Slashdot Mirror
US Small-Scale Nuclear Reactor Industry Gains Traction In Missouri
trichard writes with this quote from an AP report:
"Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor, a technology that's appealing to utilities because of the smaller upfront costs and shorter development lead times. The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years."
Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Look up Toshiba 4S. Then give a big 'hello' to Galena, Alaska (who has been trying to do this for a decade or so).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Soon you'll finally have electricity!
Running water won't be far behind!
For a small town, a small (~220 MW) plant will come very handy. It helps ensure they will be up if the grid goes down, that businesses would have a utility power guarantee, and it also gives clean power without having to deal with a coal or other fossil fuel plant.
I keep seeing these pieces of a puzzle popping up on /. that would solve the core problems our culture faces. A wind turbine to pull water from the air here, small reactors there, isobutane from CO2, better batteries from IBM, and self driving cars. Putting these technologies together, and we have done a lot for the transportation infrastructure. The reactors would give reliable power, which can be used to charge batteries on electric vehicles or make usable fuel for IC engines. Road congestion and even the need for a vehicle (as opposed to just renting one for a trip) would be eased by self driving cars.
I just wish some of these cool potential ideas came into practical use. Self driving cars would allow for a lot of flexibility especially.
As energy availability improves, so do economies.
Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them.
Sincerely,
The FBI
This is kind of my view of the future. Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area, maybe just a single subdivision. Mass producing small, self contained reactors would probably bring the costs and complexity down quite a bit. Plus distribution would be much cheaper, because you wouldn't have to have super high capacity lines going all over the place. Nuclear power isn't that scary. I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It just won't fit in my backyard, even if I try.
Put in the front yard. It will keep the kids off your lawn.
Works for me.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.
Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project ... does your state solely fund the DoE?
Also, I might point out to you that recent data shows that in 2005 for every dollar Missouri paid to the federal government you got back $1.32.
whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves
Could you describe what bickering is happening on the coasts that isn't happening in your own state?
I'm not saying anything bad about Missouri, I applaud this movement as I don't think Wind or Natural Gas or any single solution is going to save us moving forward so I'm happy to watch this piece of the puzzle be experimented with. Just don't go patting yourself on the back too hard or you'll get me started about the massive wind farms in my home state of Minnesota (that were set up by a largely Californian company selling it to almost anyone within cable laying distance).
Energy-wise, none of us are alone and we all share very similar problems.
My work here is dung.
have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small. Start mass producing them suckers and they'll be cheap as hell. Start peppering the power grid with them here and there, and soon we'll have clean, virtually unlimited power. Most counties in the country can get by with one, and still have plenty of power to spare which can be sold off to the larger cities that need would more than one.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
Hey, is that you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Because a gas furnace that blows up might leave the house uninhabitable for a few days. A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century. I love nuclear power, but unless we can produce some sort of pebble-bed like system where the probability of radioactive contamination is nearly zero, putting them under the control of the average citizen is a terrible idea.
Plus, nuclear proliferation is still a very real problem.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Just don't run a Gieger counter over it.
Sounds like old fashion Steam producing technology with the same safety issues of larger reactors: 300ÂC high-pressure steam that is begging to break stuff.
We should be going LFTR all the way.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
"Ameren said the application process could cost $80 million to $100 million and take four years."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Proliferation risks"... no one makes weapons with uranium, it is a waste of uranium. Weapons are made with plutonium. That's a disingenuous assertion by those opposed to nuclear energy. The fact is, highly-enriched uranium is the only practical way to make most of the world's medical isotopes, amongst other things. I wonder how many arguing against HEU would be willing to give up effective medical imaging and cancer treatment for themselves and their families. Not many, I suspect.
There are a number of civilian vessels with naval nuclear propulsion. There was the NS Savannah from the US (warning: epic pictures at that link). Security of the reactor did requite additional personnel on the ship, but these are issues that have been solved long ago. And there are a number of Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers today. In fact, you can book a cruise on one, if you're into riding around with a bunch of Russians in the arctic.
And things like the A4W reactor and its fuel are declassified and common knowledge. There is no great secret here.
There have been no failures to date of any reactors aboard US Navy vessels. This is hardly surprisingly given that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover ruled that program with an iron fist and was extremely anal about safety and protocol. Down to hand-picking the crew. There have been a few incidents with Russian naval reactors, but in all fairness Russia also pushed the design envelope more than we did, and there are risks in doing so.
