Slashdot Mirror

12 module SMR to be online in mid 2020s a snails pace?

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves Key Safety Aspect to NuScale Power’s Advanced Reactor Design

There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail.

No there are lots of them CLAIMING to be developing new reactor designs. Some of them might actually be working on the problem even. Curiously we've seen zero of these actually make it to market.

Some will succeed though.

There is no guarantee of that.

NuScale is the closest to market.

Maybe. Best info I can find says they hope to have an operational reactor in 2024 and that was their projection in 2013. That means optimistically they might have something to show 6+ years from now. Not exactly cause for excitement.

Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof.

NRC phase 1 review is a "Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Requests for Additional Information". It does not mean it has been certified as anything.

They will be constructing their first 12 reactors in Idaho for Utah municipalities.

If that were true you would think they would post it somewhere on their website. Perhaps you are talking about this project?

Hopefully in a decade they will be mass producing them like airplanes.

While I wish them well I think this is a good approximation of impossible.

There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail.

No there are lots of them CLAIMING to be developing new reactor designs. Some of them might actually be working on the problem even. Curiously we've seen zero of these actually make it to market.

Some will succeed though.

There is no guarantee of that.

NuScale is the closest to market.

Maybe. Best info I can find says they hope to have an operational reactor in 2024 and that was their projection in 2013. That means optimistically they might have something to show 6+ years from now. Not exactly cause for excitement.

Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof.

NRC phase 1 review is a "Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Requests for Additional Information". It does not mean it has been certified as anything.

They will be constructing their first 12 reactors in Idaho for Utah municipalities.

If that were true you would think they would post it somewhere on their website. Perhaps you are talking about this project?

Hopefully in a decade they will be mass producing them like airplanes.

While I wish them well I think this is a good approximation of impossible.

NuScale's SMR reactor has already been certified by the NRC as being meltdown proof. Their SMR has also passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho.

Umm... this is just a press release on the NuScale site. I went Googling to check whether these projects existed anywhere else, like on the websites of the purported buyer/owner/operator of these 12 reactors, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) the proposed site to see how real this project is. That is, has funding actually been lined up? Is there a start date for building the first unit? And so forth.

What I found is that at the beginning of this year INL reported to the state that thus far the project consists of the fact that the "DOE granted a site use permit... in February 2016 that enables UAMPS to study, license and locate a NuScale-designed SMR at INL." Further there is no indication on the UAMPS site that anything has been agreed to other than that "study" thing. No announcement about an actual site selected, funding, customers for the power, a start date, etc..

Those 12 reactors are at the moment, simply a proposal, under study, with no funding or commitment to built them.

Will one (or more) get built? Maybe. I hope they do build one and thus give everyone a chance to evaluate the real-world practicality of this idea.

With the various site permits and other approvals NuScale's plans are moving forward, but claiming at this point that any reactors are going to be built is jumping the gun. Many nuclear reactor sites get permits, without ever having a reactor completed and operated on the site.

That is not true. Scientists have understood the physics for some time now. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II In 1986 they tried to cause a meltdown and failed. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient making it impossible to cause a meltdown. Impossible even if you intentionally tried to cause a meltdown.

NuScale's SMR reactor has already been certified by the NRC as being meltdown proof. Their SMR has also passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho.

Maybe you should research some of the physics before you talk out of your ass.

Solar and wind have enjoyed the benefits of economics of scale. Mass producing solar panels and wind turbines in factories reduced costs. Next generation of nuclear energy can also benefit from economics of scale. See NuScale They are building a Small Modular Reactor and have passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho for Utah municipalities. They will be factory built which will reduce costs and will allow them to be built quickly.

Actually, geo-thermal is very dispatchable. It can be at full power in seconds.
In addition, all of the new nukes are designed for demand following and can change loads typically from 25-100% in minutes (yeah, it has to be running ).

