, MOX Fuel, NASA, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, plutonium, spent fuel

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.

_____________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Plutonium in Space: Why and How?

Posted on February 1, 2012 by pbowersox| 7 Comments

By Wes Deason

The reasons for using plutonium in space missions are often unclear to those outside the mission planning community. Observers may see or hear only that the space mission is nuclear related, and that the power source uses plutonium.

Plutonium is a word that in some communities has very negative connotations. Plutonium was needed to create the atomic weapons of the Cold War, is highly regulated by proponents of nuclear nonproliferation, and is one of the causes of the environmental woes at the Hanford site in Washington State. On the other hand, it is also the element that has been used to safely power many space missions, including the Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, and the most recent Mars rover, Curiosity.

So, why is plutonium still used if it has issues associated with it?

The answer is that plutonium exists in multiple nuclear forms, or isotopes. Isotopes occur in elements naturally due to differing number of neutrons in the nucleus. While relatively unimportant on the chemical level, on the nuclear level isotopes of a single element can behave very differently. Plutonium-239, the isotope of plutonium with 94 protons and 145 neutrons, is a fissile isotope, meaning that after the absorption of a non-energetic neutron it has a possibility of splitting, or fissioning. Because of this capability, plutonium-239 can be used in nuclear reactors and weapons. Plutonium samples with a large fraction of the plutonium-239 isotope are referred to as weapons-grade plutonium.

However, devices that use plutonium to produce power use the plutonium-238 isotope, which has 94 protons and 144 neutrons. It is not fissile, and cannot be used in atomic bombs or nuclear reactors. Plutonium-238 is useful for radioisotope heat sources, and radioisotope power systems, because it decays radioactively, releasing a particularly useful form of radiation called alpha radiation.

Alpha radiation is simply energized and completely ionized helium atoms, which lose their energy in the form of heat when interacting with other matter. This energy loss mechanism is similar to how friction generates heat on a surface. Alpha radiation is generally not harmful to humans, provided its emitters are not inhaled or ingested; alpha particles can be stopped by the outermost layer of skin.

Pu-238 is safe and can produce heat, but why is it preferred over other power sources?

Radioisotope power systems are useful for space applications for two main reasons:

  • First, they are very versatile. Unlike solar power sources, radioisotope power systems do not rely on correct orientation toward the sun, nor do they depend on proximity to the sun.
  • Second, the power from plutonium-238 lasts a long time. The half-life of plutonium-238, or the amount of time it takes for the power produced by the isotope to decrease by half, is 87.7 years.

A power system fueled by plutonium-238 can last for a very long time. This is, of course, dependent upon the reliability of the heat-to-electricity conversion components. The most common power conversion method—a static system known as thermoelectric conversion—is very reliable and can last for decades.

Future radioisotope power systems will adopt a new method for power conversion called the Stirling cycle—a dynamic (moving) cycle—which will allow for higher efficiency and lower mass systems. The new generators will be termed Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators. For more information on radioisotope power systems, see this page maintained by the Department of Energy.

Where do we get plutonium-238? Can it be found naturally?

Unfortunately, plutonium-238 cannot be found naturally. This is because it is radioactive and will have almost completely decayed into a different element after a geologically short period of 1000 years. Thus, plutonium-238 must be produced using nuclear reactors.

During the Cold War, when weapons-grade plutonium production was at full scale, plutonium-238 was a byproduct that could be saved and used for space power production.  Since the 1990s, however, the United States has stopped production of weapons-grade plutonium, yet we continue to plan space missions that require the use of plutonium-238. NASA and the DOE have discussed plans to use national laboratory reactors to produce plutonium-238 for general purpose applications, but it is questionable if they will be able to supply a sufficient amount to meet national needs.

Another concept, proposed by the Center for Space Nuclear Research (CSNR), uses flexible TRIGA research reactors to produce a higher quantity of Pu-238 per year at lower cost. For more information on low cost plutonium-238 production, contact the CSNR.

Regardless of its source, Pu-238 remains an important tool for scientific research. Many space missions have been powered by plutonium-238, and future missions will continue to be enabled by it. Its long lasting heat generation—coupled with a dependable power conversion system—allows it to be used in many environments and configurations. The use of plutonium-238 can be expected to become even more important as space exploration pushes further outward to Mars, Jupiter, their moons, and beyond!

