US study sees future markets for microreactors

22 July 2021

The deployment of microreactors in the short-to-medium term could support energy markets not available to large nuclear plants, but some significant challenges must be overcome for them to capture new market shares. In the longer term, they will be able to contribute to decarbonisation efforts. These are amongst the findings of a recently published technical report from the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) Idaho National Laboratory.

Domes Beach, Puerto Rico, home of the now decommissioned BONUS prototype reactor (Image: Gordon Tarpley)

The report, Global Market Analysis of Microreactors, focuses on future global microreactor markets and the potential for microreactors, assessing their unique capabilities and potential deployment in specific global markets in the 2030-2050 timeframe. The 147-page study summarises work on the economics and market opportunities for microreactors conducted under the DOE's Microreactor Program. It uses "top-down" and "bottom-up" analysis techniques to evaluate emerging market trends, derive a range of possible demands and rank potential markets in 63 countries including current nuclear energy users and so-called newcomer countries.

Microreactors are a subset of small modular reactors (SMRs) of 1-20 MWe capacity - sometimes referred to as "nuclear batteries" - and include light-water reactors, molten salt reactors, gas-cooled reactors, metal-cooled fast reactors and heat pipe reactors.

The report references studies of potential applications for microreactors in Alaska, Puerto Rico and US federal facilities carried out under the programme during 2019-2021. These are: a study by the University of Alaska Anchorage, to identify markets, applications and economic development potential for nuclear-powered microreactors in Alaska and the Arctic and export potential for remote locations around the world; a study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to define the potential role for microreactors at US government installations, at off-grid or at remote sites needing secure, stand-alone power and on-grid sites, for secure backup power; and a study by Puerto Rican-led not-for-profit organisation Nuclear Alternative Project (NAP), under contract from Idaho National Laboratory, to investigate the feasibility of the use of SMRs and microreactors to provide resilient power for island territories such as Puerto Rico.

By 2030, initial deployments of such reactors could potentially expand nuclear's contribution in North America and Western Europe, areas that would otherwise show low future nuclear growth, the report concludes. Mid-term deployments beginning around 2035 could see expansion in Eastern Europe and Asia, where energy infrastructures are under development, and to support new nuclear markets in emerging economies. Longer-term deployment, over the period 2040-2050, could be in urban markets and megacities lacking access to energy and susceptible to climate change, disaster relief by replacing portable diesel generators, and in low-carbon shipping, it says.

Challenges

"Results indicate significant potential for global deployment of microreactors, but also significant challenges in achieving the technical capacities, meeting regulatory requirements and international accords, achieving competitive costs and for gaining public acceptance," the report finds. Future market demand is seen to be particularly strong across Asia and Eastern Europe "in isolated operations and distributed energy applications".

Build rates in the hundreds of units by 2040 and in the thousands by 2050 would be needed to attain market penetration at scale and to fill "gaps" in the replacement of fossil sources for both electric and non-electric uses, as well as complementing variable renewable technologies such as solar and wind in distributed systems, the report says.

"In basic market terms, for microreactors to achieve deep penetration in markets will require achieving specific aggressive cost targets; however, they will not compete with centralised energy sources," the report notes. "Consideration of costs beyond the demonstration units is necessary to insure producibility and scalability for factory deployment."

"For microreactors to capture new market shares, some significant challenges must be overcome, and an appropriate balance achieved between market demands, technology performance, costs, regulatory compliance costs and public acceptance," the report concludes. It notes that the "novelty aspects" of microreactors, competition for one or more dominant designs, and limited operational data "translate to uncertainty in the regulatory and planning domain".

Key questions that remain to be answered include the transport of microreactors and their fuel, while the potential for remote and semi-autonomous use merits additional scrutiny for cyber and physical risks, the report finds. Collaborations and technical exchanges - including ongoing efforts by the US and Canadian regulators, the International Atomic Energy Agency and US federal programmes - are focusing on some of these priorities.

Island opportunities

Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the USA in the northeastern Caribbean, was the site of a US-developed prototype boiling-water superheater reactor known as BONUS, which operated from 1965 to 1968 and has since been decommissioned. Today, the island is heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels.

"Puerto Rico needs a scalable, resilient and reliable base load power source," NAP CEO Jesus M Nunez told World Nuclear News. "Microreactors could be part of a future modern and strong Puerto Rico."

The DOE Microreactor Program is conducting fundamental research and development to reduce uncertainty and risk in the design and deployment of microreactors and facilitate more efficient technology commercialisation. Concurrently, the Department of Defence's Project Pele initiative is on track for full power testing of a 5 MWe transportable microreactor prototype in 2023.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Is The Fear Of Nuclear Energy Justified? 

YES, BUT THIS ARTICLE DISAGREES WHILE GIVING EVIDENCE OF IT

By ZeroHedge - Jul 24, 2021, 

Many of the world’s political leaders and people of influence have made it very clear that they view climate change as an existential crisis. President Joe Biden in his first days in office declared climate change the “number one issue facing humanity.” The UN warns that we have but twelve years to avoid a climate catastrophe, that searing, unrelenting heat could lay waste to large swaths of the planet, killing millions who have no means to escape a massive climate event. Unabated carbon pollution will spawn heatwaves exceeding the absolute limit of human endurance. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), net-zero CO2 requires “transformative systemic change.”

