4 ms·
Agreed. Ironically, small reactors were all the rage in the 1950s [1]. As the Atomic Energy Commission struggled to find ways to make nuclear power economical,
by acidburnNSA 7y ago
Agreed. Ironically, small reactors were all the rage in the 1950s [1]. As the Atomic Energy Commission struggled to find ways to make nuclear power economical, there was a conference of reactor advisory committee in October, 1957. They decided that the only way to make the most well-known tech (water-cooled reactors) economical was to scale them up, and how.
[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/img/aec-plan-1.png https://whatisnuclear.com/img/aec-plan-1.png
Meanwhile, throughout the 1970s the combination of a large number of license applications plus an increasingly concerned public (now fully terrified of radiation from the nuclear weapons atmospheric testing debate) caused regulatory scrutiny to ratchet. Quality assurance, equipment qualification, inspections all became more rigorous. The Browns Ferry fire in 1975 made cable spreading rooms require 3-hour fire barriers and major redundancy. Rooms were added. More expensive materials were needed. Economic struggles continued. Then Three Mile Island happened in 1979.
In 1980, the viability of nuclear electricity was in question. Amazingly, the capacity factor of the fleet then increased steadily from 60% all the way up to 90%, making them profitable in the 90s and 00s to the point that a nuclear renaissance was set to occur in 2006-7, helped along by renewed concerns about carbon emissions. At the time, the US nuclear fleet produced about 65% of the nation's low-carbon energy.
But then the fracking boom happened. Low natural gas prices brought electricity revenue down in deregulated electricity markets, and the drop in revenue put many nuclear plants in the red. Utilities started replacing nuclear reactors with high-carbon fracked gas plants. Environmentalists didn't care much because solar costs fell 10x and wind was doing great too. Buzz about 100% renewable swept the nation as 10 GW of gas fire up every night in California.
Now, the nuclear industry looks back at small reactors, hoping the capital costs can be kept reasonable. It is indeed likely, that small water-cooled reactors using enriched fuel will be very expensive to operate, as they were in the 1950s. Many advanced reactor companies talk about using high-assay low-enriched uranium (20% enriched rather than 5%), which is economic bonkers. But enrichment and uranium are dirt cheap at the moment due to overcapacity from the Japanese and German nuclear shutdowns. This won't last though, and the HALEU reactors will very likely be too expensive to operate if they do actually get built.
The ML-1 military microreactor of 1961-65 was 10x more costly than fossil [2].
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML-1
The most cost-effective thing the nuclear industry can do right now is invest in telling its story. Explain why it's an interesting power source. Explain the value in tiny footprint 24/7 low-carbon power. Most american don't even know that nuclear is low carbon. On the technical side, we need venues to try out some of the crazier reactors that may lead to real cost reductions in today's regulator environment. Put simply, this means we must build reactors that have only a tiny number of valves, cables, motors, etc. that are needed to safely shut down and cool the reactor. Low-pressure coolant reactors may be able to put this together, even though historically they've always been significantly more expensive due to the complexities of dealing with exotic coolants (liquid metals, molten salts, etc.)
In 1957, Walter Zinn (director of Argonne National Lab) suggested that liquid metal cooled (low pressure) natural uranium fueled (like a CANDU) reactors were most likely to succeed economically. They'd have low capital cost, very few safety-related systems, and would require very little fuel cycle costs. Today, I think there's a good chance that this kind of concept is still true. Could be molten salt or liquid metal at this point (molten salt reactors weren't really proven until a few years after Zinn's suggestion).
- jabl 7y agoGood writeup. As a tech nerd, it's easy to get carried away with fancy things (breeders! MSR's! pyroprocessing!), but what nuclear really needs to succeed is driving down costs and improving public acceptance. > Many advanced reactor companies talk about using high-assay low-enriched uranium (20% enriched rather than 5%), which is economic bonkers. But enrichment and uranium are dirt cheap at the moment due to overcapacity from the Japanese and German nuclear shutdowns. This won't last though, and the HALEU reactors will very likely be too expensive to operate if they do actually get built. Hmm, sure, enrichment cost doesn't increase linearly as a function of enrichment, but it shouldn't be prohibitive either, particularly as fuel cost is such as small part of the total? Of course, to get correspondingly higher burnup you probably need a new fuel design, and probably also burnable poisons, which will increase costs. > Put simply, this means we must build reactors that have only a tiny number of valves, cables, motors, etc. that are needed to safely shut down and cool the reactor. Isn't this what Nuscale is basically proposing (in addition to riding the SMR bandwagon, which may or may not work out)? Their design is cooled by convection, and can be indefinitely passively cooled after shutdown. > In 1957, Walter Zinn (director of Argonne National Lab) suggested that liquid metal cooled (low pressure) natural uranium fueled (like a CANDU) reactors were most likely to succeed economically. Interesting, got a reference? I couldn't find anything via some quick searching. Though 1957 was also before centrifuges drove down enrichment cost, so the benefit from low enrichment isn't as great today as it was back then.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago> particularly as fuel cost is such as small part of the total? The current nuclear industry says things like: "Fuel is free!" all the time, and it nearly is. At EDF's fleet, fuel is something like 5% of the total cost. But this is in a world where capital costs have soared. If we're not careful, we can easily make fuel not free. Many advanced reactor companies are running too far with the fuel-is-free mentality and making choices that will inevitably challenge their long-term goals from a fuel cost point of view. Burning HALEU is a perfect example of this, as if you do that, especially in a fast reactor where you need high fissile concentration, you can make fuel more than 50% of total costs. If nuclear scales 10x or more as we need it to for climate change mitigation, the fuel-is-free mantra will break down. > Isn't this what Nuscale is basically proposing Pretty much. They're onto something for sure, as far as light-water reactors go. It will be interesting to see how much safety-grade equipment they end up with as the licensing continues. > Interesting, got a reference? I couldn't find anything via some quick searching. Page 413 of Hewlett and Holl's Atoms for Peace and War: https://www.energy.gov/management/downloads/hewlett-and-holl-atoms-peace-and-war https://www.energy.gov/management/downloads/hewlett-and-holl...