This article is the first of a monthly series of ANS Nuclear Cafe entries on nuclear space topics by the ANS Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Professional Division.

_______________________________

Deason

Wes Deason is a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Oregon State University working on the safety analysis of vented fuel systems for gas-cooled fast breeder reactors. He is a former summer fellow for the Center for Space Nuclear Research and the current student liaison for the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division of ANS.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, engineering, NASA, Nonproliferation, physics, Professional Divisions, Space Applications

ANS statement on BRC’s final report

Posted on January 27, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Thursday, January 26. The report contains recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Please click here for the American Nuclear Society‘s statement on the report.

__________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, News, position statements, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

TVA’s countdown to MOX fuel

Posted on January 26, 2012 by dyurman| 3 Comments

The utility is assessing options to use it 

By Dan Yurman

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) could be one of the first nuclear utilities to accept mixed oxide fuel (MOX) from the Department of Energy (DOE) for use in its commercial nuclear reactors. The government is building a $4.8 billion factory in South Carolina that is scheduled to start producing MOX fuel assemblies by 2016 by blending weapons grade plutonium with uranium. The resulting fuel can be swapped out for regular uranium fuel.

The government’s nonproliferation objective is to get 34 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium out of circulation forever. TVA’s objective is to get nuclear fuel that will work safely in its reactors and at a competitive price.

TVA is a public power provider for a seven-state region serving nine million people. In 2010, 36 percent of its power generation came from nuclear energy. One element of its charter, which dates back to the New Deal programs between 1933 and 1936 of President Franklin Roosevelt, is to support national security missions. TVA built power plants to provide electricity for the Manhattan Project at Oak Ridge.

Today, it participates in the DOE’s nonproliferation efforts through the use of fuel made from blended down highly-enriched surplus uranium.

Evaluating the potential for MOX

Mick Mastilovic, TVA's manager of Nuclear Fuel Supply

Mick Mastilovic, TVA’s manager of Nuclear Fuel Supply, told ANS Nuclear Cafe in a telephone interview that the utility’s evaluation of the potential for using MOX fuel will primarily address safety as well as economics of using MOX relative to all uranium fuel. TVA has not yet made a decision to pursue MOX fuel licensing and implementation.

If TVA decides to use MOX, it could eventually replace up to 40 percent of the fuel assemblies in the cores of its Sequoyah and Browns Ferry reactors. The two Sequoyah reactors are pressurized water reactors with 193 fuel assemblies each. The three Browns Ferry reactors are boiling water reactors with 764 fuel assemblies each.

The DOE’s MOX plant is expected to produce the equivalent of 1,700 PWR assemblies to dispose of 34 tonnes of surplus plutonium. At a projected output rate of up to 70 metric tons heavy metal per year, the MOX facility may produce more fuel than TVA’s five reactors could consume.

The National Nuclear Security Administration and its contractor, Shaw Areva MOX Services, are working toward agreements to market additional MOX fuel through the fuel fabrication vendors operating in the United States: Areva, Westinghouse, and Global Nuclear Fuel Americas (GE-Hitachi).

TVA won’t start out at the 40-percent core replacement level. The initial replacement level for the reactors will be about 8 assemblies of MOX fuel. Ramp up time to the 40-percent level depends on the DOE’s production schedule, how well the MOX works, and cost factors, among others.

“There is nothing quick about the process, as we have many gates to go through before possible implementation,” Mastilovic said, adding, “For instance, in the best case, we don’t expect to be able to load MOX assemblies before 2018.”

Explaining MOX to the public

One of the challenges that TVA faces is that the public perceptions of using plutonium as fuel needs some explaining. TVA starts by describing that MOX is a mix of uranium and plutonium. MOX has about 4-percent plutonium oxide (of which 94 percent is Pu-239) and the rest is depleted uranium oxide.

Commercial nuclear fuel starts as uranium oxide. What many people do not know, Mastilovic said, is that plutonium is a normal byproduct in nuclear reactors that fission uranium.

Plutonium builds up in the fuel inside the reactors and eventually provides up to 40 percent of the core’s heat energy. Fission of plutonium produces this energy in the reactor at the end of the life of the fuel.

