New Research Could Help Boost the Efficiency of Nuclear Power Plants in the Near Future

By TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 8, 2021

New research from Texas A&M University scientists could help in boosting the efficiency of nuclear power plants in the near future. By using a combination of physics-based modeling and advanced simulations, they found the key underlying factors that cause radiation damage to nuclear reactors, which could then provide insight into designing more radiation-tolerant, high-performance materials.

“Reactors need to run at either higher power or use fuels longer to increase their performance. But then, at these settings, the risk of wear and tear also increases,” said Dr. Karim Ahmed, assistant professor in the Department of Nuclear Engineering. “So, there is a pressing need to come up with better reactor designs, and a way to achieve this goal is by optimizing the materials used to build the nuclear reactors.”

The results of the study are published in the journal Frontiers in Materials.

A study by Dr. Karim Ahmed and his team could help optimize materials for modern nuclear reactors so that they are safer, more efficient and economical.

According to the Department of Energy, nuclear energy surpasses all other natural resources in power output and accounts for 20% of the United States’ electricity generation. The source of nuclear energy is fission reactions, wherein an isotope of uranium splits into daughter elements after a hit from fast-moving neutrons. These reactions generate enormous heat, so nuclear reactors parts, particularly the pumps and pipes, are made with materials possessing exceptional strength and resistance to corrosion.

However, fission reactions also produce intense radiation that causes a deterioration in the nuclear reactor’s structural materials. At the atomic level, when energetic radiation infiltrates these materials, it can either knock off atoms from their locations, causing point defects, or force atoms to take vacant spots, forming interstitial defects. Both these imperfections disrupt the regular arrangement of atoms within the metal crystal structure. And then, what starts as tiny imperfections grow to form voids and dislocation loops, compromising the material’s mechanical properties over time.

While there is some understanding of the type of defects that occur in these materials upon radiation exposure, Ahmed said it has been arduous to model how radiation, along with other factors, such as the temperature of the reactor and the microstructure of the material, together contribute to the formation defects and their growth.

“The challenge is the computational cost,” he said. “In the past, simulations have been limited to specific materials and for regions spanning a few microns across, but if the domain size is increased to even 10s of microns, the computational load drastically jumps.”

In particular, the researchers said to accommodate larger domain sizes, previous studies have compromised on the number of parameters within the simulation’s differential equations. However, an undesirable consequence of ignoring some parameters over others is an inaccurate description of the radiation damage.

To overcome these limitations, Ahmed and his team designed their simulation with all the parameters, making no assumptions on whether one of them was more pertinent than the other. Also, to perform the now computationally heavy tasks, they used the resources provided by the Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing group.

Upon running the simulation, their analysis revealed that using all parameters in nonlinear combinations yields an accurate description of radiation damage. In particular, in addition to the material’s microstructure, the radiation condition within the reactor, the reactor design, and temperature are also important in predicting the instability in materials due to radiation.

On the other hand, the researchers’ work also sheds light on why specialized nanomaterials are more tolerant to voids and dislocation loops. They found that instabilities are only triggered when the border enclosing clusters of co-oriented atomic crystals, or grain boundary, is above a critical size. So, nanomaterials with their extremely fine grain sizes suppress instabilities, thereby becoming more radiation-tolerant.

“Although ours is a fundamental theoretical and modeling study, we think it will help the nuclear community to optimize materials for different types of nuclear energy applications, especially new materials for reactors that are safer, more efficient, and economical, ” said Ahmed. “This progress will eventually increase our clean, carbon-free energy contribution.”

Reference: “Surface and Size Effects on the Behaviors of Point Defects in Irradiated Crystalline Solids” by Abdurrahman Ozturk, Merve Gencturk and Karim Ahmed, 10 August 2021, Frontiers in Materials.
DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2021.684862

Dr. Abdurrahman Ozturk, a research assistant in the nuclear engineering department, is the lead author of this work. Merve Gencturk, a graduate student in the nuclear engineering department, also contributed to this research

UK

More Nuclear Power Isn’t Needed. So Why Do Governments Keep Hyping It?

David Vetter
Senior Contributor
Sustainability

FORBES


Construction at Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in 2020. 

Why is the U.K. government so keen to © 2020 BLOOMBERG FINANCE LP

It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that, in order to have a chance of limiting global warming, humanity must stop fossil fuels to generate electricity. But how do we go about that?

In addition to using renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, the U.K. government is in favor of using nuclear power to hasten decarbonization of the country’s energy supply. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has consistently backed the development of “small and advanced reactors,” while last week the country’s Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, stated: “While renewables like wind and solar will become an integral part of where our electricity will come from by 2050, they will always require a stable low-carbon baseload from nuclear.”

This pronouncement, offered as a statement of fact, left some observers scratching their heads: here was a U.K. government minister claiming renewables would always require nuclear power to function. Was this true? And why do politicians like to use the word “baseload,” anyway?

“Baseload is a concept used in traditional power systems,” Kang Li, professor of smart energy systems at the University of Leeds, told me. “Mass electrification of transport, industry and heat is expected to stress the power operation significantly. One of the measures to meet the significantly increased electricity demand, while mitigating the fluctuations of renewable generation, is to develop a new nuclear station.

So, because the availability of wind and sun fluctuates, the government’s reasoning is that, as Britain’s coal and gas turbines are shut down, nuclear power will be required to provide a constant, stable source of electricity.

But many experts, including Steve Holliday, the former CEO of the U.K. National Grid, say that notion is outdated. In a 2015 interview Holliday trashed the concept of baseload, arguing that in a modern, decentralized electricity system, the usefulness of large power stations had been reduced to coping with peaks in demand.