As I understand, this comes after russians started to do the same thing making many people realise that this is actually doable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
Basically a small reactor on a floating platform that you pull to the shore, connect to a local prepared transformer station and you have power. It makes a very good alternative to constructing power plants in remote regions for example. I believe the suggestion in OP was mirrored by other nations with capability of building naval nuclear reactors.
That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.
Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.
What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.
Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area,
Small reactors like those on submarines tend to require weapons-grade fuel.
I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.
See above.
I mean seriously, what we're talking about here is literally "the mobile home of nuclear reactors" ;-)
That's true, but let's keep in mind that it won't be the U.S. Navy operating these new reactors. I trust the Navy to run a reactor properly a hell of a lot more than I trust a power company.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Here is an article explaining the safety features of the 4S:
http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/20070312_Containment_Whitepaper_Rev01.pdf
Specifically interesting to me:
Important features of the design of the 4S include:
-fModular construction, which will reduce costs and construction time
-Nuclear systems that are embedded below grade, resulting in safety and security
benefits
f-Liquid sodium coolant, which does not react with core internals or piping
f-Coolant that is not highly pressurized, which minimizes stresses on the plant systems
f-Passive safety systems that do not depend on emergency power to function
f-Negative reactivity temperature coefficients that cause the reaction rate in the core to
slow down as temperatures rise
-Air-cooled reactor vessel, steam generator, and condenser, so that no coolant water or
intake structures are required
-30-year core life, which avoids the need to refuel, eliminates fuel storage, and
minimizes fuel handling concerns
-Capability of load following without mechanical operation of reactor control system
f-Ease of decommissioning by containment of all radioactive materials within the
reactor module throughout the life of the plant.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think it's unlikely a tsunami will hit Missouri.
MO earthquakes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=0SB6aB3DK2yfA3N-gB-wgw&cp=20&gs_id=d&xhr=t&q=missouri+earthquakes&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=missouri+earthquakes&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1
MO tornadoes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=G_yRT9qiBMjiggel7tXdDw&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=missouri+tornadoes&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I'll probably get modded down, but this is exactly the scenario the disassembly of PUCHA in the 2005 Energy act allowed.
The vendor doesn't *have* to build the reactor to get the funding or the tax credits, it just has to be proposed. Can we see the design of the reactor, where it is going to be sited etc.
If five are proposed that's a tidy return on the investment of the license fee. Of course more of these will be proposed for funding remember; Obtaining the license would not require Ameren to add the reactors. Which is a similar scenario that led to the depression and the passing of PUCHA, Why provide the funding if they don't *have* to build the utility? But that's what the act allows. Would you seriously pay money for *anything* up front if you weren't guaranteed that you were getting what you chip in for?
Lame Car analogy: Hey Fred lets go halves in a car. Ok Jack here is half the money. Thanks for that money Fred but I've changed my mind.
"The fact that we are speeding so quickly into the whole small modular nuclear reactor is so frightening," Smith said. Of course - but not because these things will ever be built. It's because it's a con. Pro Nuke or Nuke Free, it doesn't matter. This is a scheme to plunder rate and tax payers money into the coffers of the large business,,, again.
I guess bubbles aren't just limited to the tech sector.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
None of those methods can contaminate massive areas of land all at once. You can clean up a broken windfarm with ordinary equipment, not specialized robotics, and it's a lot cheaper.
Burning natural gas, while it does have a negative long term consequence for the entire planet, is far cheaper than nuclear, and can provide base-load generation just fine. Natural gas is ideal to use in conjunction with renewable energy because you can easily start up and shut down gas turbines as the wind/solar etc fluctuate.
A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century.
Except the type of nuclear "micro-reactor" that would fit within a city lot, typically within a facility the size of a typical substation at most, would be incapable of going into meltdown. Furthermore throium-based reactors produce much more "benign" waste products--certainly they are still toxic but disposal and site remediation would be not that far removed from something like decontaminating the site of an old gas station that once handled leaded fuel.
Also, a gas furnace that blows up would in all likelihood leave the house permanently uninhabitable. Almost without exception, when a gas furnace explodes, even if the house is still standing the internal pressure of the exploion "puffs out" the structure and makes it permanently, structurally unsound. In the most optimistic cases repair would not taks days, but rather weeks and months as the uilding is gutted to the frame to repair the damage within. This would not be a problem with what is envisioned in the parent to your post as it would involve a reactor with the capacity to provide service to "maybe just a single subdivision". While that is small, it is not so small it would sit inside anyone's house. As I said, this is something that would sit withiin a substation facility where traditionally transmission lines connect to distribution (but in this case there would be no tie in to a transmission line, but instead directly to a generation unit). That is already not a residintial location.