“We’re not introducing a new element to a core, plutonium is already there,” he said.

And he also noted that “we’re not changing the thermal output of the reactor.”

Mastilovic said that while Pu-239 is more energetic than U-235, “The license governs the use of MOX. Heat inside a core can be managed by blending different fuels just like mixing different types of wood in a fireplace.”

Oak Ridge National Laboratory data presented by TVA to the Nuclear Waste Technology Review Board show little difference in decay heat loads between used MOX fuel and normal non-MOX fuel.

“Thus the difference in heat load between used MOX and used uranium oxide fuel can be accommodated in spent fuel pool cooling or space requirements and in dry cask thermal design,” Mastilovic said.

Next steps

Overall, with TVA support as a cooperating agency, the DOE is on track to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement for MOX fuel use that will assess safety for workers, the public, and the environment. TVA’s public affairs office told ANS Nuclear Cafe that the MOX program will proceed in phases with multiple opportunities for public input.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses for all the reactors that are candidates to use MOX will have to be updated to address physical operating differences and any changes in safety requirements. Technically, at this point, TVA believes that the physical modifications needed for each reactor are manageable. Also, TVA expects the DOE’s MOX to cost less than uranium fuel.

A decision to proceed with engineering and licensing is currently expected to be made in 2013.

_____________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in BWRs, Department of Energy, licensing, MOX Fuel, National Laboratories, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Tennessee Valley Authority

Small Modular Reactors on Military Installations?

Posted on January 23, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

By William J. Barattino

(This article summarizes a paper presented by the author at the ASME 2011 Small Modular Reactors Symposium)

Federal agencies have been directed by public laws and executive orders to reduce energy consumption, increase usage of clean energy sources, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a long-term strategy to embrace and implement these directives for military installations that includes small modular reactors (SMRs) in the mix of clean energy technologies. This blog post provides an initial assessment of the market size of SMRs on U.S. Army installations located in the United States that includes background factors driving the shift to clean energy sources; characterization of energy consumption and costs for Army installations; maximum overnight costs for breakeven based on offsets of current base electricity costs; and reductions in GHGs with use of SMRs.

The DOD is moving toward “NetZero” energy installations serviced by utility sources that are secure, reliable, and cost effective. NetZero energy implies power systems located within the boundaries of a military installation (or possibly on federal land to service a number of agencies within a region) for providing secure and uninterruptable power supplies for mission-critical base facility energy requirements.

Contractual processes for implementing new energy reduction, monitoring, and production for servicing base energy requirements are already used extensively by the DOD. Details of contract types differ, but are similar from the context that benefits (or savings) of an alternative must exceed costs over the system lifecycle. The good news here is that implementing contracts for cost-effective, alternatives requiring public-private relationships for servicing energy consumption on military installations is routine today.

Eighty installations were considered with peak power ranging from 0.6 to 132 MWe (the majority in the 1 to 75 MWe range). Installation energy consumption and cost data are recorded in the U.S. Army Energy and Water Reporting System, an on-line data reporting system with monthly inputs provided by base engineers.

Total energy consumption cost was $855.8M during fiscal year 2010. Of this total, $573M representing two-thirds of total cost was for electricity; and $282.8M representing one-third of total cost was for industrial processes. Hawaii has the highest yearly electricity cost of nearly $49 million per year due to its extremely high cost of 20.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, whereas the average cost of electricity for the entire set of 80 installations is 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. While SMRs can operate in a co-generation mode, the higher relative cost of electricity led to the conclusion that the primary focus should be for electricity production from a cost efficiency perspective.

After characterizing energy usage and costs, an economic assessment was conducted of projected cost savings that an SMR must remain below for its lifecycle costs to be competitive with displaced fossil fuel. The revenue stream to offset expenses was represented by the monthly cost of electricity of $2.7 million. Costs for site preparation, manufacturing, and construction were expensed as monthly construction loan payments over years 6 through 10 with a 4 percent cost of capital. For this scenario, the manufacturing and construction (i.e., overnight) cost of $1420 per KWe was required to meet our target goal of return-on-investment>10 percent.  With a yearly cost escalation of 3-5 percent for electricity, the allowable overnight costs for breakeven increased to $3000-4000 per KWe. These preliminary analyses led to the conclusion that the DOD requires an energy business model that reconciles operational importance with cost. In other words, the principle of a “secure energy premium” will be required to balance energy-assurance-with-affordability.

