Mini Nuke Plant

[cement]

When you think of nuclear power, you might picture a sprawling plant capped with those massive cooling towers. A Denver company has developed something that looks a lot different. "The reactor itself is about, oh, a meter and a half wide by two meters tall," says John Deal, the CEO of Hyperion Power Generation. "It's very compact, it's about the size of a telephone booth." Deal's company is one of several working on small-scale nuclear. The goal is to get around many of the concerns that have prevented nuclear from taking off in this country, such as issues with national security, health, and cost. Deal says the technology has global applications like providing power to remote spots. He joined us from his office in downtown Denver.

the audio is embedded in the link below

Mini Nuke plant

 

[FusionWhite]

Ive heard of this. Nuclear batteries that could be used to power individual neighborhoods. Sounds good to me, it would probably make my garden spit out some monster mutant tomatoes.

 

[Dleg]

Yeah, those are the guys. We;ve had people here talking about the nuclear battery option for the past 3-4 years now.

Sounds good to me! :dunno:

Thanks for posting the link!

 

[Wolverine]

I read someone (maybe Toshiba?) was working on a prototype with intent to install in Bumblefluster Alaska, someplace desolately cold where there is no connection to the outside world for 3 months out of the year. Perfect trial site.

I see the main obstacle is simply public perception, having no doubt that the engineering can be worked out. If we could do something to counteract the brain damage caused by that Jane Fonda comedy "China Syndrome" back in the 70's, maybe nuclear technology could have a few advancements.

I love the idea of micro-nukes.

 

[Dleg]

^Yeah, public perception is the big problem. A lot of people here, including my wife, just knee-jerk the "no" as soon as it is brought up. If I can't even persuade my wife with reason and science, then I have a hard time believing the public at large will accept this, and it will be blocked at the NEPA stage (because you know one of these will require a full-blown EIS, no matter how small).

Too bad the conservatives have done such a good job convincing the public that climate change is a "hoax". Climate change was THE only thing making nuclear look like the viable option that it is, to the enviro crowd anyway.

I wonder how you convince the aluminum foil hat/birther crowd that nuke is the way to go, though? My best guess: Make nuke power somehow seem more "manly" and American than Coal and Oil.

Any suggestions for slogans that would do just that?

"Nuclear Power: The True American Power!" Heroic shots of Oppenheimer and Einstein in front of the waving American flag, with the words "American Ingenuity" and the atom scrolling in front of them, contrasted by images of Middle Eastern wars, robe-wearing Saudi oil barons, the BP president saying something infuriating.....

Then again, Oppenheimer, Einstein, and the majority of American nuclear scientists were European immigrants and socialists or communists. Maybe the images of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan should be substituted.

That takes care of oil, now how do you make Coal look un-American? (or at the very least, un-Conservative?)

 

[wilheldp_PE]

That takes care of oil, now how do you make Coal look un-American? (or at the very least, un-Conservative?)

The big mine owners in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia are as unpopular as BP in Appalachia due to mine collapses, explosions, and safety lapses. I'm not sure how much of that hatred reaches the rest of the country/world, but coal mining is as dangerous, if not more so, than drilling for oil.

 

[OSUguy98]

That takes care of oil, now how do you make Coal look un-American? (or at the very least, un-Conservative?)

The big mine owners in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia are as unpopular as BP in Appalachia due to mine collapses, explosions, and safety lapses. I'm not sure how much of that hatred reaches the rest of the country/world, but coal mining is as dangerous, if not more so, than drilling for oil.

I know that if I need to waste a few hours of my life, all I have to do is ask my FIL what Don Blankenship is up to now... he's a big union guy, so he'll rant and rave about Massey Energy for months given the opportunity...

As much as I'd hate to see one of the only legs this state has supporting it get kicked out from under it, I think nuclear might be the only real option... renewables are good for supplemental, small solutions, but right now the tech. isn't there to make most of it affordable or large scale... but every solution has side effects....

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Too bad the conservatives have done such a good job convincing the public that climate change is a "hoax". Climate change was THE only thing making nuclear look like the viable option that it is, to the enviro crowd anyway.

Not here it doesn't. The watermelon environmentalists are fighting both coal and nuke plants tooth and nail. It seems to be solar, wind, or nothing for these folks. It is insane.

I read some interesting stuff about pebble bed reactors, but don't really know a whole lot about them.

 

[Supe]

*Ring Ring*

"Hello?"

"Dleg, is your refrigerator running?"

"No..."

"Then you've probably had a nuclear meltdown in your backyard."

