Small Nuclear Reactors

NuScale Nuclear Power - Nils Breckenridge

Links and References

Overview of NuScale Design

Using Small Nuclear Reactors for Navy Synfuel Production

Links and References

1. The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

2. Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

3. Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Artist’s rendition of the Russian floating nuclear power plant “Akademik Lomonosov” (Credit: SevMashZevod)

by Marcel F. Williams

Land based commercial nuclear power  is the safest form of electricity production ever created. No one died as the result of radiation exposure at the Fukushima nuclear facilities in Japan-- despite three meltdowns-- thanks to the inherent safety of the containment structures. But even if you include the mortality rate of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which didn't have a containment structure, the mortality rate for commercial nuclear energy is 90 deaths per trillion kWhr compared to:

Wind, 150 deaths per trillion kWhr

 Rooftop solar,   440 deaths per trillion kWhr,

Hydroelectric, 1400 deaths per trillion kWhr

Natural gas,  4000 deaths per trillion kWhr

Coal, a whopping 170,000 deaths per trillion kWhr.

However, these statistical facts have not alleviated the unreasonable fear that many have of commercial nuclear energy-- nor people's paradoxical phobia of radiation in general. This seems ironic since Americans exist in a society where radioactive materials are commonly used in nearby facilities such as hospitals and clinics. Americans are also  frequently exposed to much higher levels of cosmic radiation when they're flying in the upper atmosphere on airliners. Astronauts endure levels of radiation while in orbit much higher than what would be allowed for nuclear workers on Earth on a daily basis.  Americans also don't seem to have any fear about joining the US Navy to serve on nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines. And families don't seem to have any fears about  greeting their sons and daughters and husbands and wives when they depart from nuclear vessels on their return to shore.  

Still, there are many who have an almost innate fear of commercial nuclear power. And this unreasonable fear by some American's could seriously imperil the environment and the  quality of life for future generations.

Humans are currently living within an atmosphere that is alien to our species and even to our 2.6 million year old genus, Homo. Our use of fossil fuels has now pumped so much carbon dioxide into the air  that CO2 now comprises more than  400 parts per million of our atmosphere. These are levels of CO2 that have not existed on the Earth since the Pliocene, a warm epoch that spanned 5.3 million years ago until 2.6 million years ago when sea levels may have been as much as 40 meters higher than they are today. And as the polar  ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise, there are no signs that our civilization is currently stopping the increase of  greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. 

Yet the United States and most other industrial countries could easily stop the increase in CO2 levels into the atmosphere within the next 20 to 30 years if we simply built a lot more nuclear power plants for both  electricity and synthetic fuel production. There's already enough room at the more than 60   nuclear sites in the US to increase nuclear generation at each site to at least 8 GWe. That would be more than enough electricity to replace the electricity from fossil fuels in the US.

But what about transportation fuels for automobiles, trucks, ships, plains, and heavy ground vehicles?

Fortunately, a new generation of small nuclear reactors is about to emerge in the United States and in  the rest of the world. These small nuclear reactors offer the promise of an even more enhanced level of commercial nuclear safety while also substantially lowering the cost of manufacturing and deploying nuclear power through centralized manufacturing,  mass production, and transport by barge or rail to a nuclear power facility.

The first of this new generation of small nuclear reactors is being deployed by the Russians-- not the United States. But its not a land based reactor. It is a floating nuclear reactor. And floating nuclear reactors could be the key towards finally galvanizing broad acceptance of nuclear energy for all. 

Russia  intends to  mass produce floating 70 MWe nuclear power plants at shipbuilding facilities. These will then be towed   to coastal waters near industrial centers, towns and cities for the production of electricity and desalinated water.

The US once had the intention of deploying an offshore nuclear power facility as a way to avoid the increasing difficulties of licensing land based reactors. Four larger reactors were to be deployed by Westinghouse just 16 kilometers north of Atlantic City at the mouth of Great Bay. But licensing these off-shore reactors proved to be just as publicly difficult as land based reactors. And the project was eventually canceled.

But what if we deployed some floating nuclear reactors far out to sea-- far away from the  coastal environments of any town or city and the licensing headaches associated with coastal deployment.  Instead, these Ocean Nuclear power plants would be deployed hundreds or even over a thousand kilometers away from continental coastlines for the production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels. These clean synthetic fuels could then be shipped to any fuel port in the world for the production of electricity or for utilization as transportation fuel for automobiles, trucks, plains, and ships.

