How Nuclear Power is Changing

Five Facts about Nuclear Waste

An Existing Site Policy for Small Nuclear Reactors

Commercial Nuclear sites in the US (Credit: US NRC)

by Marcel F. Williams

Commercial nuclear power currently provides more than 19% of the electricity in the US, and about 53% of America's-- carbon neutral-- electricity. But in combination with renewable energy resources (hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.), only 36% of America's electricity generation is carbon neutral.

The Palo Verde nuclear site in Arizona is the largest power plant in the United States, generating 3.3 GW (gigawatts) of electricity. But existing nuclear sites can be much larger. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear site in Japan has seven  nuclear reactors  with a gross installed capacity of 8,212MW.

There are currently 60 nuclear sites in the US, generating more than 100 GW of electricity.  If all sixty of these existing sites were generating at least 8 GW of electricity then commercial nuclear power could generate 480 GW of carbon neutral electricity (93% of current US electricity production). Combined with current renewable energy production, all of America's electricity could be carbon neutral with a 10% surplus in carbon neutral electricity production.

Global mortality rate for electricity production (Credit: Forbes)

Of course, building new nuclear power plants has been politically and economically difficult  in the US for decades even though commercial nuclear power has the lowest fatality rate of any electric power producing facilities. And even some existing nuclear sites in the US are scheduled for complete decommissioning.  However, a new generation of small nuclear reactors could make it safer and cheaper  for existing nuclear sites in the US to produce substantially more carbon neutral electricity.

X-Ray of NuScale Reactor Assembly (Credit: NuScale)

In Portland, Oregon, a company called NuScale is developing a new type of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) that could be centrally mass produced and transported (in three segments) by truck, rail or by barge practically anywhere in the world.

NuScale's nuclear reactor technology has many advantages:

1. They're inherently safe. The  large surface area to volume of the small 60 MWe reactors doesn't physically allow the nuclear fuel contained in these reactors to ever get hot enough for the fuel to melt.  Even if water is totally evaporated or lost from the reactor, the surrounding air will still provide enough natural cooling for the nuclear material to remain solid. While commercial nuclear power is still the safest way to produce electricity per kilowatt produced,  replacing existing nuclear power plants with NuScale units should increase nuclear safety substantially more. 

2. NuScale would also place their small nuclear reactors underground making them less vulnerable extreme weather conditions or potential acts of terrorism.

3. A power producing facility can operate in packs of up to 12 reactors (720 MWe) so that the plant can continue producing electricity while one or more of the reactors is being removed for refueling

4. A NuScale 720 MWe facility would only require 60 acres (18 hectares) of land. A  wind powered facility that could produce a similar amount of electricity would require  130,000 acres (200 square miles). A centralized solar power plant would require 32 to 54-- square kilometers-- of land in order to equal the electricity production of an 18 hectare 720 MWe NuScale facility.

Notional 18 hectares NuScale 720 MWe site (Credit: NuScale)

Current nuclear power plants require 1.3 square miles for a single 1000 MWe nuclear facility. And most existing nuclear sites were originally designed to accommodate two to four 1000 MWe reactors. So, in theory, the 2.6 to 5.2 square miles in area of current nuclear sites could easily accommodate several 720 MWe NuScale power units. So NuScale facilities could easily produce more than  8000 MWe of electricity at existing nuclear sites in the US.

NuScale nuclear reactor component being transported by rail (Credit: NuScale)

While commercial nuclear power plants produce base load electricity, they have to be complimented with regional  electric power units capable of producing peak load electricity or back up electricity in case a nuclear facility has to be temporarily shutdown because of refueling or because of a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami.

10.7 MWe rated methanol electric power plant at Point Lisas, Trinidad (Credit: Mendenhall Technical Services):

Natural gas electric power plants have the lowest capital cost. But natural gas is a fossil fuel that would increase global warming and the rise of global sea levels. Fortunately, natural gas power plants can be  cheaply and conveniently retrofitted to use-- methanol. And nuclear electricity could be used to produce  methanol directly from air and water or through the microwave pyrolysis of urban garbage and sewage, agricultural biowaste, and from forest waste (dead trees and other fire hazardous forest materials). Methanol dehydrated into dimethyl ether could be used as a diesel fuel substitute for vehicles cheaply retrofitted to use dimethyl ether. Methanol can  be converted into carbon neutral gasoline and carbon neutral jet fuel. Methanol can be used directly a cleaner marine fuel substitute for sea vessels. And methanol can be used directly in fuel cell/battery powered automobiles, trucks, sea craft, and even aircraft.