But even for that purpose, Sarah J. Darby, associate professor of the energy program at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, told me, nuclear isn’t of much use. “Nuclear stations are particularly unsuited to meeting peak demand: they are so expensive to build that it makes no sense to use them only for short periods of time,” she explained. “Even if it were easy to adjust their output flexibly—which it isn’t—there doesn’t appear to be any business case for nuclear, whether large, small, ‘advanced’ or otherwise.”

In a white paper published in June, a team of researchers at Imperial College London revealed that the quickest and cheapest way to meet Britain’s energy needs by 2035 would be to drastically ramp up the building of wind farms and energy storage, such as batteries. “If solar and/or nuclear become substantially cheaper then one should build more, but there is no reason to build more nuclear just because it is ‘firm’ or ‘baseload,’” Tim Green, co-director of Imperial’s Energy Future Lab told me. “Storage, demand-side response and international interconnection can all be used to manage the variability of wind.”

Another vital issue concerns time. Owing to the well-documented safety and environmental concerns surrounding ionizing radiation, planning and building even a small nuclear reactor takes many years. In 2007, Britain’s large Hinkley Point C nuclear power station was predicted to be up and running by 2017. “Estimated completion date is now 2026,” Darby noted. “And Hinkley C was using established technology. Given the nuclear industry’s record of time delays and overspends, the claim that the ‘latest nuclear technology will be up and running within the next decade’ is unconvincing.”

That’s a problem, given that Britain needs to reduce its emissions 78% by 2035 to stay on track with the Paris Agreement.

Indeed, according to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear energy “meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”

So if there isn’t a need for more nuclear power, and it’s too expensive and slow to do the job its proponents are saying it will do, why is the government so keen to back it?

Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Sussex, is convinced that the pressure to support nuclear power comes from another U.K. commitment: defense. More specifically, the country’s fleet of nuclear submarines.

The nuclear powered submarine HMS Vengeance departs for Devonport prior to re-fit

“The U.S. and France have openly acknowledged this military rationale for new civil nuclear build,” he told me. “U.K. defense literature is also very clear on the same point. Sustaining civil nuclear power despite its high costs, helps channel taxpayer and consumer revenues into a shared infrastructure, without which support, military nuclear activities would become prohibitively expensive on their own.”

This is no conspiracy theory. In 2018, Stirling and his colleague Philip Johnstone published the findings of their research into “interdependencies between civil and military nuclear infrastructures” in countries with nuclear capability. In the U.S., a 2017 report from the Energy Futures Initiative, which includes testimony from former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in 2017, states: “a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector and has a strong presence in states with commercial nuclear power plants”

In the U.K., bodies including the Nuclear Industry Council, a joint forum between the nuclear industry and the government, have explicitly highlighted the overlap between the need for a civil nuclear sector and the country’s submarine programs. And this week, Rolls-Royce, which builds the propulsion systems for the country’s nuclear submarines, announced it had secured some $292 million in funding to develop small modular reactors of the type touted by the Prime Minister.

In Stirling’s view, these relationships help to explain “the otherwise serious conundrum, as to why official support should continue for civil nuclear new build at a time when the energy case has become so transparently weak.”

Stirling and other experts say the energy case for nuclear is weak because there are better, cheaper and quicker alternatives that are readily available.

“When there is too little wind and solar, zero emissions generators which can flexibly and rapidly increase their output are needed,” said Mark Barrett, professor of energy and environmental systems modelling at University College London. “These can be renewables, such as biogas, or generators using fuels made with renewables such as hydrogen. But unlike nuclear, these can be turned off when wind and solar are adequate.”MORE FROM FORBESHow Archaeology Could Help Deal With A New, Old Enemy: Climate ChangeBy David Vetter

Indeed, Barrett pointed out, renewables are becoming so cheap that energy surpluses won’t necessarily be that big a deal.

“Renewable costs have fallen 60-80% in the last decade with more to come, such that it is lower cost to spill some renewable generation than store it, and predominantly renewable systems are lower cost than nuclear. Renewables can be rapidly built: U.K. wind has increased to 24% of total generation, mostly in just 10 years. And of course renewables do not engender safety and waste problems.”

Sarah Darby agreed, saying “a mix of energy efficiency, storage and more flexible demand shows much more promise for reducing carbon emissions overall and for coping with peaks and troughs in electricity supply.”

“The U.K. market for flexibility services is already delivering effective firm-equivalent capacity on the scale of a large nuclear reactor per year, at costs that are a small fraction of the costs of nuclear power,” Stirling told me. “With costs of flexibility diminishing radically—in batteries, other storage, electric vehicles, responsive demand, hydrogen production—the scope for further future cost savings is massive.”

“There is no foreseeable resource constraint on renewables or smart grids that makes the case for nuclear anywhere near credible,” he added. “That the U.K. Government is finding itself able to sustain such a manifestly flawed case, with so little serious questioning, is a major problem for U.K. democracy.”

In the U.K., both the incumbent Conservative party and the main opposition party, Labour, support the development of new and advanced nuclear power reactors. In an emailed response to questions for the U.K. government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a government spokesperson categorically denied any link between the civil nuclear sector and the defense industry:

“The civil nuclear sector is separate from the defence nuclear programme, and any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue. Civil nuclear is not funded by the defence budget, and civil nuclear materials are kept under international safeguards and cannot be diverted to defence programmes.”

The spokesperson went on to reiterate the government’s case for nuclear:

“Nuclear power remains an important and reliable source of clean electricity, for times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Alongside renewables, it will continue to support the delivery of a low cost energy system, while meeting our ambitious climate change goals, a position shared by the independent Committee on Climate Change.”

I contacted the office of Labour’s shadow secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy Edward Miliband for comment, but no response has been forthcoming.

Update 08/06/2021 BST2114: This post has been updated to include a response from BEIS, the U.K. government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Follow me on Twitter.

David Vetter
My key interests are in decarbonization and the development of circular economies.