One of my favorites is NuScale which has some pretty capabilities.
10. Can NuScale’s SMR technology be complementary to Renewables? Yes. NuScale’s SMR technology includes unique capabilities for following electric load requirements as they vary with customer demand and rapid changes experienced with renewable generation sources. There are three means to change power output from a NuScale facility: Dispatchable modules – taking one or more reactors offline over a period of days Power Maneuverability – adjusting reactor power over a period of minutes/hours Turbine Bypass – bypassing turbine steam to the condenser over a period of seconds/minutes/hours NuScale power is working with industry leaders and potential customers to ensure that these capabilities provide the flexibility required by the evolving electric grid. This capability, called NuFollowTM, is unique to NuScale and holds the promise of expanding the deployment of renewables without backup from fossil-fired generating sources, such as natural gas-fired, combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs).

As to why I wrote this early, was in response to the parent.

We cannot reduce greenhouse gasses significantly without new nuclear. We have known that for more than 5 decades. Renewables can't even keep up with bitcoin, let alone power our grid 24/7.

Thankfully a company based in Oregon, http://www.nuscalepower.com/ , just completed phase 1 NRC review ahead of schedule. Their reactor is a type of small modular reactor. It can be built on an assembly line like an airplane and then shipped anywhere in the world. The economics of scale will reduce the cost significantly(for both operator and consumer). It is meltdown proof. Meaning even if you tried to cause a meltdown you would fail. Their first plant will be in Idaho for an Utah energy company.

False on its face, given that the number of deaths from solar or wind technology is zero, as opposed to Chernobyl or Fukushima.

No it is not. Wikipedia agrees with me!!! So my statement was True on its face .

as opposed to Chernobyl or Fukushima.

First Fukushima killed 0 people, and Chernobyl was less then 60 according the World Health Organization.

nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone.

You should research 4th generation reactors especially Small Modular Reactors. NuScale reactors are being built in Idaho right now for a Utah power company. These can be factory built and shipped by truck anywhere. The economics of scale will reduce the costs just like they did for solar and wind.

The two companies I respect the most are NuScale whose new reactor has been certified by the NRC as being passively safe(ie meltdown proof). These reactors can be factory built and shipped on truck. The second is Bill Gates' company TerraPower who are building their first reactor in China.

These companies along with 50+ others will save the world and reduce energy poverty

Nuclear power is finite. You are again implying it is infinite.

I never did that. Not once did I say nuclear was infinite. I just said solar was finite(which it is), and nuclear is sustainable(which it is). I was countering the argument that because nuclear is finite we should not build them.

Who's We?

The human race stupid. The adoption of nuclear energy benefits the entire human race and every other species on this planet.

Do you work in the nuclear industry designing nuclear reactors?

No. My background is in math, comp sci and computational neuroscience.

Well out with it then - let's see what your plan is.

I can not speak for the rest of the world, but for the United States we need to triple our nuclear capacity. There are a lot of ways of doing that, but I would focus on development of 4th generation nuclear. The United States built the first 4th generation reactor called the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. GE has developed plans for 10x version of the reactor called the Prism. Bill Gates' Terrapower is building their first reactor in China. NuScale has filed paper work with the NRC for a factory built small modular reactor. Terrestrial energyis developing a thorium reactor based on a successful experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960's. And of course Russia has a working 4th generation reactor which they are already exporting to the rest of the world. There are 50 other companies doing related work. We need to make the NRC accept and support 4th generation nuclear plants. We need to provide loan guarantees, and we need to restart nuclear R&D. I could list more but it is getting late.

What, specifically, do you blame the fossil fuel industry for?

Other then greenhouse gasses? You do know climate change is real right?

What is it that is so bad that they are doing to the nuclear industry?

Their constant lawsuits artificially increase the price of nuclear. Having a judge stop construction for years is expensive. Even right now the Koch brothers are backing lawsuits against the nuclear industry all over the United States. The fossil fuel industry spends billions of dollars convincing people such as yourself that nuclear is bad when in fact it is the safest and cleanest energy source.

I was being polite so I didn't embarrass you by calling it complete and utter bullshit.

You were being stupid. It is not a strawman argument. My arguments are also based on facts(which I cite)

and you continue to make unsupported accusations.

The second sentence from the wiki page said "Friends of the Earth was founded in 1969 as an anti-nuclear group by Robert O Anderson." Anderson was an oil tychoon. There are more examples then just Friends of the Earth, but you can use google those yourself.

You're a shill.

No I do not get paid. I just have a moral obligation to leave a better planet for the next generation.

Nuscale looks promising.