The International Energy Agency calls decarbonizing the energy sector “perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has faced.”

Many of the world’s leading climate scientists state that there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even a half degree will significantly worsen the risk of droughts, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. Vice-President Kamala Harris has determined that climate change is “driving migrants to the U.S. Border.” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry says the world needs a ‘wartime mentality’ to combat climate change. Even Hollywood is engaged with Angelina Jolie saying climate change will force hundreds of millions into refugee status and Rosanna Arquette warning that fossil fuels ‘will be the end of mankind.” Rising CO2 levels are also being named as a potential cause of the condominium collapse in Surfside Florida. 

Clearly, no one should have any doubts that many genuinely believe the Earth is facing a tipping point of no return unless radical and drastic action is not immediately taken to reduce ‘carbon pollution’ emissions. Yet there is one threat that seems even more ominous than the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuels…..and that is nuclear energy which produces 20% of U.S. electricity. I wonder how it’s possible that a power source with such a small footprint and large energy intensity, that can reliably produce massive amounts of electricity and that generates no CO2, can be even worse than electricity generated from fossil fuels.

What is causing the fear of nuclear energy? Is it a connection with nuclear weapons? Growing up during the Cold War, I can certainly understand this, the periodic testing of warning systems, howling sirens, and interruptions of TV programming from testing of the emergency broadcast system. Is it the fear of nuclear winter and mutual mass destruction? Is it also the fear of what we cannot see since radiation is invisible? Perhaps this is similar to being afraid of the dark, something I experienced as a child. Certainly Hollywood does not help either with such movies as the China Syndrome which was based on Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant emergency in the late 1970s. I had to drive just west of that plant on my way to college during the emergency and hoped the wind didn’t change in my direction. Even today, movies such as “Chernobyl,” continue to fuel nuclear fear. 

The recent closing of the Indian Point Nuclear Power plant near West Point, NY, just north of New York City, highlights this point. This power plant, with its zero CO2 emissions, supplied ten percent of the state’s electricity as well as 25% of New York City’s power. Governor Cuomo worked diligently to close the plant and recently celebrated his success doing so “this is a victory for the health and safety of New Yorkers, and moves us a big step closer to reaching our aggressive energy goals.” However, the closure of the plant is causing statewide CO2 emissions to significantly increase. In the first full month without the plant, there has been a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when the Indian Point plant was fully operational according to Environmental Progress.

The State also emitted 37% more carbon dioxide from electricity generation on an absolute basis. It appears that many, including Governor Cuomo, view nuclear energy to be so absolutely dangerous that a significant rise in carbon pollution caused by the closing of nuclear power plants is simply worth the price. While the state enjoys an abundance of clean hydroelectric power replacing reliable nuclear energy with wind and solar power might be more difficult than many realize. One can easily observe the state’s sources of power using the website of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The hundreds of wind turbines in the state produced a minuscule 0.034% of energy generation one morning last month, significantly less than the 10% percent of energy reliably produced by the Indian Point plant while it was operational.

The calls for the closure of nuclear power plants have become even more pronounced with the major reactor accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The damage from both accidents could have been limited had the Chernobyl plant been constructed with a containment structure and if the Fukushima plant had been fortified to protect against tsunamis. At Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have died as a result of exposure to radiation though 31 died at the beginning of the accident, two from the blast, and 29 firemen who fought the fire. 

At Fukushima, there have been no deaths or serious injuries due to the release of radioactivity though 19,500 people there were drowned by the tsunami. These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor years of commercial nuclear power operation in sixteen countries (World Nuclear Association). Nuclear energy has the lowest fatality rate per unit of energy than any source of electricity and including wind and solar. Deadly tsunamis will undoubtedly occur again so perhaps the abandonment of threatened populated coastal zones might be of greater benefit to public safety than the closing of zero CO2 emitting nuclear plants.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must exceed a theoretical 1 in 10,000-year core damage frequency but modern designs exceed this. U.S. utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years. The best currently operating plants are 1 in one million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in ten million (WNA). Even with the Three Mile Island accident where the reactor core did melt, the effects were contained as designed, without radiological harm to anyone. There was talk at the time about a potential “China-Syndrome,” a scenario where the heat from the core would melt its way through the floor of the reactor and keep going, perhaps as far as China. In reality, the molten core only penetrated 15mm of the floor and is now frozen at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel (WNA).

Every power source has its dangers and limitations but in order to provide for the greater good for society, energy must be reliable, abundant, and affordable. Bill Gate’s advanced nuclear reactor company TerraPower had teamed up with Warren Buffett’s PacificCorp to design and eventually construct the first Natrium reactor in Wyoming. A Consortium led by Rolls-Royce has designed a mini reactor that can power 100,000 homes. France has the lowest CO2 density in the EU by generating over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and supplies surplus power throughout Europe. About 17% of France’s energy comes from recycled nuclear fuel.