The US Army tried portable nuclear power at remote bases 60 years ago – it didn’t go well

Part of a portable nuclear power plant arrives at Camp Century in 1960

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

July 20, 2021

In a tunnel 40 feet beneath the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, a Geiger counter screamed. It was 1964, the height of the Cold War. U.S. soldiers in the tunnel, 800 miles from the North Pole, were dismantling the Army’s first portable nuclear reactor.

Commanding Officer Joseph Franklin grabbed the radiation detector, ordered his men out and did a quick survey before retreating from the reactor.

He had spent about two minutes exposed to a radiation field he estimated at 2,000 rads per hour, enough to make a person ill. When he came home from Greenland, the Army sent Franklin to the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There, he set off a whole body radiation counter designed to assess victims of nuclear accidents. Franklin was radioactive.

The Army called the reactor portable, even at 330 tons, because it was built from pieces that each fit in a C-130 cargo plane. It was powering Camp Century, one of the military’s most unusual bases.

The Camp Century tunnels started as trenches cut into the ice.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Camp Century was a series of tunnels built into the Greenland ice sheet and used for both military research and scientific projects. The military boasted that the nuclear reactor there, known as the PM-2A, needed just 44 pounds of uranium to replace a million or more gallons of diesel fuel. Heat from the reactor ran lights and equipment and allowed the 200 or so men at the camp as many hot showers as they wanted in that brutally cold environment.

The PM-2A was the third child in a family of eight Army reactors, several of them experiments in portable nuclear power.

A few were misfits. PM-3A, nicknamed Nukey Poo, was installed at the Navy base at Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound. It made a nuclear mess in the Antarctic, with 438 malfunctions in 10 years including a cracked and leaking containment vessel. SL-1, a stationary low-power nuclear reactor in Idaho, blew up during refueling, killing three men. SM-1 still sits 12 miles from the White House at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It cost US$2 million to build and is expected to cost $68 million to clean up. The only truly mobile reactor, the ML-1, never really worked.

The Army abandoned its truck-mounted portable reactor program in 1965. 

This is the ML-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Nearly 60 years after the PM-2A was installed and the ML-1 project abandoned, the U.S. military is exploring portable land-based nuclear reactors again.

In May 2021, the Pentagon requested $60 million for Project Pele. Its goal: Design and build, within five years, a small, truck-mounted portable nuclear reactor that could be flown to remote locations and war zones. It would be able to be powered up and down for transport within a few days.

The Navy has a long and mostly successful history of mobile nuclear power. The first two nuclear submarines, the Nautilus and the Skate, visited the North Pole in 1958, just before Camp Century was built. Two other nuclear submarines sank in the 1960s – their reactors sit quietly on the Atlantic Ocean floor along with two plutonium-containing nuclear torpedos. Portable reactors on land pose different challenges – any problems are not under thousands of feet of ocean water.

Those in favor of mobile nuclear power for the battlefield claim it will provide nearly unlimited, low-carbon energy without the need for vulnerable supply convoys. Others argue that the costs and risks outweigh the benefits. There are also concerns about nuclear proliferation if mobile reactors are able to avoid international inspection.
A leaking reactor on the Greenland ice sheet

The PM-2A was built in 18 months. It arrived at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland in July 1960 and was dragged 138 miles across the ice sheet in pieces and then assembled at Camp Century.

When the reactor went critical for the first time in October, the engineers turned it off immediately because the PM-2A leaked neutrons, which can harm people. The Army fashioned lead shields and built walls of 55-gallon drums filled with ice and sawdust trying to protect the operators from radiation.

‘The Big Picture,’ an Army TV show distributed to U.S. stations, dedicated a 1961 episode to Camp Century and the reactor.

The PM-2A ran for two years, making fossil fuel-free power and heat and far more neutrons than was safe.

Those stray neutrons caused trouble. Steel pipes and the reactor vessel grew increasingly radioactive over time, as did traces of sodium in the snow. Cooling water leaking from the reactor contained dozens of radioactive isotopes potentially exposing personnel to radiation and leaving a legacy in the ice.

When the reactor was dismantled for shipping, its metal pipes shed radioactive dust. Bulldozed snow that was once bathed in neutrons from the reactor released radioactive flakes of ice.

Franklin must have ingested some of the radioactive isotopes that the leaking neutrons made. In 2002, he had a cancerous prostate and kidney removed. By 2015, the cancer spread to his lungs and bones. He died of kidney cancer on March 8, 2017, as a retired, revered and decorated major general.

Joseph Franklin (right) with pieces of the decommissioned PM-2A reactor at Thule Air Base. U.S. Army Photograph, from Franklin Family, Dignity Memorial

Camp Century’s radioactive legacy

Camp Century was shut down in 1967. During its eight-year life, scientists had used the base to drill down through the ice sheet and extract an ice core that my colleagues and I are still using today to reveal secrets of the ice sheet’s ancient past. Camp Century, its ice core and climate change are the focus of a book I am now writing.

The PM-2A was found to be highly radioactive and was buried in an Idaho nuclear waste dump. Army “hot waste” dumping records indicate it left radioactive cooling water buried in a sump in the Greenland ice sheet.

When scientists studying Camp Century in 2016 suggested that the warming climate now melting Greenland’s ice could expose the camp and its waste, including lead, fuel oil, PCBs and possibly radiation, by 2100, relations between the U.S, Denmark and Greenland grew tense. Who would be responsible for the cleanup and any environmental damage?

A schematic diagram of Camp Century’s nuclear reactor in the Greenland ice sheet. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Portable nuclear reactors today

There are major differences between nuclear power production in the 1960s and today.

The Pele reactor’s fuel will be sealed in pellets the size of poppy seeds, and it will be air-cooled so there’s no radioactive coolant to dispose of.

Being able to produce energy with fewer greenhouse emissions is a positive in a warming world. The U.S. military’s liquid fuel use is close to all of Portugal’s or Peru’s. Not having to supply remote bases with as much fuel can also help protect lives in dangerous locations.