That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScale design, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.

Moving a reactor like that when it is new and cold would be different from moving it after it has been running for a couple of decades and it is radioactive. The scope for accidents while the reactor core is in transit (as this would be the logistics of each move) would be quite a serious concern.

It's an interesting approach, I'd really like to see what their plans for transport at the *end* of the reactors lifetime. Thanks for the links!

That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScale design, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.

Moving a reactor like that when it is new and cold would be different from moving it after it has been running for a couple of decades and it is radioactive. The scope for accidents while the reactor core is in transit (as this would be the logistics of each move) would be quite a serious concern.

It's an interesting approach, I'd really like to see what their plans for transport at the *end* of the reactors lifetime. Thanks for the links!

I don't think so. Neutron bombardment of the reactor vessel, the main component of the reactor, is the main factor that limits the life of a nuclear reactor. These aren't exactly the kinds of thing you can call GE and arrange a feild tech to come out and replace.

That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScale design, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.

I don't think so. Neutron bombardment of the reactor vessel, the main component of the reactor, is the main factor that limits the life of a nuclear reactor. These aren't exactly the kinds of thing you can call GE and arrange a feild tech to come out and replace.

That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScale design, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.

I've looked at some portable power stations with solar attachments, but the idea of hand-cranking to recharge if it's overcast isn't fun, after all, the point is to relax.

You'll be able to relax in style with a single NuScale Power Module (NPM) small modular reactor at your command. Camping is funnest near a mid-sized lake --- and that's exactly where you'll want to submerge this puppy. The NPM is a compact vertical package that includes the passively cooled reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer and containment in an integral package that eliminates reactor coolant pumps and large bore piping. Each NPM can supply 50 megawatts electric, which should be enough for a small camp with perimeter energy defenses. They are supplied factory-built for easy transport and installation. Every couple of years the whole family can participate in refueling remotely using underwater waldoes and flange stud tensioning/detensioning tools operated from a small fishing dinghy. Assemblies of <5% enriched UO2 fuel are available from most "Up 'N Atom" bait/uranium shops.

A nearby abandoned salt mine would make the perfect place to run small piping and control cables into, stockpile weapons and supplies, a few diesels and tank storage for black-starting the nuclear plant, hot showers and an underground aquaculture greenhouse... with 50MW of power you can take the sun underground with you. Even used inductive tuned circuits to deliver several kilowatts of power wirelessly the short distance to your surface camp, Tesla style.

Satellite internet or long distance Wi-Fi antennas and a very tall pole?

Satellite you'll be paying through the nose every month for chump bits and WiFi doesn't handle the miles so well. Your best bet is to co-locate at the nearest telco point of presence and run something like a Ubiquity 5Ghz AF-5 and 24Ghz AF-24 unit in tandem. Don't bother with the AF-24HD, its 2Gbps rate is probably overkill and you'll want to bridge the 5 and 24Ghz units at the lower rate so you'll have the aggregate ~2Gbps anyway when the weather's fine. When the raindrops come 24Ghz will fade but the 5Ghz should stay solid. Of course your camp will not be able to directly see the telco building, but a couple of passively connected dishes on a facing hill, surreptitiously placed and suitably camouflaged, would do the trick.

This setup would definitely optimize your prospect of running your business from camp, but having 50 megawatts would also make some fun outdoor activities possible, like panning for gold with electrolysis, zap-fishing, laser mountain and cloud painting, and industrial scale atmospheric CO2 sequestration.

I've looked at some portable power stations with solar attachments, but the idea of hand-cranking to recharge if it's overcast isn't fun, after all, the point is to relax.

You'll be able to relax in style with a single NuScale Power Module (NPM) small modular reactor at your command. Camping is funnest near a mid-sized lake --- and that's exactly where you'll want to submerge this puppy. The NPM is a compact vertical package that includes the passively cooled reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer and containment in an integral package that eliminates reactor coolant pumps and large bore piping. Each NPM can supply 50 megawatts electric, which should be enough for a small camp with perimeter energy defenses. They are supplied factory-built for easy transport and installation. Every couple of years the whole family can participate in refueling remotely using underwater waldoes and flange stud tensioning/detensioning tools operated from a small fishing dinghy. Assemblies of <5% enriched UO2 fuel are available from most "Up 'N Atom" bait/uranium shops.