Several environmentalists have begun to recognize the many challenges we face with regard to energy choices. One is Michael Shellenberger who now strongly supports nuclear energy. Another is Michael Moore whose movie Planet of the Humans questions if renewable energy technology is a workable solution to climate change.

Others have attempted to end nuclear power by depriving the industry a permanent nuclear waste repository. While nuclear waste does remain dangerous for a very long time there simply is not much of it. Today, this country generates about 2,000 tons of waste annually. The 83,000 tons of waste generated here since the 1950s would fit in a single football field with a depth of fewer than ten yards. I am sure a permanent waste facility such as the one begun at Yuka Mountain in Nevada would be safer than where nuclear waste is now stored at nuclear plant parking lots. Per unit of energy solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power plants. The only energy waste that is safely kept out of the environment is from nuclear plants. All other energy waste, from coal, natural gas plants, wind turbines and solar panels ends up in the environment in landfills.

A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology found that nuclear energy has saved an estimate two million lives by replacing coal-fired and other high emission energy generation.

It’s easy to understand why wind and solar power, appear on the surface, to be more attractive as a source of energy than nuclear power but wind and solar power are inherently unreliable since the wind does not always blow nor the sunshine. They certainly won’t work without significant battery backup. Today’s battery technology is not up to the task simply because there are not enough minerals on this planet to make enough of them and we could not afford them even if there were. Our country has been blessed with a reliable and affordable electricity generation and distribution system. If people are really serious about fighting climate change and achieving the goal of net-zero emissions, I don’t understand how this will be possible without them also embracing zero CO2 nuclear energy.

By Zerohedge.com

Viewpoint: Nuclear's transformative role in delivering net zero

21 July 2021

Delivery of the UK’s net-zero goals requires a vast increase in the production of zero-carbon electricity, hydrogen and district heating. Nuclear can make a vital and commercially viable contribution to the rapid scale-up of these energy vectors, write Dr Paul Nevitt, technical director of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Programme (AFCP) at the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Kirsty Gogan and Eric Ingersoll, managing directors at LucidCatalyst, and Scott Milne, head of insights at Energy Systems Catapult.

From left to right: Kirsty Gogan, Eric Ingersoll, Scott Milne and Paul Nevitt

"It is impossible to overestimate the scale of the challenge ahead for the UK in reaching net-zero by 2050. With a range of low-carbon technologies in the mix, visualising the country's future energy landscape is no simple task. System-wide, forward-thinking analysis, however, helps paint this picture.

Last month NNL, the UK's national laboratory for nuclear fission, along with our expert teams at Energy Systems Catapult and LucidCatalyst, published the UK Energy System Modelling report - a ground-breaking new publication that gives a comprehensive insight into the role nuclear can play in decarbonising our energy system.

Commissioned by AFCP as part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s (BEIS) GBP505 million (USD692 million) Energy Innovation Programme, the report considers, for the first time, how advanced nuclear technologies can and should be used alongside other nuclear and low-carbon technologies to evolve the UK’s energy system.

Why nuclear has been missing from modelling so far

Nuclear has long been under-represented in mainstream energy system modelling.

The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding about what drives cost in nuclear construction. Too often, nuclear technology is presented as being expensive in the first instance and retaining a high fixed cost. In reality, any nuclear build undergoes substantial programmatic cost reduction and, when combined with innovative delivery and deployment models, can be delivered at low costs.

Secondly, the broad applications of nuclear technology beyond electricity generation are yet to be fully considered and embraced by the energy sector. Not only can nuclear technologies be deployed to generate electricity but also to produce hydrogen, heat and synthetic fuel. It is critical that this multiplicity in nuclear's potential roles is accounted for in any modelling going forward.

What the UK Energy System Modelling report tells us

Completed using the policy-neutral cost optimisation model, Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME), our findings fill a gap in publicly available data and represent a crucial assessment of the central role of nuclear in ensuring we meet our national climate change targets.

To achieve net zero we need to vastly increase production of three zero-carbon energy vectors - electricity, hydrogen and district heat. The report assesses how a range of technologies might work together to do this. In this analysis, levels of nuclear deployment were consistently significant and included roles across all three vectors.

Looking first at electricity generation, the modelling shows that excluding nuclear - a constant energy source - from the energy mix results in a substantial increase in grid capacity to compensate for times when other intermittent sources are unable to produce energy. By replacing nuclear with renewable sources, for example, grid capacity grows from around 100-140 GW to over 200 GW. Not only does this represent additional cost to the energy system, for the required additional generation, as well as associated transmission infrastructure, but also risk that such scale of deployment is feasible. Therefore, diverse pathways such as those modelled here - which include nuclear technologies - serve a critical role in de-risking and lowering the cost of the transition.

Nuclear and wind are shown to be the main technologies to ensuring our energy system has the ability and importantly, the capacity, to generate flexible, affordable and reliable emissions-free power for homes and businesses at the necessary scale.

For the second of our key energy vectors - hydrogen - there are many production options but few that are high volume, low cost and low carbon footprint. To therefore decarbonise hydrogen production, our modelling suggests that nuclear technologies can bring hugely valuable additional energy services to achieve affordable and timely net zero.