But, the U.S. still has no coherent national strategy for nuclear waste disposal, and critics are asking what happens if Pele falls into enemy hands. Researchers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Academy of Sciences have previously questioned the risks of nuclear reactors being attacked by terrorists. As proposals for portable reactors undergo review over the coming months, these and other concerns will be drawing attention.

The U.S. military’s first attempts at land-based portable nuclear reactors didn’t work out well in terms of environmental contamination, cost, human health and international relations. That history is worth remembering as the military considers new mobile reactors.

Author

Paul Bierman
Fellow of the Gund Institute for Environment, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Disclosure statement
Paul Bierman receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation

 

Nuclear industry pitching small modular nuclear reactors for the north

Christopher Read, APTN

Nov 26, 2021

What will it mean for plans to entomb waste on traditional territories? 

With concern about climate change increasingly on the front burner globally, nuclear power is getting renewed interest as a carbon-free energy source.

The federal government is looking to the potential of small modular reactors, or SMRs, as a way to power remote industrial locations and northern communities.

Canada has its SMR Action Plan – which sees the development of small modular nuclear reactors as being necessary to help get us to net-zero emissions by 2050.

And in 2020, then Natural Resources minister Seamus O’Regan set the tone for this nuclear revival when he gave the keynote address at the Canadian Nuclear Association’s annual conference.

“We are placing nuclear energy front and centre,” said O’Regan. “Of course – nowhere is the potential of nuclear greater than it is with respect to small modular reactors – to generate electricity, and power resource extraction in distant places …and to offer a clean alternative source of light and heat in rural and remote communities.”

One of the remote areas being considered for small modular reactors is Nunavut, where power comes from diesel generating stations.

Qulliq Energy Corporation – the power company owned by Nunavut – is listed along with Bruce Power, Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power and SaskPower, as a utility participating in the SMR Action Plan.

Former Iqaluit mayor Madeleine Redfern signed a recent open letter advocating for nuclear power as part of the plan to mitigate climate change put out by Canadians for Nuclear Energy.

The Inuk politician is also on the board of the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, which has a micro modular reactor in development at the Chalk River nuclear facility in Ontario.

The inner workings of a Moltex small modular reactor or SMR.

---

This is just a small slice of the attempted nuclear revival underway – but all told, it’s big news for an industry that has been in decline.

So what does it mean for the main and major problem posed by nuclear energy – the waste – which can be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years?

With that question in mind in Nuclear Revival, APTN Investigates updates reporting done in 2020 about “Canada’s Plan” – which is the name the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) gives to their quest to find a place to bury 4.8 million bundles of used nuclear fuel.

More specifically, the NWMO, which is a consortium of Canadian nuclear industry players created by an act of parliament, is looking for a community willing to allow used nuclear fuel to be placed in what’s called a deep geological repository – or DGR.

Currently, the NWMO is engaging with Ignace, Ont., a small community 250 km northwest of Thunder Bay, as well as the municipality of South Bruce, on Lake Huron northwest of Toronto.

First Nations communities in the area of Ignace and South Bruce are being courted by the NWMO as well.

While the NWMO looks for a place to bury used nuclear fuel in Ontario, a company called Moltex in New Brunswick wants to reuse that same nuclear fuel in their first-of-a-kind small modular reactor design.

Moltex is one of 11 potential small modular reactor vendors listed on the SMR Action Plan website.

The company has been given $50.5 million by the federal government to develop its SMR at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick – which is on the north shore of the Bay of Fundy and in Peskotomuhkati (formerly known as Passamaquoddy) traditional territory.

“If we want to get to net-zero by 2050, it’s pretty clear that even though there’s a lot of challenges in nuclear, we need nuclear power to be part of the mix to supplement renewable power when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing,” says Rory O’Sullivan, CEO of Moltex Canada.

Moltex wants to use spent nuclear fuel from New Brunswick Power’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in their SMR.

“Instead of putting it in the ground where it’ll be radioactive for very long periods, we can reuse it as fuel to create more clean energy from what was waste,” says O’Sullivan.

This, O’Sullivan argues, will help make the spent fuel safer.

“We can’t get rid of the waste altogether, but the aim is to get rid, to get it down to about a thousandth of the volume of the original long-lived radioactivity,” says O’Sullivan.

But Gordon Edwards, a prominent Canadian nuclear critic is not buying the safety case presented by Moltex.

Edwards is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and works on a radioactive task force with the Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois Caucus.

For one thing, Edwards is uneasy about the fact that Moltex would like its SMR to be used around the world, and countries with this technology might want to use plutonium acquired in the Moltex process to make nuclear bombs.

“By spreading this technology around the world, we’re giving many different countries the opportunity to access plutonium – to separate plutonium,” says Edwards, “and that means that we’re almost inviting people to take advantage of the opportunity to develop their own nuclear weapons program, as North Korea has done, for example.”

Moltex, on the other hand, says its process does not involve extracting plutonium per se.

“We are not extracting plutonium,” O’Sullivan told APTN. “Extracting plutonium would not be possible in Canada.  Plutonium on its own is a very dangerous, hazardous material. But we are doing is taking out all of the long-lived radioactive waste as a result of the spent fuel, which is only about half a percent. So it includes the plutonium, but it’s all the other contaminants as well. We don’t go near plutonium separation.”

But Edwards is of the opinion that Moltex is going close enough to plutonium separation for it to be a problem.

“Moltex claims that because the plutonium is not being separated all by itself, because it’s also separating out these other heavier than uranium isotopes that therefore it shouldn’t be a problem for weapons because you need to get pure plutonium to really be able to make a good nuclear weapon,” says Edwards, “but they’ve already done most of the work.”

Like Edwards, Peskotomuhkati Nation, which counts the land occupied by the Point Lepreau nuclear facility as part of its traditional territory, has concerns about the Moltex project as well.