Dramatic reductions in current base GHGs are realized with use of clean energy technologies. Nuclear energy for electricity results in a significant reduction of nearly 76 percent in GHGs averaged for all Army installations in the United States. When the SMRs are also used in a co-generation mode, GHGs are reduced by more than 96 percent.              

Clearly, much work remains to accurately quantify the upfront and recurring expenses for SMR systems on military bases. This analysis provided an initial assessment as to whether SMR system lifecycle costs can compete with existing installation electricity costs. There is a high potential for moving forward with alternatives that demonstrate lower system cost, enhance security, and reduce GHGs. The more challenging cases, however, will be for installations where the SMR lifecycle cost is somewhat higher than continued use of fossil fuels, but enables secure NetZero energy with significantly lower GHG emissions.

In summary, this first look at SMRs on military installations is encouraging from a number of perspectives and should lead to further evaluation of this sector. The Army Corps of Engineers has successfully operated small nuclear reactors for remote sites on a very small scale from 1954 through 1979. So, location of SMRs on bases is not a new, untried concept. It will require, however, renewed commitment and revitalization of an industrial base that the United States once had, but must re-establish.

______________________

Barattino

William J. Barattino is the chief executive officer at Global Broadband Solutions, LLC. He has more than 30 years experience in program management and systems engineering and integration for telecommunications, space systems, lasers, imaging, facilities engineering, and applied mechanics. He is an ANS member and a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, National Laboratories, News, physics, reactor designs, Small modular reactors

Covert bombing kills another Iranian nuclear scientist

Posted on January 19, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

It is the latest in a series of deadly attacks

By Dan Yurman

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, inspects uranium enrichment centrifuges

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, inspects uranium enrichment centrifuges

An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in Tehran on January 11 by a bomb that was magnetically attached to his car. A driver, who doubles as a body guard, was also killed in the blast.

The scientist was identified as Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, age 32, who was a departmental manager at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

According to media reports, a motorcycle rider and a passenger attached the bomb to the car in heavy morning commuter traffic. The attack occurred at 8:20 AM Tehran time. It is the fifth such attack in the past two years.

The attack came one day after it was reported that that Iran had launched uranium enrichment production at its underground facility at Fordow near the city of Qum. It is reported to be enriching the uranium to 20-percent U235, which is the boundary between commercial use and weapons use. Iran has been making 20-percent enriched uranium at Natanz, about 400 km south of Tehran (250 miles), since February 2010.

In a related development, the Wall Street Journal reported that two days later on January 13 that Iran agreed to allow a high-level team of International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear inspectors enter the country on January 28. The delegation will be headed by the agency’s chief weapons inspector, Herman Nackaerts.

It is not clear whether the Iranian government will let the inspectors visit is nuclear sites, underground uranium enrichment facilities, and interview officials that the United Nations agency believes may head a nuclear-weapons program.

The combination of three events occurring within a few days of each other indicates the intensity of the issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear programs.

U.S. denies involvement in blast

In Iran, government officials repeated their accusations that the United States and Israel are responsible for this and prior bombings. Top-level Iranian officials called for revenge.

The Obama administration rejected the accusation and also condemned the murder. In Israel, government officials were said to have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran, but did not say that the nation was directly involved in the most recent attack.

Pattern of prior attacks

Model of uranium hexafluoride (UF6)

The explosion in Tehran this week resembles four others, including two in 2010. It comes on the third anniversary to the day of the killing of another Iranian nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammandi, who also worked on uranium enrichment.

Several of those targeted have been high ranking officials. In a November 2010 attack, two separate car bombs killed Majid Shahriari and wounded Fereydoun Abbasi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Shahriari was a member of the nuclear engineering faculty at Shah Behesti University and did work for the Atomic Energy Organization.