 

[Wolverine]

Not here it doesn't. The watermelon environmentalists are fighting both coal and nuke plants tooth and nail. It seems to be solar, wind, or nothing for these folks. It is insane.
I read some interesting stuff about pebble bed reactors, but don't really know a whole lot about them.

Ha ha, we're about to plant two more right across the river from ya'll.

Pebble bed reactors are pretty cool, consisting of nuclear fuel blended into little balls then catalyzed to react and create heat, make steam, turn turbine, etc. In the event of a failure, it goes into an "idle mode" where the radiant energy is within the operating limits of the vessel containing it, so there can never be an runaway reaction (er, theoretically).

... and there ends my meager understanding of pbr's.

 

[Flyer_PE]

Pebble bed reactors are pretty cool, consisting of nuclear fuel blended into little balls then catalyzed to react and create heat, make steam, turn turbine, etc. In the event of a failure, it goes into an "idle mode" where the radiant energy is within the operating limits of the vessel containing it, so there can never be an runaway reaction (er, theoretically).
... and there ends my meager understanding of pbr's.

That's about all I know about them as well. There was a lot of talk about them 10 or so years ago but I haven't heard anything about them in quite a while.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Not here it doesn't. The watermelon environmentalists are fighting both coal and nuke plants tooth and nail. It seems to be solar, wind, or nothing for these folks. It is insane.
I read some interesting stuff about pebble bed reactors, but don't really know a whole lot about them.

Ha ha, we're about to plant two more right across the river from ya'll.

Where? In Jawja?

Pebble bed reactors are pretty cool, consisting of nuclear fuel blended into little balls then catalyzed to react and create heat, make steam, turn turbine, etc. In the event of a failure, it goes into an "idle mode" where the radiant energy is within the operating limits of the vessel containing it, so there can never be an runaway reaction (er, theoretically).
... and there ends my meager understanding of pbr's.

That about exhausts my knowledge on the subject as well.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

... and there ends my meager understanding of pbr's.

PBR gives me a headache.

 

[Dleg]

Our next door neighbor growing up was a nuke power engineer, and went on and on about PBR's a few years ago when I last ran into him. He's sort of an engineering hero of mine - former Navy nuke officer, and still working (at Los Alamos, no less) at age ~70.

Here's a bit of a rant: I think humans stand apart from all other life on Earth primarily because of our intellect and seemingly limitless ability to "improve" (and also fudge up) our environment. When people talk about the solution to climate change or Middle Eastern Wars being to cut our use of energy, it gets my human pride bristles up. Dammit, we're human beings! We should be able to think our way out of these problems, and by God, end up using more energy if anything. Yep, I think our cities should be aglow with gratuitous neon lighting, plasma-arc wastewater treatment (ZZZAP!), etc. etc. We've already been handed one technology that can do this - nuclear power. Sure it has the drawback of incredibly hazardous waste, but it's a concentrated waste, therefore, easier to sweep under the rug than the diffuse and pervasive pollution caused by fossil fuels. And in the meantime, I don't see why humanity should not be able to master fusion power, given more time and research. We ought to be moving forward with these technologies, but instead we have one half of society who wants to return to the middle ages, out of some misguided nostalgia for a simpler time, and another half of our society who wants to cling to the "Drill Baby drill!" mentality of Big Oil and Big Coal, out of a different sense of nostalgia, but still misguided.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I honestly think The China Syndrome was a bigger disaster for nuclear power than TMI. If not for that film, TMI could have been held up as an example of how the system worked despite its operators doing just about everything possible (unknowingly) the wreck it.

 

[Flyer_PE]

The truly sad part about that movie is just how much of a comedy it is to anybody that actually knows anything about how a plant functions.

 

[Wolverine]

Sure it has the drawback of incredibly hazardous waste, but it's a concentrated waste, therefore, easier to sweep under the rug than the diffuse and pervasive pollution caused by fossil fuels. And in the meantime, I don't see why humanity should not be able to master fusion power, given more time and research. We ought to be moving forward with these technologies, but instead we have one half of society who wants to return to the middle ages, out of some misguided nostalgia for a simpler time, and another half of our society who wants to cling to the "Drill Baby drill!" mentality of Big Oil and Big Coal, out of a different sense of nostalgia, but still misguided.

Rant on my brother !

Challenge #1: No longer refer to it as "Hazardous Waste". The politically correct term shall now be "Spent Fuel" or "Depleted Fuel". The words hazardous waste marginalizes that spent fuel can be recovered and reconstituted, and furthermore, challenging a green-weenie-watermelons on the word might make them wet their pants, which would be enormously funny.