“Well, I don’t feel very good about it, to be honest,” says Peskotomuhkati Chief Hugh Akagi, “If you pay tax on anything in this country, you’ve just made a donation to Moltex. If you’re not concerned about $50 million being turned over to a corporation for a technology that does not exist – I hope you heard me correctly on that.”

In Nuclear Revival, APTN also speaks with the NWMO about what SMRs might mean for plans to entomb high-level nuclear waste deep underground.

Derek Wilson is vice president of Construction and Projects for the NWMO and he says there are still unanswered questions, including one about the potential use of enriched uranium in some SMRs on the drawing table.

“Until we have more information on the actual fuel type, the configuration of the fuel, and how that fuel would be received it’s difficult to say how the enrichment would impact our DGR,” says Wilson.

A proposed burial system for spent nuclear materials.

---

The issue with enriched uranium – which is not used in Canada’s CANDU-type nuclear reactors, is that it can go critical, or accidentally chain react.

“It’s called a criticality accident,” says Edwards, “releasing enormous amounts of energy just by the splitting of atoms spontaneously underground when the repository floods.”

Edwards believes that water will eventually find its way into the NWMO’s DGR over the eons it will be tasked with keeping nuclear waste safely separated from our environment.

Another issue facing NWMO as it considers what kinds of spent nuclear fuel might be coming out of SMRs is the geometry of these new fuel bundles.

That’s because the NWMO plans to put used nuclear fuel within a “multiple-barrier system” which has been designed to accept the standard size and shape of fuel bundles that are used in Canadian reactors.

Wilson says this is an issue being considered by the NWMO but adds that until we’re further down the road of SMR development it’s hard to know what the answers are.

“Can the vendor produce a fuel – a fuel waste that we would receive that could go into our container,” asks Wilson as he summarizes the problem.  “So is there processing or can they configure their fuel in such a way that we could actually incorporate it into our used fuel container design? That’s probably the simplest.”

The question at the centre of all this is the safety of expanding nuclear energy production as a way to help us get net-zero emissions – and it’s a question some are hoping to hear from the new environment minister about.

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is listed as one of the federal entities supporting the SMR Action Plan, but Minister Steven Guilbeault is a former activist with Greenpeace, an organization that is against nuclear power and SMRs.

As recently as 2018 Guilbeault tweeted, “it’s time to close Pickering #Nuclear Plant and go for #renewables.”

---

In an encounter at COP26, Guilbeault was questioned by Dr. Chris Keefer, president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy and an emergency medicine physician in Toronto.

Keefer asked Guilbeault to comment on the fact that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is now presenting nuclear power in a positive light – but Guilbeault wouldn’t reveal his personal stance.

“What I’ve said publicly since I’ve been here – it won’t be up to the government to decide which technologies will flourish,” says Guilbeault in the exchange.

Guilbeault’s office did not respond to an interview request from APTN.

Neither did Jenica Atwin, Liberal MP for the Fredericton riding, who before crossing the floor from the Green Party earlier this year issued a statement calling Canada’s nuclear policies “profoundly misguided.”

Expanding nuclear energy to the Arctic: The potential of small modular reactors

By Julia Nesheiwat


With increased emphasis on achieving political and technological solutions to climate change, many experts in the global community are turning their focus to the virtually emissions-free power produced by nuclear reactors. The continued development of small modular reactors (SMRs) offers a potential opportunity to overcome many of the hindrances presented by larger nuclear power plants, including high costs, complex supply chains, large physical infrastructure, and unsuitability in harsh environments, such as the Arctic. The Biden Administration and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have both signaled that SMRs have a key role in combatting carbon emissions and meeting increased energy demand. More recently, several Canadian provincial governments have joined forces with private corporations to conduct feasibility studies for the deployment of SMRs in the far north. SMRs present a vital opportunity for energy production in the Arctic, where energy needs are more demanding and difficult to meet due to the region’s low temperatures, low population density, and inaccessibility. While other energy sources such as natural gas and oil are abundant in the Arctic, their exploitation is not sustainable and often comes at a high cost to local communities and the environment. While nuclear energy is not a new technology, recent advancements like SMRs present a promising solution to challenges associated with traditional nuclear power and fossil fuels, as well as along with high-polluting diesel generators used in the Arctic.

Arctic nations have explored the viability of nuclear energy production in the region for years. Despite high electricity production capabilities, traditional nuclear power plants entail complicated waste disposal operations and have more recently come under increased scrutiny over safety concerns and broader public perception issues, especially in Europe. In contrast, SMRs are smaller, easily deployed in almost any environment, and feature extensive passive safety features. They also use a set design framework and have extended fuel cycles, which reduces challenges associated with spent nuclear fuel and lowers the likelihood of radiation escaping containment.

The Arctic currently suffers from a dearth of renewable electricity generation, despite copious opportunities. Roughly half of the Arctic’s populations live in remote locations, requiring off-grid systems; consequently, approximately 80 percent of Arctic communities depend exclusively on diesel generators for electricity. Despite the region’s abundance of natural resources, most diesel fuel is imported, threatening energy security with both increased costs and the likelihood of shortages. While wind, solar, and hydropower are also viable green alternatives to fossil fuels, each comes with its own disadvantages in comparison to SMRs. Wind turbines are not yet adapted to the harsh Arctic conditions with persistent temperatures below – forty degrees Celsius. They likewise carry an environmental impact related to land use and interference with wildlife, especially migratory birds. Solar energy systems also require extensive land to reach higher levels of production, and their effectiveness is limited in the Arctic winter. Hydropower requires large initial investments and may have severe environmental impacts, especially if a large storage lake is necessary. SMRs can overcome all these challenges given their low start-up costs, use of uranium (which is abundant in the Arctic), and minor environmental footprint.