A nearby abandoned salt mine would make the perfect place to run small piping and control cables into, stockpile weapons and supplies, a few diesels and tank storage for black-starting the nuclear plant, hot showers and an underground aquaculture greenhouse... with 50MW of power you can take the sun underground with you. Even used inductive tuned circuits to deliver several kilowatts of power wirelessly the short distance to your surface camp, Tesla style.

Satellite internet or long distance Wi-Fi antennas and a very tall pole?

Satellite you'll be paying through the nose every month for chump bits and WiFi doesn't handle the miles so well. Your best bet is to co-locate at the nearest telco point of presence and run something like a Ubiquity 5Ghz AF-5 and 24Ghz AF-24 unit in tandem. Don't bother with the AF-24HD, its 2Gbps rate is probably overkill and you'll want to bridge the 5 and 24Ghz units at the lower rate so you'll have the aggregate ~2Gbps anyway when the weather's fine. When the raindrops come 24Ghz will fade but the 5Ghz should stay solid. Of course your camp will not be able to directly see the telco building, but a couple of passively connected dishes on a facing hill, surreptitiously placed and suitably camouflaged, would do the trick.

This setup would definitely optimize your prospect of running your business from camp, but having 50 megawatts would also make some fun outdoor activities possible, like panning for gold with electrolysis, zap-fishing, laser mountain and cloud painting, and industrial scale atmospheric CO2 sequestration.

Westinghouse's AP1000 has some new technologies and 4 of them are being built in the US. I'd like to see more work on modular reactors like NuSale's concept and thorium reactors.

Nope, its 45MWe. As for the scaling, I live in Alaska where we have a coal cogeneration plant - I think it'd be nice and pollution limiting if it was nuclear, or at least nuclear supplemented.

Right you are, 160MW thermal 45MW electric, I'm getting too hasty on fact-checking. Still on the small side but perfect for Alaska, especially if your city or town is already piped for steam heating.

NuScale is projecting less than $5,000 cost per KW for these which is comparable to a recent utility sized 2010 capital cost estimate of $5,339/KW. In 2008 Moody's had really spoiled the mood by projecting $7,000/KW as the cost of new nuclear power and warning investors away.

So why is the capital cost of nuclear some 4-5 times the cost of a combined cycle natural gas plant (~$1,400/KW)? Aside from the obvious reasons like being dangerous and Atomic.

In 1970-71 Consolidated Edison built the Dresden plant for $146/kW ... still going today like an Energizer Bunny with ~1.7GWe. This is plant was built for ~50 times less than Moody's 2008 cost estimate.

What the hell is going on?

I found no easy answers, but plenty to ponder in Chapter 9 ("Costs of nuclear power plants -- what went wrong?") of The Nuclear Energy Option, a great little book by Bernard Cohen [full text online]. This work is dated [1990] and quaint -- he is bemoaning a plant that cost $3,326/kW in 1986 -- the whiner! But he does a good job describing the NRC practice of "regulatory ratcheting", where standard numeric metrics of safety have been codified, all the tough work is over, and every succeeding generation of regulators gains a round of applause and gets to wear festive party hats if they just plug in new (always higher: click) numbers.

This is an example of what I call "No one ever lost their job" syndrome, a creeping cancer of our society on many fronts. It is a malady that especially affects safety cultures. No one ever lost their job by announcing that things are not quite as safe as they could be, or regulation is strangling essential industries. The NRC has created plug-in metrics like requiring more concrete, more frequent inspections, margins and limits, time-tables and reporting requirements. And heavier fines (announcing a hike in fines works even when there are no infractions or violations, the public imagines this is being done to punish evil corporations who are foaming at the mouth and straining on their leashes this very moment).

Then there is outright abuse and intimidation. The recent yarn, Uneven Enforcement Suspected At [US] Nuclear Power Plants which made my eyeballs pop out on springs when I read it. It seems to say that the NRC is concerned that regulation (by the NRC) might be lacking in some (un-visited) regions for unknown reasons and the NRC is ... crap, no I cannot even summarize it, it's so ridiculous. They are treating better safety record in some plants as something suspicious to be investigated. Then their 'suspicions' are released in a Senate report which the nuke-hysteria press predictably treats as some smoking gun. It should go beyond embarrassment. I feel some one should lose their job over this -- a regulatory agency releasing damaging speculation on an industry on a topic they are supposed to be sure of.