In scenarios where speculative technologies such as Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) 99% carbon capture rates are not available, this means a combination of thermochemical hydrogen from advanced nuclear, electrolysis and biomass with CCS (95% capture rates). Where speculative measures are available, our analysis shows that advanced nuclear operation can shift away from hydrogen production and be successfully prioritised towards power generation - demonstrating its flexibility as a highly economical energy source.

Thirdly, for district heat generation, scenario analysis suggests that heat supply from nuclear can be a very cost-effective option when deployed in cities at scale; light-water nuclear Small Modular Reactors, Gen III+ and advanced nuclear systems are all effective solutions. While costs are dominated by piping installation, siting options for smaller systems may enable shorter connecting pipes which in turn would lower costs for many networks.

What is clear across the hundreds of scenarios we have modelled is that nuclear, as part of the energy mix, has a high option value and can contribute to achieving net zero at least cost to society.

Excluding low carbon nuclear energy significantly increases the complexity and risks of failing in what is already an immensely difficult challenge. Combining nuclear and renewables proves to be highly complementary, while de-scoping, de-risking and lowering costs of the overall system.

The Next Steps: Fuelling Net Zero

We are under no illusion that achieving net zero will be easy. On the contrary, we recognise that it is going to be tough and will require cooperation from across the energy sector.

Nuclear is already the single largest and most reliable zero-carbon energy source in the UK and advanced technologies hold even more potential for generating clean hydrogen, heat and electricity. Advanced technologies are being commercialised now and will be coming to market in the late 2020s - it's vital that markets are ready for deployment at scale, which means appropriate licensing authorities, policy makers, investors, supply chain and customers need to be preparing now.

So how can we make sure our ambitions for nuclear are supported?

Off the back of this transformative modelling, NNL has performed detailed fuel cycle modelling using its ORION capability. This research is what underpins NNL’s report, Fuelling Net Zero: Advanced Nuclear Cycle Roadmaps for a Clean Energy Future, also published in June this year.

These comprehensive roadmaps set out two main fuel cycle opportunity areas that the UK can evolve to help meet its clean energy ambitions: Advanced Fuels Development and Advanced Fuel Cycle Technologies. They enable government and industry to plan strategically for how we can capitalise on our existing nuclear capability and develop a zero-carbon energy system.

At a time when society is waking up to acting on the environmental crisis our planet faces, there is a growing public consciousness about the role each and every one of us can play towards net zero. But behaviour change alone will not be enough; with nuclear the UK can meet its net-zero goals on time.

Our hope is that our modelling report provides the evidence needed for ensuring that nuclear does play the part it must in a balanced energy portfolio."

Safety blunders fuel Japan’s mistrust of nuclear power

But keeping most reactors shut down in the wake of Fukushima is hampering efforts to cut carbon emissions

Fission impossible: recent mistakes mean the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is likely to remain mothballed as it has been since the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 © Hiroto Sekiguchi/Yomiuri Shimbun

Robin Harding JULY 22 2021

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is the biggest nuclear power station in the world. Tucked away on a remote Sea of Japan coastline, the plant can generate almost eight gigawatts of electricity from its seven reactor halls — about 5 per cent of Japan’s total demand.

In the past 10 years, however, this symbol of the atomic age has not generated enough power to turn on a lightbulb. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa shares the same owner, Tokyo Electric, and the same basic design as the three reactors that melted down in Fukushima after a tsunami knocked out their cooling systems in 2011.

Fukushima Daiichi was one of the worst nuclear accidents in history. In its wake, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa — along with all Japan’s other reactors — was shut down to review safety. Nine out of Japan’s 33 operable reactors have since restarted. But a decade later, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is still offline, with profound consequences for Japan’s carbon emissions, for its energy policy and for the financial stability of Tokyo Electric (usually known as Tepco).

“For Tepco’s management, nuclear restart is a very big issue,” says Norimasa Shinya, an analyst who follows the company at investment bank Mizuho Securities in Tokyo. “Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is very important for cash flow and profitability.”

Tepco refused requests to visit the plant or to make an executive available for interview.

Shinya estimates the restart of just two reactors at Kashiwazaki would be worth ¥30bn-40bn ($270m-360m) a year in profits to Tepco after five years. The cash flow benefit would be even larger — approximately ¥70bn-80bn — because Tepco would have less need to buy fossil fuels to burn in other plants.

Carbon or uranium?

With Tepco on the hook for billions of dollars in spending to decommission the stricken Fukushima site, and the company now majority owned by the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation, the company’s financial performance matters to Japan’s public purse.

It highlights one of the main dilemmas in Japanese energy policy over the past decade: the quickest, cheapest way to cut carbon emissions would be to restart the dozens of nuclear reactors that sit idle; doing so would also generate mountains of cash for the utility companies, making them reluctant to consider any other option.

In 2010, nuclear provided more than 11 per cent of Japan’s total energy, including transport and heating, and the country had ambitions to increase that figure further. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, nuclear fell to zero so Japan burnt coal, natural gas and fuel oil, instead.