Nevertheless, installing SMRs in the Arctic comes with its own set of unique challenges. SMRs for commercial use are currently restricted by regulatory regimes that are far more accustomed to licensing conventional nuclear power plants. SMRs also generate less power than conventional nuclear plants and require a connection to the electrical grid to transport electricity from the reactor to the end-user. However, they can be deployed on the sites of retiring coal or diesel-fired power plants. For example, in the Canadian North, diesel plants serve many communities in Nunavut. Yet thirteen out of seventeen are at the end of their usable lives. Closing these plants and installing SMRs that can take advantage of existing switchyards and turbines have the potential to reduce initial costs, which could in turn be used to expand the electrical grid to more remote settlements.

As a result of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Pentagon initiated Project Pele which commissioned two companies to design SMRs for its remote operating bases. The research and development project required the companies design and build a one to five megawatt reactor that can last at least three years and be rapidly redeployed and removed. The project—under which BWXT Advanced Technologies and X-Energy will develop prototypes to be evaluated by the Pentagon—has the potential to pave the way toward the adoption of transportable microreactors critical to supplying clean, affordable power to remote communities with limited access to an electrical grid. The Pentagon plans to make a full evaluation in 2022 to determine whether to proceed to limited production.

While SMR technology is still in the early stages of development, increased attention to future advances in this area of nuclear technology is expected to result in a viable, functioning, and deployed SMR before the end of the decade. Expanding research in the nuclear domain will have many positive knock-on effects as well, especially in combatting climate change. The Arctic is the most suitable location for SMR pilot tests due to its remoteness and high-energy needs. To ensure the development and successful long-term deployment of SMRs in the region, governments, private companies, and civil society organizations need to continue to fund, pursue, and encourage further investment in nuclear energy production technologies, with a particular focus on SMRs and their viability in the far north.

Dr. Julia Nesheiwat is a Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center, and since December 2020, has served as Commissioner on the US Arctic Research Commission reporting to the White House and Congress on domestic and international Arctic issues.

NuScale Power, the Industry-Leading Provider of Transformational Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Technology, Announces Plans to Go Public via Merger with Spring Valley Acquisition Corp.

NuScale Power, LLC (“NuScale”) has entered into a business combination agreement with Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SV)

The combined company, which will be named NuScale Power Corporation, will have an estimated pro-forma enterprise value of approximately $1.9 billion and will be listed under the ticker symbol “SMR” upon closing

Transaction includes a $181 million oversubscribed, fully committed common stock PIPE anchored by global financial and strategic investors such as Samsung C&T Corporation, DS Private Equity and Segra Capital Management, with participation by Spring Valley’s sponsor, Pearl Energy

NuScale’s proprietary and innovative carbon-free baseload and load-following power solution, the NuScale Power Module™, is the only viable, near-term deployable U.S. advanced nuclear small modular reactor (SMR) technology

NuScale’s SMR technology is safe, reliable and scalable and the first and only to receive Standard Design Approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The transaction is expected to provide gross proceeds of up to $413 million to bolster and accelerate the commercialization of NuScale’s SMR technology

Fluor (NYSE: FLR) projects to control approximately 60% of the combined company and remain an important partner providing NuScale with engineering services, project management, administrative and supply chain support

December 14, 2021 06:58 AM Eastern Standard Time

PORTLAND, Ore.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--NuScale Power, LLC (“NuScale” or the “Company”), the industry-leading provider of proprietary and innovative advanced nuclear small modular reactor (SMR) technology, and Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SV) (“Spring Valley”), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, today announced they have entered into a definitive business combination agreement to create a first-of-its-kind energy company poised to power the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable and reliable carbon-free nuclear power.

Company Overview

NuScale is the provider of a proprietary and innovative advanced nuclear power solution, the NuScale Power Module™ (NPM), which is the only viable, near-term deployable SMR technology. Capable of generating 77 megawatts electric (MWe) of electricity, the NPM is safe, reliable and scalable – NuScale’s VOYGR™ power plant design can accommodate configurations of four, six and 12 modules that can provide up to 924 megawatts per day of electricity.

NuScale’s NPM can serve as a reliable, carbon-free source of power that complements renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydropower generation. The NPM can provide consistent baseload power with available load-following, no matter the time of day, weather or season. Its unique design and safety features allow it to be easily integrated into electric grids or used in a variety of industrial applications such as water desalination, commercial-scale hydrogen production and carbon-capture technology.

In 2020, NuScale’s NPM became the first and only SMR to receive Standard Design Approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – a watershed moment not only for the Company, but also for the nuclear industry. The advanced design of the NPM eliminates the need for two-thirds of the safety systems and components found in today’s large commercial reactors, which significantly improves the economics of NuScale plants compared to traditional nuclear power plants. NuScale’s reactors are designed to safely shut down in an emergency and self-cool, indefinitely, with no need for operator or computer action, power or the addition of water – a first for any commercial nuclear power plant. The intellectual property supporting NuScale’s technology is protected by more than 600 granted or pending patents.

With broad global consensus that nuclear energy is critical to achieving the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – and for the U.S. to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 – NuScale is well positioned to play a significant and multifaceted role in the global energy transition. As a first mover in the development and provision of SMR technology, the Company has a massive market opportunity, with growing bipartisan support in the U.S. and support around the world. Industry analysts estimate that more than 16,000 gigawatts electric (GWe) of zero-carbon generation capacity additions will be required globally through 2040.

Propelled by the growing urgency to decarbonize the world’s energy system and a longstanding partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, NuScale is currently working with a major regional utility customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), to deploy a NuScale VOYGR power plant in 2029. NuScale has a robust and growing customer development pipeline, with 19 Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or agreements in 11 countries.