But no one will lose their job, even when they susp

They want to over-build the water pool infrastructure for the first unit, then encourage the purchase of additional drop-in 45MW 'thermos bottles' to ramp up the output. With each additional unit the safety margin becomes smaller, and presumably they have a threshold at which they might refuse to add another. If I was convinced this idea would scale globally I might be concerned.

It's failure mechanics. You need X water available to cool a failed reactor. Trick is, if you have, say 4 reactors, what are the odds that all 4 will fail catastrophically at the same time? So the formula tends towards 'Ax +y', where A is the number of reactors, x is gallons per reactor, and Y is the emergency threshold. You could have a situation where with 4 reactors 2 could fail catastrophically and you'd still have enough cooling mass.

But I'm not concerned. "All this for 45 megawatts??" and probably thermal megawatts to boot.

Nope, its 45MWe

As for the scaling, I live in Alaska where we have a coal cogeneration plant - I think it'd be nice and pollution limiting if it was nuclear, or at least nuclear supplemented.

As for the stringing more wire - keep in mind my idea of using the waste heat profitably. This isn't currently done much, but with smaller plants it'd be more feasible. On the scaling down side - remember how I compared full size plants to car engines and these small ones to lawnmower ones? The smaller ones are MUCH simpler.

End of easy choices - yep. Also perhaps the end of NIMBY and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

These have a smaller core. In the event of a catastrophic failure, there is a much smaller meltdown.

As I understand it, the whole reactor lives in a giant pool of water.

Also, this reactor appears to be able to self-cool without external power. (Core cooling is by convection, not pumped coolant.)

These have a smaller core. In the event of a catastrophic failure, there is a much smaller meltdown.

As I understand it, the whole reactor lives in a giant pool of water.

Also, this reactor appears to be able to self-cool without external power. (Core cooling is by convection, not pumped coolant.)

It's going to be pretty ugly in a couple decades. It would be nice if people could be rational and let us build newer reactors.

Well it is happening, but the focus these days is on more plentiful smaller reactors.

Westinghouse is beginning fueling tests on the SMR Reactors, which are small enough to be delivered on a couple flatbed trucks. They are engineered for 225 MWe .

The Babcock & Wilcox Company is designing their own model as well as NuScale. Most of these are in the 180 MWe range.

It seems that they are well on track for being available in a couple of decades, maybe in as little as 5 years for the Westinghouse models.
Our ugly problem then will be dealing with half a hundred of these things on the outskirts of major cities, and the waste they produce needing to be stored someplace.

The biggest ships on the lakes are 1250 ft freighters, but the Welland canal is the choke point, Length 261.8, Width 24.4m, Depth 8.2 so towing it there would be a no-go. If I were tasked to do it and had reasonable resources; I'd melt it from the middle with a nuclear reactor and transfer the water to conventional tankers for transport. Maybe just put a flotation collar around one of these babies.

• hyperion power
• babcock and wilcox
• NuScale power
• sandia labs
• tsinghua university

not to mention south africa's PBMR, and the travelling wave reactor (intellectual ventures). It's simple - make a mass-producable, small, efficient reactor, use it to boil water at both the pressure and temperature of your average coal-fired power plant, and *turn off the burning of coal altogether*. And do it in scale.

That way, there isn't a horrendous capital cost (pocket nuke reactors are small and you are only replacing the boiler), the fuel is cheaper, and as a side benefit current coal plants increase their capacity factor from ~75% to above 90%.

This is really the only way to combat global warming in a way that profits everybody; it allows developing countries to leverage their experience in building coal-fired power plants to build carbon-neutral sources, and given the factory approach is comprehensively scalable, as scalable as producing fighters or bombers in WWII.

We have to do this. We have to stop dicking around with solutions that only work 15% of the way, have appallingly low capacity factors (for 53 days in a row, the windmills in denmark produced basically nada in the way of electricity, texas has an average of 8.7% capacity (ref: here ).