Attitudes towards nuclear power may change. The atmosphere even now is shifting

Taishi Sugiyama, Canon Institute for Global Studies

However, tough new targets for carbon emissions in 2030 and 2050, combined with a freezing winter that brought parts of the country close to power cuts this year, have given fresh hope to the nuclear industry. “I think attitudes towards nuclear power may change,” says Taishi Sugiyama, research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, a think-tank. “The atmosphere even now is shifting a bit.”

The public, though, remains firmly opposed to nuclear restarts — and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is part of the reason why. Plagued by scandal throughout its operational existence, recent problems at the plant are emblematic of Tepco’s failure to regain public trust.

In 2002, the company confessed to “systematic and inappropriate management” of inspections at the plant, after it failed to report cracks in reactor components to its regulator. In 2007, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was struck by a magnitude 6.6 earthquake, more powerful than that allowed for in the plant’s design, but Tepco did not learn lessons that could have prevented the Fukushima disaster.

Since 2011, Tepco has been trying to convince regulators and the local community in Niigata prefecture that the giant plant is safe enough to restart. In 2017, the number six and seven reactors won clearance from the Nuclear Regulation Authority, but not from the prefectural government.

Credibility gap

Earlier this year, however, a sequence of events ended any chance of a restart in the near future. In January, Tepco announced it had completed safety renovations on the number seven reactor, which turned out to be incorrect.

It then emerged that security on the site was lax, with one Tepco employee using a colleague’s ID card to gain access to the main control room in 2020, and problems found with intruder detection equipment. In April, the regulator banned Tepco from moving nuclear fuel at the site.

Suga’s net-zero pledge sparks fierce debate

“Credibility is the key issue, I think,” says Shinya. “The current incident is very severe for lost credibility, especially with local residents and the local government.”

Tepco’s corporate culture was heavily criticised after Fukushima, with an independent report citing misplaced deference and reluctance to question authority within the company as root causes of the disaster, along with many other factors.

These constant failures to get a grip on its operations at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, or release reliable information, raise fears about whether the company has truly changed. One underlying cause of the ID card incident, the company said in a report, was a “corporate climate that hinders strict security measures”.

Hinting at the underlying issues, an independent monitoring committee, chaired by former US nuclear regulator Dale Klein, said Tepco should not forget the principle that “people will make mistakes”. “Tepco must not engage in abstract reflection about how ‘safety awareness was lacking’,” the independent monitors said, “but rather examine the extent to which safety culture has permeated throughout each layer of the organisation, from upper management to personnel in the field.”

Energy is the world’s indispensable business and Energy Source is its newsletter. Every Tuesday and Thursday, direct to your inbox, Energy Source brings you essential news, forward-thinking analysis and insider intelligence. Sign up here.

Contacted by the Financial Times, Tepco said it took the incidents at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa “very seriously” and would “use this opportunity to remember our regrets and the lessons learned from [Fukushima] as we aim to improve power station safety”.

Many energy experts, especially those who concentrate on geopolitics, believe that Japan will need nuclear power if it is to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining security of supply. But unless the country’s biggest power company shows it can be trusted to run the world’s biggest nuclear power plant, an atomic renaissance is unlikely.

WISHING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO

Elon Musk: It’s possible to make ‘extremely safe’ nuclear plants

Musk did not elaborate how nuclear could be made “extremely safe.”

Published Thu, Jul 22 2021
Catherine Clifford@CATCLIFFORD

SpaceX founder and Tesla CEO Elon Musk looks on as he visits the construction site of Tesla’s gigafactory in Gruenheide, near Berlin, Germany, May 17, 2021.
Michele Tantussi | Reuters


Elon Musk is “pro nuclear.”

So said Musk on Wednesday while talking about making bitcoin mining sustainable at The B-Word conference hosted by the Crypto Council for Innovation.

Nuclear energy is considered “clean energy” because generating nuclear energy does not release greenhouse gasses. But due to some high-profile accidents, legacy nuclear power plants can have a bad reputation.

“I think modern nuclear power plants are safe contrary to what people may think,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said.

“I really think it’s possible to make very, extremely safe nuclear.”

And “I’m talking about fission. You don’t need fusion,” Musk said.

Nuclear fission is the process used in conventional nuclear reactors. With a fission reaction, a neutron slams into a larger atom splitting it into two smaller atoms, which releases energy.

Fusion is the opposite reaction to fission. With fusion, smaller atoms slam together and join into a heavier atom, thereby releasing energy. Fusion is the process by which the sun generates energy.

“You’ve got that big fusion reactor in the sky called the sun. It comes up every day,” Musk said.

Some herald fusion as a safer way to generate nuclear energy, because fission generates radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for a very long time, while fusion does not generate long-lived radioactive waste (among other reasons).

The problem is, with present technology, fusion usurps all the energy it creates to sustain its reaction, leaving no “net energy” to power other things. Several companies are working to commercialize fusion energy, but so far, they have not been successful.


On Wednesday, Musk did not elaborate on how nuclear power plants could be made “extremely safe.” But Musk has publicly supported the use of nuclear energy for years.

“We should build more nuclear power plants,” Musk said in 2007 interview with PBS. “I think that’s a better way to generate energy than certainly a coal power plant or a natural gas power plant.”