Roshan, who died in the explosion this week, was described as a mid-rank manager in charge of procurement of materials and services for Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

In July 2011, Dariush Rezaeinejad was shot dead by persons unknown.  He worked at K. N. Toosi University of Technology in electrical engineering as well as the Atomic Energy Organization. These are conflicting reports about his connections to Iran’s nuclear energy programs.

The sophistication of these attacks indicates that whomever is carrying them out has an organization chart of key personnel in Iran’s nuclear programs and has tracked specific individuals in terms of where they will be on particular dates.

For instance, Roshan worked on procurement at Natanz, but was killed on his way to an office in Tehran. The attack suggests a long period of undetected intelligence gathering and surveillance of potential targets. It suggests that future bomb attacks may take place.

Other covert attacks on Iran that have delayed its nuclear programs include the Stuxnet worm, which resulted extensive mechanical failures of uranium centrifuges in 2009 and 2010. There are significant clues that point to the likelihood that Israel had involvement in the development of the Stuxnet computer worm.

A devastating explosion on November 12 at the Bid Kaneh missile R&D center killed a high ranking military official in charge of rocket development. Some analysts  have suggested that the explosion at the missile site resulted from an attack by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).  Iran has since displayed what it says is a U.S. surveillance UAV that it claims it captured after it crashed inside Iran’s borders.

Damaged Iranian missile site. Image: ISIS 11/12/2011

More information from ISIS about this image is available at its home page.

The explosion occurred shortly after Iran reported success with a test of the missile technology. It is seen as a big setback for Iran in terms of its ability to put a nuclear weapon payload on a medium range missile. A rocket with a range of 800 miles would be able to target many major cities in the Middle East.

What’s really going on?

Patrick Clawson, a national security expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the New York Times on January 11 that the covert attacks on Iran’s nuclear scientists appear to have two objectives.

First, they have a chilling effect on the nuclear workforce and they don’t provoke a nationalist reaction in Iran. A military attack from the United States or Israel would surely create one.

Second, Clawson said, “it allows Iran to climb down if it decides the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon is too high.”

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

Gary Sick, a specialist on Iran at Columbia University, told the newspaper, however, that he does not believe the covert campaign will be effective in stopping Iran from its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Sick said that he thinks “Iran will double down” in its efforts because it enhances their feelings of being under attack by the West.

Charles D. Ferguson of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) told Reuters on January 17 that “such acts of terrorism” are unlikely to significantly delay or deter Tehran’s nuclear work.

“The resulting climate of insecurity feeds ammunition to hardliners in Tehran demanding reprisals,” he said.

U.S. government officials declined to discuss what security measures they will be taking to detect and deter possible retaliatory attacks by Iran on U.S. nuclear scientists. The U.S. Department of Energy is the largest employer of nuclear scientists in the United States, located at dozens of facilities across the country.

In Houston, Tex., this week, Gelareh Bagherzadeh, 30, a medical student who has a long history of speaking out on human rights issues in Iran, was shot dead under mysterious circumstances. Her purse and cell phone were still in her car, which had crashed into a building near her home.

Iran is continuing its threats to block the Straights of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, adding a security premium to the price of oil. This move increases revenue for Iran and imposes costs on the U.S. economy. It is unclear whether or not Iran will actually take any military action, but even a single attack on an oil tanker could send oil prices skyrocketing.

Can Iran make a bomb?

It is also unclear whether Iran has the other capabilities to make a nuclear weapon including the metallurgy, trigger mechanisms, and delivery systems, e.g., missiles with a compact working warhead capable of hitting a specific target 800 miles away.

Diagram of a nuclear weapon using highly enriched uranium

To develop a conventional uranium-based atomic bomb, Iran would have to produce output of about 90-percent U235. Weapons experts say that if Iran wants to produce weapons grade at that level, there is little to stop them, technically speaking, from doing so.

Experts believe that Iran will eventually be able to produce enough weapons grade material to build four or five atomic bombs.  However, at this time, while Iran is enriching uranium to 20%, it isn’t clear that it has moved beyond that point to actually build a bomb.  On Jan 19 the Washington Post reported that the former head of the Israeli intelligence agency said Iran has “the resources and components” to build one.

“If the Iranians get together tonight and decide to secretly develop a bomb, then they have all the resources and components to do so,” Amos Yadlin was quoted Thursday as telling the Maariv daily.