The stakes are too high. I encourage everyone to watch:

http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller

which shows the true state of our affairs with regards to the climate (the person introducing Mr. Miller says, in short, "He's going to tell us all how we are really fucked".

Looking at the evidence, I agree with him.

Ed

TMI was a success. Most people do not realize that there are still three of the four reactors on TMI still in operation. TMI was successful because it proved the technology to keep the core from going critical. The amount of exposure to radiation during the TMI incident is less than half of the amount of radiation one gets during an standard dental x-ray. One working through Grand Central Station gets more exposure to radiation (from radon in the granite) than those exposed during the TMI incident. I know this because I work with four or five people who did the post accident studies and worked with the programs to mitigate the hazard during post incident operations.

Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. The poor reactor design, the poor safety design, and the stupid tests being performed caused the accident. To read more : http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html. There are still operations happening near Chernobyl.

Anyway, if we want to handle the energy needs of the demands forth coming, nuclear is an answer. Wind power is not the answer. It only generates power, at the best estimates, 25% of the time. To get the windmills manufacture there are a lot of raw material necessary, with require large amounts of mining. Recycle materials are not always available to produce the steels necessary to provide the structure to support the blades. The birds flying into the blade is an urban and rural legend.

Solar works only during the day, and require toxic batteries to store the energy. Plus, on the environment, the materials to produce solar panels are very earth unfriendly--heavy mining for the raw materials. Supply of silica and gallium is in short supply. China and India are consuming large quantities of copper, gold, and other metals because of the development activities under way.

Bio fuels is stupid! Let burn all our food and starve to death, then no will be around to worry about how to get around because everyone will be dead. Cellulose bio fuels may work, but the US does not have the kind of conditions to allow the growth of those kind of crops. Brazil does a great job at it because they are not burning food, but special crops for bio fuel.

I personally believe thorium based reactors are best. There is an alternative as well--small distributed reactors. Hyperion and NuScale both have reactors perfect to a distributed energy solution. http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ and http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Go nuclear. Its clear, it renewable, and it proven. It is safe.

The "backgrounder" turns out to be a 4-page brochure with explanatory text.

What is immediately apparent is the following:

- the Nuscale reactor is an ordinary boiling-water reactor with one cooling circuit: the heat exchanger is inside the reactor vessel itself, and steam from the secondary circuit is lead out of the reactor vessel to the generators

- it uses control rods like any other BWR, but which does not contain coolant pumps. Convection takes care of coolant circulation.

- it uses standard low-enriched reactor fuel which needs to be replaced every 2 years

From the brochure:

Thermal capacity: 150 Mwt
Electrical capacit: 45 Mwe
Capacity factor: > 90 percent
Dimensions: 60 feet x 14 feet cylindrical containment vessel module containing reactor and steam generator
Weight: ~ 300 tons as shipped from fabrication for shipping
Transportation: Barge, truck or train Manufacturing: Forge and fabricate at any mid-size facility
Cost: Numerous advantages due to simplicity, modular design, volume manufacturing and shorter construction times
Fuel: Standard LWR fuel in 17 x 17 configuration, each 6 feet in length. 24 month refueling cycle with fuel enriched at 4.95 percent.

In summary: this is a conventional Light Water Reactor which has been simplified and scaled down. I personally wouldn't want to see anything like that near where I live, or even in the same rainwater basin. I can just about live with large nuclear reactors which are situated in large concrete structures on carefully selected sites and monitored ever minute of their life-cycle by people who know something about them, but this little boondoggle is something else.

I don't care if it has a low operational risk. If you install thousands of the things (as you must because of their limited capacity) throughout the country (and close to population centers remember; that's the whole idea) and then run them for 50 years (carting spent fuel and fresh fuel to and from all those sites every 2 years), there is bound to be a catastrophic mishap *somewhere*. A meltdown, bent control rods, an earthquake that tears the reactor vessel open, and aircraft that crashes on top, a terrorist attack, fuel transport trucks that are ruptured in a traffic accident, or even good old criminal blackmail.

I'm not against nuclear energy per se, but this sort of nuclear micro-reactors makes me nervous. Very nervous. If we are going to have micro reactors, then conventional ones are fine. If we are going to have nuclear reactors, big is beautiful.