Currently, about 20% of the energy generated in the United States is from nuclear, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Conventional nuclear energy technology using fission has evolved and improved over the years. For example, Bill Gates founded an advanced nuclear company, TerraPower, which is innovating on legacy power plant technology.

Still, there is strong opposition to the use of nuclear power.

Opponents to nuclear power say there are still risks associated with nuclear power, despite technological innovations, and the better solution is to focus on ramping up renewable energy sources, like wind and solar.



— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report.

EDF says it would shut Taishan reactor if it were in France

French nuclear operator says fuel-rod issues at China plant would lead it to close for maintenance

David Sheppard,

FT Energy Editor

 JULY 22 2021

French nuclear operator EDF said it would have shut down a reactor in southern China being investigated for a potential fuel rod issue if the facility were in France but that the decision to continue operating the joint venture was beyond its control.

The Taishan nuclear power plant, which is majority controlled and operated by China General Nuclear Power Corp, with EDF holding a 30 per cent stake, held an extraordinary board meeting on Thursday to review the latest data following reports of problems last month.

“On the basis of the analyses carried out, EDF’s operating procedures for the French nuclear fleet would lead EDF, in France, to shut down the reactor in order to accurately assess the situation in progress and stop its development,” EDF said in a statement following the meeting

“In Taishan, the corresponding decisions belong to TNPJVC [Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co].”

EDF said last month that a build-up of noble, or inert, gases in Taishan seemed to have occurred because of issues with the casing around some fuel rods, the first of three containment barriers at the reactor.

The company said it had been allowed to analyse data related to the “detection of unsealed assembly rods in reactor No 1 of the Taishan power plant”.

EDF said the data made available by CGN suggested the “radiochemical parameters” were still below regulatory thresholds in China, which it said were “consistent with international practices”. However, it added that the situation is “evolving”.

The French company has sought to play down the problem after a CNN report in June suggested the risk of a radiation leak. The company has said a leak outside the facility is not a danger and the build-up of noble gases had been contained.

A spokesperson for EDF told the FT on Thursday that the primary concern was to begin maintenance to resolve the issue.

“We want to prevent the fuel rods from deteriorating further, carry out investigations to figure out why the fuel rods lost their sealings, and we want the necessary maintenance to be as simple as possible,” the spokesperson said.

“This is not an emergency or an incident. It is a situation, that is covered by operating procedures, that is known and understood.”

Taishan is the first nuclear plant in the world to operate a European Pressurised Reactor, a Franco-German technology that for two decades was bedevilled by delays and cost overruns.

China’s handling of nuclear plant leak shows need for transparency

The Taishan plant’s first reactor began commercial operations in December 2018, and its second reactor came on stream in September 2019.

CGN and EDF are also collaborating on an EPR nuclear plant in the UK, under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Citing unidentified sources and documents, CNN reported last month that Framatome, an EDF unit, had informed the US government of a potential “imminent radiological threat to the [Taishan] site and to the public”.

The news network said that Joe Biden’s National Security Council was monitoring the situation but did not think that a “crisis level” had been reached.

Nuclear power in China is central to President Xi Jinping’s ambitious environmental goals, which include achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2060. About 50 nuclear reactors operate in China, accounting for about 5 per cent of total power generation.

CGN did not respond to requests for comment outside normal business hours on Thursday.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3a5f59c-7603-4bc5-b1c6-6b39202f7b48

‘Advanced’ Nuclear Reactors? Don’t Hold Your Breath

With little hard evidence, their developers maintain they’ll be cheaper, safer and more secure than existing power plants

By Elliott Negin on July 23, 2021

CLIMATE | OPINION

Cooling tower for a conventional nuke. Credit: Getty Images

The U.S. nuclear power industry is at an impasse. Since 2003, 11 of the 104 light-water reactors in operation at the time have closed, mainly as a result of aging infrastructure and the inability to compete with natural gas, wind and solar, which are now the cheapest sources of electricity in the United States and most other countries worldwide.

In the early 2000s, the industry promoted a “renaissance” to try to stem its incipient decline, and in 2005, Congress provided nearly $20 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The result? Only two new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors, still under construction in Georgia, which will cost at least $14 billion apiece—double their estimated price tags—and take more than twice as long as estimated to be completed. Another two partially built AP1000 reactors in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017 after a $9-billion investment.

Given the struggle to build these standard-sized, 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors, the industry has turned to two other gambits to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which, because they lack the advantage of economies of scale, would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water “advanced” reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Unlike light-water reactors, these non-light-water designs rely on materials other than water for cooling. Some developers contend that these reactors, still in the concept stage, will solve the problems that have plagued light-water reactors and be ready for prime time by the end of this decade.

The siren song of a cheap, safe and secure nuclear reactor on the horizon has attracted the attention of Biden administration officials and some key members of Congress, who are looking for any and all ways to curb carbon emissions. But will so-called advanced reactors provide a powerful tool to combat climate change? A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of non-light-water reactor concepts in development suggests that outcome may be as likely as Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss’ famous 1954 prediction that electricity generated by nuclear energy would ultimately become “too cheap to meter.” Written by UCS physicist Edwin Lyman, the 140-page report found that these designs are no better—and in some respects significantly worse—than the light-water reactors in operation today.