The newspaper added that it was not clear whether Yadlin, who retired in November 2010, was referring to the mechanical elements of a bomb, or that the Iranians have weapons-grade uranium, that is, enriched to 90% U235.

Limited political options

Iran’s political objectives remain unshaken by the bombings of its nuclear scientists. Its clerical leadership is driven by a warped and paranoid world view that is bent on getting the West to recognize its role as a regional power. Unfortunately for Iran, its neighbors in the Middle East are as alarmed about Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the United States and western Europe.

There is no workable roadmap at this time to convince Iran to stop its drive to produce a weapon. Ray Takeyh, a senior analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations, wrote in the Washington Post on December 9 that one of the reasons is that Iran’s defiance of Western powers plays well in terms of domestic politics despite the activity of opposition parties. He wrote:

Ray Takeyh, CFR

“A clerical oligarchy trapped in a mind-set conditioned by conspiracies and violent xenophobia paradoxically views both American entreaties and sanctions as an affirmation of its perspective.

Offers of diplomatic dialogue made in respectful terms are seen as indications of Western weakness and embolden the regime to sustain its intransigence.

Conversely, coercive measures are viewed as American plots to not just disarm the Islamic Republic, but also to undermine its rule. Armed with the ultimate weapon, the Islamists think, they may yet compel the West to concede to Iran’s regional aggrandizement.”

While the U.N. Security Council has imposed four rounds of economic sanctions against Iran for enrichment work, its members are divided on next steps. There is general agreement that enrichment to 20 percent exceeds the country’s civilian needs, since Russia is providing the fuel for Iran’s Bushehr commercial nuclear reactor.

Finding a path to bring Iran back into predictable diplomatic relations and to stand down from its pursuit of a weapons program remains a major challenge.

_______________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Comments Off

Posted in accident, Department of Energy, IAEA, Iran uranium enrichment, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear events, PWRs, reactor designs, Russia

Nuclear News and the new year

Posted on January 17, 2012 by rmichal| Comments Off

The January issue of Nuclear News magazine is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The issue contains the following stories:

  • The year ahead: This time for sure? by E. Michael Blake
  • 2012 Preview: Impact of Fukushima Daiichi on global prospects for nuclear, by Dick Kovan
  • 10-year D&D program under way at Zion plant, by Rick Michal
  • The index to 2011 Nuclear News content

There is also an in-depth report on the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting, along with side coverage of two topicals at the meeting: the first ANS Small Modular Reactor conference, and the Young Professionals Congress 2011 meeting.

Other news in the January issue:  NRC commissioner Jaczko votes to publish AP1000 certification final rule; revised emergency plan rule published in final form; study sees potential for small modular reactors to compete with gas-fired generation; is yellow inspection finding at Oconee an old design issue? Davis-Besse restart allowed while concrete studies continue; special inspection at Brunswick; NRC takes no significant action on four petitions; a status report on license renewal and power uprates; Fukushima-related motions in licensing proceedings continue to be denied; Levy site tour, limited statements scheduled; power reactor stress tests in the European Union said to be on track; European Union proposes additional €500 million to close Soviet-era reactors; fuel loading begins at Canada’s long-idled Bruce-1; Vietnam’s pact with Japan upheld, and new pact made with South Korea; three sites on short list for Poland’s first nuclear plant; United Kingdom chooses reuse as MOX to manage plutonium stock; nuclear research center opens in West Cumbria; and much more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________________

Comments Off

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Fukushima, IAEA, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Literacy Project, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Vietnam

Nuclear energy R&D budgets spared major cuts

Posted on January 5, 2012 by dyurman| 3 Comments

Congress trims funding while adding new priorities

By Dan Yurman

A Congress that has public approval ratings in the single digits because of deficit-related gridlock managed to get some of the federal budget out the door for 2012. The Energy & Water Appropriation Bill, which covers funding for the U.S. Department of Energy, contains $768 million for nuclear energy programs.

Nuclear energy at the DOE fared better than some other high profile DOE programs. The Obama administration’s poster child for a green economy—Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy—suffered a cut of $1.9 billion, reducing the funding request by the White House by more than half. The DOE’s Science programs also saw a significant reduction of $616 million from the President’s budget. And, nationwide environmental cleanup of DOE sites suffered a reduction of $469 million.