Methanol powered ferry (Credit: Stena Germanica)

The increased electrical capacity of existing nuclear sites could also be used to produce hydrogen for the next generation of supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and space launch vehicles. Hydrogen could also be used for the carbon neutral production of ammonia for fertilizer for the agricultural industry.
 

Notional hydrogen fueled hypersonic airliner (Credit: Reaction Engines)

In Arizona, using NuScale reactors to increase  electrical capacity at the Palo Verde site to 8000 MWe (4700 MWe of additional power) could be used to supply more-- carbon neutral-- electricity to  neighboring California and for the Sonora and Baja California provinces of Mexico. Mexico could use the additional power supplied by the US to pump-- seawater-- directly from the Gulf of California into salt water reservoirs near the Arizona/Sonora border. Such seawater reservoirs could be used for the creation of recreational marine water lakes in southern Arizona and for the production of needed potable water through nuclear powered desalination. 

If the US, finally, begins to  recycling at least some of its spent fuel from commercial nuclear sites then it might be politically easier to reopen nuclear sites that have been decommissioned or are scheduled to be decommissioned for the deployment of inherently safe  NuScale reactors.

Existing sites can easily accommodate the relatively tiny amounts of spent nuclear fuel produced at commercial facilities. But some US states have laws preventing the deployment of new nuclear reactors until there is a long term solution for spent fuel. So clearly demonstrating that spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors can be recycled to produce more energy should nullify any state measures that attempt to use spent fuel as an excuse for not building more nuclear power plants.

The  TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) is a Federally owned utility that could start the process of recycling spent fuel by utilizing plutonium extracted from spent fuel in thorium fuel configurations in existing nuclear power plants  and in future SMRs.  The TVA should also be one of the first American utilities to deploy the next generation fast reactors that would be fully capable of utilizing spent fuel.


References and Links

 US electricity production in 2018

Top ten nuclear power plants by capacity

NuScale's Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Passes Biggest Hurdle Yet

 How much land does nuclear, solar, and wind really need?

 The Ultimate fast facts guide to nuclear energy

Land needs for wind, solar dwarf nuclear power plant's footprint 

 Producing renewable jet fuels from methanol

Utilizing renewable methanol to power electric commuter aircraft

Methanol as a marine fuel 

Renewable methanol as liquid electricity

Serenergy's 800 kilometer plugin hybrid methanol fuel cell car

Thor and the thorium solution for plutonium from commercial nuclear reactors

LAPCAT A2 hypersonic hydrogen fueled airliner

The Case for Remotely Sited Underwater Nuclear Reactors

FlexBlue subsea nuclear reactor being deployed by vessel (Credit: DCNS)

by Marcel F. Williams

Within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of remote US island territorial waters, centrally  mass produced subsea commercial nuclear reactors could be safely deployed and utilized to provide all of America's energy and industrial chemical needs.   In fact,  remote US territorial waters alone, could provide the American continent  and the rest of  the world with all of the  electricity,  transportation fuel, industrial chemicals, and fertilizers needed to sustain human civilization.

United States Exclusive Economic Zones (Credit: NOAA)

Anchored and moored above the seabed, approximately 100 meters below the water's surface, subsea nuclear power plants would be safe from damage from extreme temperatures,  hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis, plane crashes and ship collisions.  And even if a subsea reactor is seriously damaged, no electricity is need for the reactor to passively shut down since it allows the natural cooling ability of the ocean to keep its fuel from melting.

Notional FlexBlue reactor farm at the bottom of a sea bed (Credit: DCNS) 

Under this scenario,  subsea nuclear reactors, similar to the 250 MWe FlexBlue reactors proposed by France, could be clustered in groups of eight (2000 MWe) and under the control of a floating Control Center barge. Up to eight such nuclear complexes (nuplexes) would be placed along a circle four kilometers in diameter, producing as much as 16 GW of electric power.  Power plant employees living alone would be comfortably housed at one of two cruise ships positioned at the center of the surrounding circle of nuplexes (nearly two kilometers away) when they're not working. 

Floating Control Center connected to subsea nuclear reactors floating above the seabed.

Five to ten kilometers distant from the nuplexes, a variety of floating barges designed to produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels, industrial chemicals, and fertilizers would be deployed to utilize the nuclear electricity provided through submarine cables. Synplex and nuplex workers and their families could be housed in cruise ships positioned at least ten to twenty kilometers away from the nuclear synplex zones.

Ocean Nuclear Zone and surrounding Synplex Zone

While the subsea reactor wouldn't be vulnerable during a hurricane, the Control Center barge floating on the surface above could disconnect from the under water reactors and easily towed to a safe region until the tropical storm has passed. That could also apply to the floating assets within the synplex zones, returning to reconnect with the nuclear grid once the hurricane has passed. Once a hurricane has formed, it can be tracked and scientists can usually predict its path 3 to 4 days in advance.