The conversion of seawater into methanol through nuclear electricity

The US Navy has recently revealed that they have developed a technology that can produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels from seawater by simply using a carbon neutral source of electricity. This technology takes advantage of the fact that the concentration of bound and dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater is  approximately 140 times greater than in the atmosphere. At the same time, the hydrogen contained in the seawater could be extracted through electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 to manufacture a variety of hydrocarbon fuels.

While the US Navy is focusing its attention on using nuclear or renewable OTEC technologies for manufacturing jet fuel at sea, the Navy's new technology  could be easily utilized to manufacture other carbon neutral fuels such as methanol, dimethyl ether, diesel fuel, and even gasoline.

The production of methanol at sea could allow floating nuclear power plants to ship this carbon neutral fuel  to practically any coastal port on Earth-- for  electricity production and for ground transportation fuel. Methanol tankers already exist and  come in a wide variety of sizes for transporting large quantities of methanol.

Methanol is relatively non-corrosive fuel that  remains at a liquid state at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Methanol requires no specialized containment and can be handled the same way as other oil based liquid fuels.  Since methanol is easily biodegradable  in marine waters, an accidental  tanker spill would be much less damaging to the marine environment and to coastal beaches  than an oil or gasoline spill. 

Japanese Methanol Tanker (Credit: SHIN KURUSHIMA DOCKYARD CO)

For electricity production, methanol can be easily used in  modified natural gas turbines. Tests have shown that,  compared to natural gas,  methanol produces a  higher electrical power output due to the higher mass flow, and significantly reduces NOx and while also producing  no SO2 emissions at all. The clean burning characteristic of methanol are also expected to reduce maintenance costs for a converted natural gas turbine. So using carbon neutral methanol for electric power production would not only reduce global warming but would also mean cleaner air in general. Methanol can be easily pumped via pipelines to modified turbine power plants located in inland regions for distribution to electric power  all over the mainland United States. Of course, on islands such as Hawaii, methanol could finally end the islands'  dependence on high priced oil for electricity.

Methanol can also be used in fuel cell power plants which an be used for back up electricity for buildings or for homes. And methanol fuel cells are currently used to power portable electronic devices.

Methanol electric power plant at Point Lisas, Trinidad (Credit: Mendenhall Technical Services)

Methanol can also be used to power seagoing vessels. And some ocean vessels have already been designed to use methanol in order to reduce pollution from vessels using diesel fuel.

Methanol can also be easily converted into dimethyl ether (DME) through dehydration over a catalyst.  Only moderate modifications are required to enable a diesel fuel engine to burn dimethyl ether. And dimethyl ether is a much cleaner fuel than  diesel fuel for trucks and other heavy ground vehicles.

The further dehydration of dimethyl ether can convert it into high octane gasoline. This carbon neutral gasoline can be either mixed with existing fossil fuel derived sources of gasoline or can be used to completely replace gasoline derived from fossil fuels.

Conversion of Methanol into Dimethyl Ether and Gasoline for ground transportation vehicles

So nuclear power plants floating far out to sea in the worlds oceans could potentially supply carbon neutral fuels for both electricity and transportation fuel for the entire planet. Such Ocean Nuclear  facilities could be easily designed to withstand the havoc of hurricanes, cyclones, and other tropical storms while also being inherently immune to earthquakes and tsunamis. But storm related production disruptions could easily be avoided by locating such facilities in regions where the frequency of tropical storm formation is very infrequent.

The colored areas  are regions where cyclones and hurricanes are most frequently created in the world's oceans (Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

But Ocean Nuclear complexes could still be located at latitudes where winter snow could be avoided in order to attract more employees to work at the remote ocean facilities. Semi-permanently docked cruise ships could be purchased by a large Ocean  Nuplex to provide housing, recreation, restaurants, shopping malls, small hospitals and schools for its nuclear power plant and synfuel operators and engineers and their families.

Since small nuclear reactors will be designed to produce 300 MWe of electricity or less, that means that thousands of small nuclear reactors would have to be mass produced and deployed to sea in order to replace America's  transportation fuel needs alone. If nuclear manufactured methanol were also required to  replace all of America's  peak load electricity production  then several hundred more small reactors would also have to be manufactured. Of course, if the US wanted to export carbon neutral fuels to other countries then thousands more small nuclear power plants would have to be built and deployed to sea.