Emphasis on small modular reactors

Of the $768 million in the bill for the nuclear energy program at the DOE, $439 million is allocated to nuclear energy research and development. A key element of the appropriation is a $67 million line item for licensing technical support for light water reactors. It provides funds for first-of-a-kind engineering support for two reactor designs and sites.

Supporters of fast reactor SMR designs had hoped for appropriation language that would have advanced their cause, but it didn’t appear in the committee report related to licensing activities.

Within a line item of $136 million for reactor concepts, $29 million is provided for advanced R&D on SMR concepts that presumably would include some fast reactor work scope.

A big ticket item is $64 million for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program, which is $14 million above the DOE’s request. The committee called for strong engagement with industry in development of the NGNP demonstration phase.

Congress also told the DOE to stick to the knitting and finish the job on the NGNP. The committee report complained that the DOE engages in a “constant shifting of priorities that starts many initiatives and finishes none.”

DOE Nuclear Energy Assistant Secretary Pete Lyons declined, through a spokesperson, to be interviewed or to comment on the funding numbers or the SMR projects.

Fuel Cycle Research received $132 million, with significant cuts from the 2011 funding level and the 2012 request.

Facilities management at the Idaho National Laboratory received $155 million, $5 million above the request. Separately, $14.6 million is allocated to the National Science User Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory, the same amount as the request.

Positive reactions to reactor funding

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R., Idaho

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (R., Idaho) , whose district includes the Idaho lab, is a senior member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, serving there for the past nine years. Simpson said in a statement that he was pleased with the funding for the lab’s programs.

“I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee and Congress have once again demonstrated strong support for the development of nuclear energy and provided the resources necessary to continue our nation’s progress on new and promising nuclear technologies,” said Simpson.

Simpson noted that total funding for DOE’s nuclear energy program was $31 million more than funding provide by Congress for FY2011.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group, also took notice. In a statement on its website, the organization said that it was relieved that the events in Fukushima, Japan, last March have not deterred Congress from continued support for nuclear energy.

“We particularly appreciate the inclusion of $67 million to initiate the Department of Energy’s small reactor licensing program. That technology will become a significant contributor to the nation’s energy portfolio and has tremendous potential for job creation to support deployment in the United States and internationally,” the NEI statement said.

Worries across the pond in the U.K.

While nuclear energy R&D fared well in the budget storm in Washington, D.C., across the Atlantic things are not going as well. The Science & Technology Committee of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of Parliament, issued a report on November 22 that said the government was “complacent” about nuclear energy R&D.

In a stinging comment, the committee wrote that the UK government’s plans for nuclear to play a part in meeting the country’s energy needs “simply lack credibility.”

The report went on to say that the absence of leadership and strategic thinking in government has created a perception that the UK is no longer a serious player in the field. The skills gap, which will be made worse by near-term retirements, will make the nation a “niche player,” the report said.

According to government budget numbers reviewed by the committee, the UK is spending less on nuclear energy R&D than Australia and Italy—and neither of these nations has a commercial nuclear power program.

The committee called for an increase in spending of £20-50 million (about U.S.$31-78 million) a year. The committee’s recommendations include the development of a long-term strategy for nuclear energy looking beyond 2025, outlining support for R&D through an R&D roadmap, and for the commercial exploitation of the UK’s current strengths in nuclear research.

It also called for the establishment of a nuclear R&D board, made up of industry, academic and government partners, to develop and implement the R&D roadmap and help to improve the coordination of R&D activities to protect vulnerable areas of research and close gaps in capabilities.

# # #

Dan Yurman, nuclear blogger

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, financing, National Laboratories, News, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, U.S. Congress

GE-Hitachi proposes to burn U.K. plutonium stockpile

Posted on December 22, 2011 by dyurman| 4 Comments

An advanced reactor could be used to consume 112 tonnes of weapons grade material

By Dan Yurman

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has proposed to the U.K. government to build an advanced nuclear reactor that would consume the country’s stockpile of surplus plutonium.

The technology is called PRISM, which stands for Power Reactor Innovative Small Module. If accepted, it would be very different than the other proposals to process plutonium, including those that would turn it into mixed oxide fuel (MOX).