The security of the nuplex zone would be provided by the US Coast Guard, under this scenario, put payed for by the private nuplex company or companies. Security for the surrounding synplex zone would be provided by private security companies paid for by the synplex companies.

So any attempt at terrorism against a subsea reactor would require terrorist to pass through a privately protected synplex zone five kilometers wide and then pass through an inner Coast Guard protected area that's an additional five kilometers wide-- areas where ships not related to the synplexes or nuplexes would be forbidden to enter.  And if a subsea reactor somehow became extensively damaged, it would still be surrounded by the virtually infinite heat  sink of the ocean which would make the meltdown of its nuclear fuel-- impossible. 

Island EEZ with designated areas for seasteading and nuclear synplex zones

If such nuclear synplexes were confined to a quarter of the EEZ  area at least 100 kilometers  away from a natural island or atoll, less than half of the nuclear synplex zone could produce more than 1.7 Terrawatts of electricity.  So the synplex zones within the EEZ areas of just three different remote US island territories could, in theory,  provide all of America's energy and industrial chemical needs. But such nuclear synplex zones could be deployed in the remote  EZZ areas of: Wake Island, the Midway Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Palmyra Atoll, the Johnston Atoll, Jarvis Island, and the Howland and Baker Islands. The vast and remote Aleutian Island chain would also be an excellent location for nuclear synplex zones.

The opposite quarter of the island's  EEZ would be for a aquaculture and seasteading (inhabited artificial islands). While no one has ever been killed or even harmed from radiation from commercial nuclear power plants within the US, more than 116 million people on the continental US live within 80 kilometers of a commercial nuclear power plant.  So the closest seasteaders under this scenario would be more than 200 kilometers away from ocean synplexes and  nuplexes  that would already be substantially safer than terrestrial commercial nuclear power plants that are already incredibly safe.

The deployment of specialized barges into Synplex Zones powered by Ocean Nuclear power plants could be used to produce:  

1. Methanol

2. Gasoline

3. Diesel Fuel

4. Jet fuel

5. Kerosene

6. Dimethyl ether

7. Liquid hydrogen

8. Liquid oxygen

9. Potable water

10. Sodium Chloride (salt)

11. Ammonia

12. Urea

13. Formaldehyde

14.  Chlorine

15. Uranium


Synplex zones could also be used to locate floating factories that could export their manufactured goods to ports located around the world.

Methanol manufactured from Ocean Nuclear Synplexes could use  methanol powered tanker ships to export methanol to coastal cities and towns around the world for the production of electricity.  Greenhouse gas polluting natural gas power plants can be easily and cheaply converted to burn carbon neutral methanol. Floating methanol energy barges could be used to quickly deployed to provide electricity to coastal towns and cities around the world. Such energy barges and methanol tankers could also be transported into the Great Lakes area of the US to provide carbon neutral electricity to interior states such as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota plus the Canadian province of Ontario.   

And if the CO2 from the flu gasses from methanol power plants are recovered and exported back to Ocean Nuclear Synplexes for the production of even more methanol, methanol power plants would be carbon negative (extracted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for each new plant that is either deployed or converted to use methanol).

Since sunlight only provides 8 hours a day of useful energy for solar power plants, methanol electric power plants using synthetic methanol could be used as backup power, replacing greenhouse gas polluting natural gas power plants.

In the near future, a US state like California could export its urban and rural biowaste to a remote nuclear synplex located in the EEZ area of Wake Island. Nuclear electricity could be used to convert the  biowaste  into syngas through plasma arc pyrolysis. The syngas would be enriched with hydrogen produced from the electrolysis of water extracted from seawater in order to triple the production of carbon neutral methanol.  The methanol could then be exported to back to coastal cities and towns in  California to produce back up electricity for its future solar electric power plants. The recaptured CO2 from the flu gasses from the methanol power plants could be exported back the the Wake Island EEZ for the production of more methanol.  So methanol produced from nuclear electricity from the remote Wake Island EEZ could provide at least 70% of California's electric power needs while inland solar energy could provide the rest of California's electricity needs during the daylight hours when the skies are not significantly overcast. Carbon neutral methanol, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and dimethyl ether produced from the Wake Island EEZ nuclear synplex zone could also provide California with all of its transportation fuel needs.

Links and References

Flexblue: A Subsea Reactor Project

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

FlexBlue Underwater Commercial Nuclear Reactor

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Fueling Our Nuclear Future

Spent Fuel Transport & Storage