Lyman took a close look at the claims developers have been making about the three main non-light-water designs: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors. With little hard evidence, many developers maintain they will be cheaper, safer and more secure than currently operating reactors; will burn uranium fuel more efficiently, produce less radioactive waste, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation; and could be commercialized relatively soon. Those claims, however, do not hold up to scrutiny.

One of the sodium-cooled fast reactors, TerraPower’s 345-megawatt Natrium, received considerable media attention earlier this year when company founder Bill Gates touted it during interviews about his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In mid-February, Gates told CBS’s 60 Minutes that the Natrium reactor will be safer and cheaper than a conventional light-water reactor and produce less nuclear waste.

According to the UCS report, however, sodium-cooled fast reactors such as Natrium would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.

In June, TerraPower announced that it would build the first Natrium reactor in Wyoming as part of a 50-50 cost-share program with the Department of Energy. The DOE program originally required TerraPower to have the reactor, still in its early design stage, up and running by 2027. The agency recently changed the target date for commercialization to 2028.

From concept to a commercial unit in seven years?

The new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor provides a cautionary tale. It took more than 30 years of research, development and construction before the first one was built in China and began generating power in 2018. According to the UCS report, if federal regulators require the necessary safety demonstrations, it could take at least 20 years—and billions of dollars in additional costs—to commercialize non-light-water reactors, their associated fuel cycle facilities, and other related infrastructure.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have to adapt some regulations when licensing reactor technologies that differ significantly in design from the current fleet. Lyman says that should not mean weakening public health and safety standards, finding no justification for the claim that “advanced” reactors will be so much safer and more secure that the NRC can exempt them from fundamental safeguards. On the contrary, because there are so many open questions about these reactors, he says they may need to meet even more stringent requirements.

The report recommends that the DOE suspend its advanced reactor demonstration program until the NRC determines whether it will require full-scale prototype tests before any designs are licensed for commercial deployment, which the report argues are essential. The report also calls on Congress to require the DOE to convene an independent commission to review the technical merits of non-light-water reactors and approve only those projects that have a high likelihood of commercialization and are clearly safer and more secure than the current fleet.

Finally, it recommends that the DOE and Congress consider spending more research and development dollars on improving the safety and security of light-water reactors, rather than on commercializing immature, overhyped non-light-water reactor designs.

“Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks,” says Lyman. “Given that it should take at least two decades to commercialize any new nuclear reactor technology if done properly, the non-light-water concepts we reviewed do not offer a near-term solution and could only offer a long-term one if their safety and security risks are adequately addressed.” Any federal appropriations for research, development and deployment of these reactor designs, he says, “should be guided by a realistic assessment of the likely societal benefits that would result from investing billions of taxpayer dollars, not based on wishful thinking.”

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Recent Articles by Elliott Negin
It's Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets

"THEORETICAL"

China is gearing up to activate the world's first 'clean' commercial nuclear reactor


By Ben Turner - Staff Writer 1 day ago

Plans include building up to 30 reactors in partnered nations.

A top down view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's 1960s molten salt reactor experiment, an early precursor to the Chinese reactor. (Image credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory/US Department of Energy)

Chinese government scientists have unveiled plans for a first-of-its-kind, experimental nuclear reactor that does not need water for cooling.

The molten-salt nuclear reactor, which runs on liquid thorium rather than uranium, is expected to be safer than traditional reactors because the molten salt cools and solidifies quickly when exposed to the air, insulating the thorium, so that any potential leak would spill much less radiation into the surrounding environment compared with leaks from traditional reactors.

The prototype reactor is expected to be completed next month, with the first tests beginning as early as September. This will pave the way for the building of the first commercial reactor, slated for construction by 2030.

As this type of reactor doesn't require water, it will be able to operate in desert regions. The location of the first commercial reactor will be in the desert city of Wuwei, and the Chinese government has plans to build more across the sparsely populated deserts and plains of western China, as well as up to 30 in countries involved in China's "Belt and Road" initiative — a global investment program that will see China invest in the infrastructure of 70 countries.

Chinese government officials view nuclear energy exports to be a key part of the Belt and Road program.

"'Going out' with nuclear power has already become a state strategy, and nuclear exports will help optimize our export trade and free up domestic high-end manufacturing capacity," Wang Shoujun, a standing committee member of the China People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — a political advisory body which acts as a link between the Chinese government and business interests, said in a report on the CPPCC's website.

Thorium — a silvery, radioactive metal named after the Norse god of thunder — is much cheaper and more abundant than uranium, and cannot easily be used to create nuclear weapons. The new reactor is a part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's drive to make China carbon-neutral by 2060, according to the team at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics that developed the prototype. China currently contributes 27% towards total global carbon emissions, the largest amount from any individual country and more than the entire developed world combined, according to a 2019 report by the US-based Rhodium Group.


"Small-scale reactors have significant advantages in terms of efficiency, flexibility and economy," Yan Rui, a physics professor at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, and colleagues wrote in a paper about the project published July 15 in the journal Nuclear Techniques. "They can play a key role in the future transition to clean energy. It is expected that small-scale reactors will be widely deployed in the next few years."