According to GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor disposes of a great majority of the plutonium as opposed to simply reusing it over again. This process takes it out of circulation forever.

PRISM cutaway (Source: GE Hitachi)

Fuel for the PRISM reactor is created by converting the plutonium from powder form mixing it with uranium and zirconium to make a metal fuel. The resulting spent fuel contains plutonium in a form that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the project (and president of the American Nuclear Society), said that the waste form is much the same as what comes out of light water reactors. Once the plutonium has been in the PRISM reactor for five years, it is mixed with other nuclear materials that make it nearly impossible to retrieve the metal for the purpose of making a weapon.

The PRISM reactor is a so-called “fast reactor” because it uses liquid metal sodium rather than water to cool the system. The sodium allows the neutrons to maintain higher energies and to cause fission in elements such as plutonium more efficiently than light water reactors.  (large image)

Heritage of EBR-II

Based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor (EBR-II) developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho, the PRISM reactor uses passive safety features that cause it to shut down automatically. In the event of a complete loss of electrical power, it simply stops working and passively dissipates residual heat. EBR-II was canceled in 1994, but not before a safety analysis showed that there were no technical barriers to getting a license and safely operating one.

The Argonne National Laboratory as it appeared in the 1990s when work was stopped on EBR-II.

According to a fact sheet from GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor’s relatively small size and simpler design would allow it to be built in modules and transported for assembly on site. Another benefit of the reactor is that while it is disposing of weapons materials, it is also generating electricity.

According to the proposal, there would be two PRISM reactors each generating 300 MW of electrical power. It would take about five years to burn through the 112 tonnes of material. The reactors could be used for up to 60 years.

The UK government had considered building a MOX plant at the Sellafield site where the plutonium is stored, but it canceled those plans as the Japanese government stopped orders for MOX following the Fukushima earthquake.

Total life-cycle costs

GE Hitachi contends that the PRISM reactor will cost less to build than a new MOX plant. It is costing the U.K. government £2 billion (about $3.1 billion) a year to maintain the plutonium inventory.

In the United States, the government is building a MOX plan that will process 34 short tons of plutonium, turning it into the equivalent of 1,700 PWR MOX fuel assemblies for light water reactors at a cost of $4.5 billion.

MOX fuel burnup process. (Image: World Nuclear News)

If an assumption is made that the delivered cost of the PRISM reactor is $4,500/Kw, then 600 MW of power would cost $2.7 billion or about the cost of one year of storing the plutonium in its current form.

Additional costs would include a fuel fabrication facility, the fuel itself, and spent fuel disposal. Life-cycle costs would have to be taken into account to get a true comparison.

The U.K. government hasn’t said what it thinks of the GE Hitachi proposal, but it has talked about what it needs to know to make a decision.

Feasibility and safety issues

In addition to financial feasibility, U.K. energy minister Charles Hendry told parliament that the government needs to know the work can be done safely and securely. He said U.K.’s Department of Energy & Climate Change would examine the PRISM proposal. He also said that the government is considering converting 28 tonnes of foreign-owned plutonium at the Sellafield site into MOX.

GE Hitachi VP Danny Roderick

GE Hitachi vice president Danny Roderick told financial wire services that while the government is looking at the plutonium as a security risk, his firm sees it as an asset that can be burned to make electricity.

The plutonium was created as a result of nuclear spent fuel reprocessing, which took place at the Sellafield site starting in the 1950s.

In October 2010, GE Hitachi signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site to investigate the feasibility of constructing a prototype of the PRISM reactor there.

Coincidentally, the proposal to use the technology from EBR-II comes almost 60 years to the week that electricity was first generated on the Idaho desert in its predecessor EPR-I.

At 1:23 p.m. on December 20, 1951, Argonne National Laboratory director Walter Zinn scribbled into his log book, “Electricity flows from atomic energy. Rough estimate indicates 45 kw.” At that moment, scientists from Argonne and the National Reactor Testing Station watched four light bulbs glow, powered by the world’s first nuclear reactor.

________________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

 

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, integral fast reactor, National Laboratories, News, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear pioneers, physics, PRISM reactor, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, United Kingdom