NuScale’s scalable technology and diversified business model are designed to drive exceptional financial results and create long-term value. The Company has an attractive, high-margin business model that monetizes its intellectual property through NPM sales and recovery fees, while driving recurring revenues through critical maintenance services over the lifecycle of a plant. NuScale is positioned to deliver the first VOYGR power plant to a customer as soon as 2027 (based upon customer needs), supported by its established supply chain partners. NuScale anticipates being cash flow positive by 2024.

NuScale VOYGR power plants also create significant economic opportunities, including skilled jobs, for the communities where they are located. This is a critical consideration when replacing retiring fossil fuel-generating facilities. For example, in the U.S., the domestic supply chain for manufacturing 27 NPMs per year could generate over 14,000 direct jobs, in addition to indirect benefits in local taxes and economic activity.

Following the transaction, NuScale will continue to be led by its highly experienced leadership team, including John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chris Colbert, Chief Financial Officer, José Reyes, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder, Dale Atkinson, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Nuclear Officer, Tom Mundy, Chief Commercial Officer, and Robert Temple, General Counsel.

Management Comments

John Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of NuScale, said:

“NuScale is building the next generation of nuclear power technology that is safer, more versatile and more cost-efficient than ever before. The scale of our ambition is only matched by the world’s enormous decarbonization needs, and now is the right time to accelerate and expand our efforts to bring our trailblazing SMR technology to more customers around the world. Spring Valley will be a highly complementary strategic partner for NuScale as we enter this next phase of growth, with leadership that brings deep expertise in sustainable energy and a strong operating and investment record in the energy sector, including in nuclear power.”

Christopher D. Sorrells, Chief Executive Officer of Spring Valley, said:

“NuScale is a bellwether company that has developed pioneering technology that can have a transformational impact on humanity by improving the energy sector. By receiving Standard Design Approval from the NRC, NuScale has helped establish a new standard in nuclear safety, and in doing so, developed a new carbon-free power solution that provides unique capabilities and performance that can realistically factor into the clean energy transition in the near term. This is the rare chance to invest in an industry-defining technology. We are very pleased to partner with NuScale and its deeply knowledgeable management team to bring this critical technology to market.”

Alan L. Boeckmann, Executive Chairman, Fluor Corporation, said:

“Fluor expects that the proposed transaction will bolster and accelerate the path to commercialization and deployment of NuScale Power’s unique small modular nuclear reactor technology. This is the next step in Fluor’s plan, first outlined 10 years ago, to work closely with NuScale Power, Congress and the Department of Energy to commercialize this unique carbon-free energy technology. Today’s announcement is further evidence that cost-shared government funding to build first-of-a-kind commercial scale technology can attract private investment and yield results. Fluor will continue to serve as an important partner by providing NuScale Power and its clients with world-class expertise in engineering services, project management and supply chain support.”

Transaction Overview

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the transaction is valued at an estimated pro-forma enterprise value of approximately $1.9 billion. At close, NuScale expects up to $413 million of gross cash proceeds, including a $181 million oversubscribed, fully committed PIPE anchored by Samsung C&T Corporation, DS Private Equity, Segra Capital Management and Pearl Energy. NuScale intends to use the proceeds to fund its path to commercialization and expects no additional capital requirements between closing and achieving positive free cash flow.

Upon completion of the transaction, Fluor projects to control approximately 60% of the combined company, based on the PIPE investment commitments received in the transaction and the current equity and in-the-money equity equivalents of NuScale Power and Spring Valley.

Existing NuScale shareholders, including majority owner Fluor, will retain their equity in NuScale and roll it into the combined company. Fluor will also continue to provide NuScale with engineering services, project management, administrative and supply chain support. Additional existing strategic investors in NuScale include Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction, Samsung C&T Corporation, JGC Holdings Corporation, IHI Corporation, Enercon Services, Inc., GS Energy, Sarens and Sargent & Lundy.

The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2022 and is subject to approval by Spring Valley’s shareholders as well as other customary closing conditions.

Advisors

Guggenheim Securities, LLC is acting as financial advisor to NuScale and Fluor. Cowen is acting as financial advisor and lead capital markets advisor to Spring Valley. Guggenheim Securities, LLC and Cowen acted as placement agents to Spring Valley in connection with the PIPE offering.

Stoel Rives LLP is acting as legal counsel to NuScale, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is acting as legal counsel to Fluor, White & Case LLP is acting as legal counsel to the placement agents and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is acting as legal counsel to Spring Valley.

Investor Presentation

NuScale and Spring Valley management will host an investor presentation on December 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. ET.

To listen to the webcast, please visit www.netroadshow.com/nrs/home/#!/?show=04285b34. Following the webcast, a telephone replay will be available at 1 (844) 385-9713 (U.S.) or 1 (678) 389-4980 (International), replay code number: 48521#.

Additional information about the proposed transaction, including a copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and investor presentation, will be provided in a Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed by Spring Valley with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and is available on the NuScale investor relations page at https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/investors and at www.sec.gov.

About NuScale Power

NuScale Power is poised to meet the diverse energy needs of customers across the world. It has developed a new modular light water reactor nuclear power plant to supply energy for electrical generation, district heating, desalination, hydrogen production and other process heat applications. The groundbreaking NuScale Power Module™ (NPM), a small, safe pressurized water reactor, can generate 77 MWe of electricity and can be scaled to meet customer needs. The VOYGR™-12 power plant is capable of generating 924 MWe, and NuScale also offers the four-module VOYGR-4 (308 MWe) and six-module VOYGR-6 (462 MWe) and other configurations based on customer needs. The majority investor in NuScale is Fluor Corporation, a global engineering, procurement, and construction company with a 70-year history in commercial nuclear power.

NuScale is headquartered in Portland, OR and has offices in Corvallis, OR; Rockville, MD; Charlotte, NC; Richland, WA; and London, UK. Follow us on Twitter: @NuScale_Power, Facebook: NuScale Power, LLC, LinkedIn: NuScale-Power, and Instagram: nuscale_power. Visit NuScale Power's website.

About Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) is building a better world by applying world-class expertise to solve its clients’ greatest challenges. Fluor’s 44,000 employees provide professional and technical solutions that deliver safe, well-executed, capital-efficient projects to clients around the world. Fluor had revenue of $14.2 billion in 2020 and is ranked 196 among the Fortune 500 companies. With headquarters in Irving, Texas, Fluor has been providing engineering, procurement and construction services for more than 100 years. For more information, please visit www.fluor.com or follow Fluor on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube.

About Spring Valley Acquisition Corp.

Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SV) is a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of entering into a merger or similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities focusing on sustainability, including clean energy and storage, smart grid/efficiency, environmental services and recycling, mobility, water and wastewater management, advanced materials and technology enabled services. Spring Valley’s sponsor is supported by Pearl Energy Investment Management, LLC, a Dallas, Texas based investment firm that focuses on partnering with best-in-class management teams to invest in the North American energy industry.

Additional Information and Where to Find It

In connection with the business combination, Spring Valley intends to file a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the “Form S-4”) with the SEC which will include a preliminary prospectus with respect to its securities to be issued in connection with the business combination and a preliminary proxy statement with respect to Spring Valley’s shareholder meeting at which Spring Valley’s shareholders will be asked to vote on the proposed business combination. Spring Valley and NuScale urge investors, shareholders and other interested persons to read, when available, the Form S-4, including the proxy statement/prospectus, any amendments thereto and any other documents filed with the SEC, because these documents will contain important information about the proposed business combination. After the Form S-4 has been filed and declared effective, Spring Valley will mail the definitive proxy statement/prospectus to shareholders of Spring Valley as of a record date to be established for voting on the business combination. Spring Valley shareholders will also be able to obtain a copy of such documents, without charge, by directing a request to: Spring Valley Acquisition Corp., 2100 McKinney Avenue Suite 1675 Dallas, TX 75201; e-mail: investors@sv-ac.com. These documents, once available, can also be obtained, without charge, at the SEC’s website www.sec.gov.

Participants in the Solicitation

Spring Valley and its directors and officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies of Spring Valley’s shareholders in connection with the proposed business combination. Security holders may obtain more detailed information regarding the names, affiliations and interests of certain of Spring Valley’s executive officers and directors in the solicitation by reading Spring Valley’s final prospectus filed with the SEC on November 25, 2020, the proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant materials filed with the SEC in connection with the business combination when they become available. Information concerning the interests of Spring Valley’s participants in the solicitation, which may, in some cases, be different than those of their shareholders generally, will be set forth in the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the business combination when it becomes available.

No Offer or Solicitation

This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy, or the solicitation of any vote or approval in any jurisdiction in connection with a proposed potential business combination among Spring Valley and NuScale or any related transactions, nor shall there be any sale, issuance or transfer of securities in any jurisdiction where, or to any person to whom, such offer, solicitation or sale may be unlawful. Any offering of securities or solicitation of votes regarding the proposed transaction will be made only by means of a proxy statement/prospectus that complies with applicable rules and regulations promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or pursuant to an exemption from the Securities Act or in a transaction not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

Forward Looking Statements

Certain statements included in this press release that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements generally are accompanied by words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “should,” “would,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “seem,” “seek,” “future,” “outlook,” and similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters. All statements, other than statements of present or historical fact included in this press release, regarding Spring Valley’s proposed business combination with NuScale, Spring Valley’s ability to consummate the transaction, the benefits of the transaction and the combined company’s future financial performance, as well as the combined company’s strategy, future operations, estimated financial position, estimated revenues and losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on various assumptions, whether or not identified in this press release, and on the current expectations of the respective management of NuScale and Spring Valley and are not predictions of actual performance. These forward-looking statements are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to serve as, and must not be relied on as, a guarantee, an assurance, a prediction, or a definitive statement of fact or probability. Actual events and circumstances are difficult or impossible to predict and will differ from assumptions. Many actual events and circumstances are beyond the control of NuScale and Spring Valley. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including changes in domestic and foreign business, market, financial, political, and legal conditions; the inability of the parties to successfully or timely consummate the proposed transaction, including the risk that any regulatory approvals are not obtained, are delayed or are subject to unanticipated conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the proposed transaction or that the approval of the shareholders of Spring Valley or NuScale is not obtained; failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction; risks relating to the uncertainty of the projected financial information with respect to NuScale; risks related to the expansion of NuScale’s business and the timing of expected business milestones; the effects of competition on NuScale’s business; the ability of Spring Valley or NuScale to issue equity or equity-linked securities or obtain debt financing in connection with the proposed transaction or in the future, and those factors discussed in Spring Valley’s final prospectus dated November 25, 2020 under the heading “Risk Factors,” and other documents Spring Valley has filed, or will file, with the SEC. If any of these risks materialize or our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements. There may be additional risks that neither Spring Valley nor NuScale presently know, or that Spring Valley nor NuScale currently believe are immaterial, that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. In addition, forward-looking statements reflect Spring Valley’s and NuScale’s expectations, plans, or forecasts of future events and views as of the date of this press release. Spring Valley and NuScale anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause Spring Valley’s and NuScale’s assessments to change. However, while Spring Valley and NuScale may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, Spring Valley and NuScale specifically disclaim any obligation to do so. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Spring Valley’s and NuScale’s assessments of any date subsequent to the date of this press release. Accordingly, undue reliance should not be placed upon the forward-looking statements.

Contacts

Spring Valley Acquisition Corp.:
www.sv-ac.com
Robert Kaplan
Investors@sv-ac.com

Investor inquiries:
Gary Dvorchak, The Blueshirt Group for NuScale
ir@nuscalepower.com

Media inquiries:
Diane Hughes, NuScale
media@nuscalepower.com