Challenge #2: Read about what Bechtel and Babcock&Wilcox are up to. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...dist_smartbrief

[SIZE=12pt] Bechtel to Back Small Nuclear Plants [/SIZE]Engineering and Construction Giant Joins Reactor Designer Babcock & Wilcox to Advance New Type of Power Plants

By REBECCA SMITH

Engineering and construction giant Bechtel Corp. is expected to disclose Wednesday that it will partner with nuclear vendor Babcock & Wilcox Co. to bring a small, commercial reactor design to market.

Closely held Bechtel declined to reveal its investment in the venture other than to say it is "substantial" and affirms its optimism about prospects for new plant designs that could make nuclear power affordable to smaller utilities and get new plants into operation faster.

Under the partnership, Bechtel will help Babcock complete the design of a modular reactor, called mPower, and seek necessary approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to begin sales in the U.S.

Bechtel, of San Francisco, will have exclusive responsibility for engineering, procuring key components and building the plants. The companies have not yet said what the likely cost of plants using the modular design would be.

After a few units are built, the partners hope to offer standard versions for a fixed price, something that has eluded nuclear vendors in the past. Unpredictable costs plagued the nuclear power industry in the past and stalled new U.S. nuclear-plant construction after the 1980s.

Georgia Power's Vogtle plant, above in February, represents the key competition for modular plant designs.

Although the average size of reactors globally has gradually gotten bigger, some observers think there's room for smaller reactors. Babcock's reactor can be built in factories, shipped by rail, barge or truck to sites, and then assembled in cookie-cutter fashion. The small size allows faster construction, with less money tied up in equipment before power sales begin.

Babcock, of Lynchburg, Va., now makes small reactors for the Navy, as well as nuclear fuel and plant components. It has designed big reactors in the past but wanted something it could build in its existing, domestic factories.

Its partner, Bechtel, is one of the most experienced nuclear construction and engineering firms in the world. It has a contract to build a large reactor in Maryland, and has built or done major modifications to 64 of the nation's 104 operating reactors.

"We think we're the premier [contractor] with 5,000 engineers with the word 'nuclear' in their resumes," said Jack Futcher, president of Bechtel Power Corp.

Bechtel's Mr. Futcher said it will be challenging for firms like his to find enough skilled workers to build the next generation of nuclear plants. Small, modular reactors offer certain advantages because utilities could start with one or two and add more.

"You'll need fewer people to build them and they'll get really good at what they're doing, through repetition," he said.

Christofer Mowry, president of Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy in Charlotte, N.C., said Bechtel's participation will help the reactor gain traction as a serious rival of large reactors. "Bechtel doesn't get involved in science projects," said Mr. Mowry. "This [agreement] is a confidence builder that the promise of this small reactor is going to materialize."

Babcock's reactor currently exists only on paper. Still, it is attracting interest, especially from smaller utilities that want substitutes for coal-fired plants but can't afford standard-sized nuclear reactors that are 10 times the size of Babcock's 125-megawatt unit.

In recent days, a dozen utilities, including Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative and Nebraska Electric G&T Cooperative, have joined a consortium designed to help Babcock move ahead. They join founding consortium members FirstEnergy Corp., Tennessee Valley Authority and Oglethorpe Power Corp.

Utility interest is critical because the NRC devotes more staff to reactor designs whose vendors have waiting customers. Babcock and Bechtel intend to file an application for reactor certification in 2012 and would hope to start construction after 2017.

One new consortium member, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. in Hays, Kan., wants to diversify its generation portfolio by adding some nuclear capacity. Sunflower furnishes electricity to electric co-ops in Western Kansas from 1,200 megawatts of coal, natural gas, wind, hydroelectric and biomass generation.

In the past, small utilities purchased minority stakes in large reactors, alongside large investor-owned utilities, but sometimes felt powerless in the arrangements. Small reactors have appeal, said Earl Watkins, chief executive of Sunflower Electric, because even smaller utilities could own their own units. If batched together, utilities could share security and maintenance staffs to control costs.

Babcock's reactor is designed to be buried in the ground, for added security, and to run twice as long between refueling outages—approximately four years—as existing reactors.

Babcock is talking to the NRC about reducing the staff at small reactors. For example, a plant with a single reactor unit might have 80 security people, versus 400 for a large reactor. The work force would rise as more reactor units were added, with an eight-unit plant having a security staff equivalent to a big, single reactor.

"We need to get more efficient with staffing or the economics won't work," said Babcock's Mr. Mowry

 

[Dleg]

^Cool.

OK - I will no longer refer to spent fuel as hazardous waste.