Centrally manufacturing dozens or even  hundreds of small nuclear reactors in the US every year would dramatically reduce the capital cost  nuclear reactors and, therefore, the cost of synthetic fuels being produce from these Ocean Nuclear facilities.  This would mean millions of high wage manufacturing jobs being created on the American continent for the production of floating nuclear power plants that most Americans would never see. Such nuclear ocean synfuel production facilities could be clustered in an area less than 100 square kilometers (a 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers) while producing 25 to 50 GWe of power for synfuel production.

Large remote Ocean Nuplexes  could also be used to produce jet fuel, and even ammonia for fertilizer (synthesis of atmospheric nitrogen combined with hydrogen extracted from seawater through electrolysis).

US Navy nuclear aircraft carriers could  stop by such Ocean Nuclear complexes to refuel their vessels with jet fuel and also for some R&R for the crew at one or more of the Nuplex cruise ships which could feature a large variety of entertainment and shops  which could add more revenue for the Ocean Nuclear Complex.

Security for Ocean Nuclear facilities could also be provided by the US Coast Guard, easily affordable by a large nuclear complex without any tax payer expense. They would also, of course, have their own security forces.   

There might also be logistical advantages for locating floating  uranium extraction platforms within a few dozen or a few hundred kilometers of an  Ocean Nuclear Complex. There's more than 4 billion tonnes of natural uranium in seawater, enough to power and fuel all of human civilization for over 3000 years. And if the spent fuel is eventually recycled in next generation breeder reactors then uranium could supply civilization with power for more than 300,000 years. However, since the  uranium content of the oceans will be resupplied with its current uranium content in less than 150,000 years, marine uranium could, in theory, supply human energy needs for as long as humans remain on Earth. Of course, this doesn't even include terrestrial thorium supplies and potential extraterrestrial uranium and thorium supplies within the solar system in the future.

Floating airports located perhaps 10 to 100  kilometers  away from an  Ocean Nuplex could take advantage of their proximity to synthetic jet fuel,  cheap electricity, and desalinated water supplies.  Underwater electric power cables that stretch more than 500  kilometers away from their power source are already in existence.

Floating space launch facilities in the future could also take advantage of Ocean Nuclear complexes located near the Earth's equatorial regions to take full delta-v advantage  of the Earth's rotation. Launch facilities located less than 80 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuplex could utilize the abundant hydrogen and oxygen produced at the floating nuclear facility-- for cryogenic rocket fuel. 

Ironically, Ocean Nuclear facilities might also attract new communities of people living on floating artificial islands. Such floating island communities might be located just 100 to 500 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuclear complex, taking advantage of the cheap nuclear electricity and high paying jobs-- along with the warm climate and spectacular ocean views! But even at just 100 kilometers away from the floating Nuplex, from the balcony of your floating home, you'd still be at least 70  kilometers away from from being able to see the nuclear power facility over the curve of the beautiful blue horizon!

Marcel F. Williams

Links and References

• Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal
• Small modular reactor
• Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
• The feasibility and current estimated capital costs of producing jet fuel at sea using carbon dioxide and hydrogen
• Better than Keystone XL: $3/gallon gasoline from seawater
• The Methanol Alternative: 2012 Methanol Forum
•  Analysis of Market Characteristics for Conversion of Liquid Fueled Turbines to Methanol
• Simple Cycle Power Plants: Trinidad
• How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources
• Oak Ridge develops improved way of extracting uranium from seawater
• Russia Floats Plan for Nuclear Power Plants at Sea
• Fueling our Nuclear Future
• Floating Islands

The Economic Future of Small Nuclear Reactors

The Future of Small Nuclear Reactors

Westinghouse Small Nuclear Reactors

Secretary Chu Discusses the Future of Small Nuclear Reactors

The TVA Could be the First to Have Mini-Nuclear Power Plants

TVA could take lead for 'mini nuke' plants

Chattanooga Times Free Press
Thursday, November 11, 2010
By:
Dave Flessner

The Tennessee Valley Authority is first in line to test a new type of modular nuclear plant that designers boast will be smaller, cheaper and safer than existing reactors.

TVA officials said Wednesday they have taken the first step toward gaining regulatory approval to build up to six new mini-nuclear reactors on the site of the abandoned Clinch River Breeder Reactor in Oak Ridge. In a four-page letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TVA Vice President Jack Bailey said the federal utility "is evaluating the feasibility" of erecting two of the new Babcock & Wilcox-designed "mPower reactors" by 2020.