Taklamakan desert, nicknamed the "The Sea of Death", is the second largest shifting sand desert in the world, and a potential site for the waterless reactors. (Image credit: Que Hure/VCG via Getty Images)

Instead of using fuel rods, molten-salt reactors work by dissolving thorium into liquid fluoride salt before sending it into the reactor chamber at temperatures above 1,112 Fahrenheit (600 degrees Celsius). When bombarded with high energy neutrons, thorium atoms transform into uranium-233, an isotope of uranium which can then split, releasing energy and even more neutrons through a process called nuclear fission. This starts a chain reaction, releasing heat into the thorium-salt mixture, which is then sent through a second chamber where the excess energy is extracted and transformed into electricity.

Thorium reactors have long held an elusive appeal for nuclear scientists. Sitting just two positions to the left of uranium on the periodic table of chemical elements, nearly all mined thorium is thorium-232, the isotope used in nuclear reactions. In contrast, only 0.72% of total mined uranium is the fissile uranium-235 used in traditional nuclear reactors. This makes thorium a much more abundant source of energy.

Thorium’s advantages don’t stop there. The waste products of uranium-235 nuclear reactions remain highly radioactive for up to 10,000 years and include plutonium-239, the key ingredient in nuclear weapons. Traditional nuclear waste has to be housed in lead containers, isolated in secure facilities, and subject to rigorous checks to ensure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. In contrast, the main byproducts of a thorium nuclear reaction are uranium-233, which can be recycled in other reactions, and a number of other byproducts with an average “half-life” (the time it takes for half of a substance’s radioactive atoms to decay to a non-radioactive state) of just 500 years.


After the 2 gigawatt prototype has undergone tests in September, China plans to build its first commercial thorium reactor. Measuring only 10 feet (3 meters) tall and 8 feet (2.5 m) wide, the researchers claim it will be capable of generating 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide power for 100,000 people. Still, it must be paired with other equipment, like steam turbines, to make usable electricity.

The molten-salt reactor concept was first devised back in 1946 as part of a plan by the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force to create a nuclear-powered supersonic jet.

However, the experiment and the many others which followed — including an experimental reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee which operated for many years — ran into problems. Corrosion caused by the hot salt cracked pipes and the weak radioactivity of thorium makes it very difficult for fission reactions to build up to sustainable levels without adding uranium. The investigations into thorium stopped.

It is not yet clear how, sixty years later, Chinese researchers have solved these technical problems.

China's effort is the furthest developed of many other fresh attempts to create thorium reactors, including one called Natrium, which plans to build a pilot plant in Wyoming and enjoys the financial backing of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Nuclear reactors aren't the only technology China is investing in as a part of its effort to become carbon-neutral. The Baihetan Dam, the second-largest hydroelectric facility in the world after China's Three Gorges Dam, went online in June and has an energy-generating capacity of 16 gigawatts. The U.K.-based energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimates that China will add 430 gigawatts of new solar and wind power capacity in the next five years.

Even as China positions itself as a global leader in the fight against climate change, the country is already under acute strain from extreme weather events. Severe flooding in the province of Henan this week displaced around 100,000 people and killed at least 33, CNN reported. The weather bureau in Zhengzhou, the capital of the region, said the three days of rain matched levels seen only "once in 1,000 years."

Originally published on Live Science.

Plans for largest U.S. solar field north of Vegas scrapped

OVERTON, NEVADA
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED  JULY 23, 2021

The push to transition from carbon-emitting fuel sources to renewable energy is hitting a roadblock in Nevada, where solar power developers are abandoning plans to build what would have been the United States’ largest array of solar panels in the desert north of Las Vegas.

“Battle Born Solar Project” developers this week withdrew their application with the federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the Moapa Valley hilltop where the panels were planned, KLAS-TV Las Vegas reported.

California-based Arevia Power told the television station that its solar panels would be set far enough back on Mormon Mesa to not be visible from the valley. But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities – biking, ATVs and skydiving – and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”

Solar Partners VII LLC, another California firm involved in the project, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Land Management saying it intended to withdraw its application “in response to recent communication” with the agency, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

The proposed plant would have spanned more than 14 square miles (37 square kilometres) atop the scenic mesa and had an 850 megawatt capacity – roughly one-tenth of Nevada’s total capacity and enough to provide daytime energy to 500,000 homes, according to the company.

The stalled project presents a setback for the Western state, which aims to transition to 50% renewable energy by 2030 and currently generates roughly 28% of its utility-scale electricity from renewables.

Gov. Steve Sisolak sent a letter to federal officials in 2020 requesting they fast-track the project.

Although a majority of the state’s voters approved an energy transition ballot question last year, large-scale projects like Battle Born Solar have drawn backlash from conservationists, endangered species advocates and local businesses that cater to tourists.

Nevada fulfills most of its energy needs using natural gas plants or through importing power produced elsewhere. But developers have rapidly scaled up their investments in solar and geothermal in the windswept lands north of Las Vegas, where sunshine and open land are abundant.