Each of the new reactors would produce 125 megawatts of electricity -- about 10 percent as much as conventional reactors at TVA's other plants -- and could be built in controlled factory conditions to cut production costs and ensure construction quality.

"The mPower design makes substantial use of modular construction technology which enables major portions of the plant to be fabricated in controlled manufacturing environments and shipped to the site via rail and trucks," Bailey said.

If approved by the TVA board and regulators, TVA would be the first utility to build the new reactor design.

But critics question why TVA is pursuing a new plant design that is yet to be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"We are highly skeptical that these modular designs are going to deliver as promised," said Stephen Smith, executive director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "There is a whole set of issues that are likely to be raised about these plants so TVA, the NRC and the contractors should expect a real fight."

Smith said he is encouraged that TVA opted to pursue regulatory approval for any mPower units built in Oak Ridge under the NRC's older, two-step licensing process. Rather than the single combined-operating license process being used for other new plants, TVA will seek a construction permit to build the new units and a separate licensing permit once the units are completed.

TVA spokesman Terry Johnson said the utility is using the two-step licensing approach to allow more flexibility for TVA and the manufacturers of the mPower reactor to change the way the plant is designed and built over the next decade. Under the single combined operating license, the NRC must pre-approve the design and construction method for any new plant before any building work begins.

Johnson said the Oak Ridge site was deemed appropriate for a nuclear plant in the 1970s when the U.S. Department of Energy planned to build a breeder reactor on the Clinch River site. The nearby Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which helped develop the first atomic reactors in the post World War II "atoms for peace" program, could help support and use the power from at least one of the new reactors, Johnson said. TVA has set a goal of generating at least half of its power from noncarbon sources and the Oak Ridge lab has set a goal of being carbon-free in its own energy consumption by 2020.

Rick Bonsall, vice president of business development for Babcock & Wilcox, said the proposed TVA plant in Oak Ridge will be the launch site for the new mPower reactor. But he said B&W and its alliance partner, Bechtel Engineering Corp., are talking with several utilities also interested in using the new modular design reactors.

Although the design of the mPower reactor is still under regulatory review, Bonsall said it uses many of the technologies of existing pressured water reactors and the reactors will be small enough to be built underground to add extra containment.

"Any time you can do a lot of work in a factory environment, you have a lot more control on schedule and costs," he said.

TVA and B&W declined to release any early cost estimates for the new reactors, but Johnson said any units "will be competitive in price" with other power options available for the future.

The new reactor could be build as soon as 2020 as a follow-up to TVA's Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor scheduled for completion in 2012 and the Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor scheduled for possible completion as soon as 2018.

TVA could take lead for 'mini nuke' plants

mPower Small Nuclear Reactor Conference

mPower Small Nuclear Reactor Conference

Generation mPower Conference

Check out our favorite Nuke (Rod Adams) at last month's conference and the new videos and illustrations for the mPower small nuclear reactors at the Babcock and Wilcox site:

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/generation_mpower.html

Six mPower reactor units (750 MWe)

Senator Jeff Bingaman on the future development of small nuclear reactors

“I plan to introduce a second bill, to complement Senator Udall’s bill. My new bill would require the Secretary of Energy to develop and demonstrate, in partnership with the private sector, two designs for small modular nuclear reactors – less than 350 megawatts electric in size. The Department would help demonstrate the ability to license these reactors by funding applications to obtain design certification by 2018, and to obtain a combined operating license for each of the designs by 2021. Having certified and licensable designs for small modular nuclear reactors would be a significant boost to the field of nuclear power, and would help nuclear energy be a cost-effective contender for a broader array of carbon-free electric generation needs in the future."

Jeff Bingaman U.S. Senator from New Mexico
November 16th, 2009


New Papyrus strongly supports such forward looking legislation from US Senator Bingaman. The development of small commercial nuclear reactors in America could be a major game changer as far as carbon free energy production in our nation.

The lower initial cost of small nuclear reactors should be economically attractive even for the smallest utilities in the US. And economies of mass production could potentially dramatically reduce the capital cost of such small centrally mass produced nuclear reactors which could also reduce the cost of electricity and even the electrical production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals such as: ammonia, methanol, methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether. Small centrally mass produced nuclear reactors could be transported by rail or by ship to practically any energy producing site anywhere in the world while potentially producing millions of manufacturing jobs right here in the USA !

New Papyrus urges you to express your support to Senator Bingaman's for his bill at:

http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/

while also contacting your local Senators to express your support for the Bingaman bill.